1. Monthly archive
  2. July 2017

July 2017

Statement on Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity

On June 28, the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity issued a letter requesting that states provide publicly available voter data as permitted under their state laws. At present, 20 states have agreed to provide the publicly available information requested by the Commission and another 16 states are reviewing which information can be released under their state laws. In all, 36 states have either agreed or are considering participating with the Commission's work to ensure the integrity of the American electoral system. While there are news reports that 44 states have "refused" to provide voter information to the Commission, these reports are patently false, more "fake news". At present, only 14 states and the District of Columbia have refused the Commission's request for publicly available voter information. Despite media distortions and obstruction by a handful of state politicians, this bipartisan commission on election integrity will continue its work to gather the facts through public records requests to ensure the integrity of each American's vote because the public has a right to know.

[Kris Kobach (R-KS) is Kansas Secretary of State and Vice Chair of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity]

Why almost every state is partially or fully rebuffing Trump’s election commission

Officials in nearly every state say they cannot or will not turn over all of the voter data President Trump’s voting commission is seeking, dealing what could be a serious blow to Trump’s attempts to bolster his claims that widespread fraud cost him the popular vote in November.

The commission’s request for a massive amount of state-level data last week included asking for all publicly available information about voter rolls in the states, such as names of all registrants, addresses, dates of birth, partial Social Security numbers and other data. It immediately encountered criticism and opposition, with some saying it could lead to an invasion of privacy and others worrying about voter suppression. The states that won’t provide all of their voter data grew to a group of at least 44 by Wednesday, including some, such as California and Virginia, that said they would provide nothing to the commission. Others said they are hindered by state laws governing what voter information can be made public but will provide what they can.

Cox expands home Internet data caps, while CenturyLink abandons them

Cox, the third largest US cable company, started charging overage fees to customers in four more states.

Cox, which operates in 18 states with about six million residential and business customers, brought overage fees to Arizona, Louisiana, Nevada, and Oklahoma. Cox was already enforcing data caps and overage fees in Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Ohio. California, Rhode Island, and Virginia technically have monthly caps but no enforcement of overage fees, according to Cox's list of data caps by location. Massachusetts and North Carolina seem to be exempt from the Cox data caps altogether. CenturyLink recently ended an experiment with data caps and is giving bill credits to customers in the state of Washington who were charged overage fees during the yearlong trial.

GAO: Some progress on Lifeline reform, but much still to do

[Commentary] The Government Accountability Office issued a blistering report on the Federal Communications Commission’s efforts to assist low-income families. The report criticized the agency for spending $1.7 billion annually without knowing — or caring — whether any of this money actually helps narrow the digital divide. I advocated that Congress eliminate the Universal Service Fund’s shady, self-funding off-budget funding mechanism and instead make it a line item in the federal budget. This would make the program more transparent and subject to greater congressional oversight, which would help reduce fraud and abuse and keep program expenses tied to a fixed budget. Overall, the GAO report points to the difficulties that the FCC has, and will continue to have, by deciding simply to extend a Reagan-era telephone subsidy to cover broadband access. Unquestionably, the government should offer assistance to low-income consumers at risk of falling on the wrong end of the digital divide. But that assistance should be designed from the ground up, tailored to the needs of the population it seeks to serve, with controls to protect against fraud and abuse. As we have argued before, Lifeline needs revolutionary, not evolutionary, change.

[Lyon is an associate professor at Boston College Law School]

More than 1,000 income-subsidized housing units in San Francisco are getting free gigabit internet

When residents at San Francisco’s Hunters Point East and West low-income, federally-subsidized housing complex went online, many had access to free gigabit speed internet for the first time.

This isn’t wi-fi that’s shared throughout the building, but rather each individual unit is getting its own internet connection. Hunters Point is the first housing development to get the service, where nearly 300 people live across 212 units in 27 buildings. But by the end of 2018, more than 1,000 additional units of San Francisco income-subsidized housing will receive free gigabit internet, servicing nine more developments in the Tenderloin neighborhood and four more in the Bayview area. The internet provider behind the effort is local San Francisco outfit Monkeybrains, a company that specializes in fast internet transmitted through wireless antennas. Instead of breaking up a sidewalk to lay fiber or cables, Monkeybrains beams high-speed internet through antennas installed on rooftops. For the Hunters Point buildout, technicians are stringing cable from the rooftop antennas to connect every unit.

FTC Halts Operation That Unlawfully Shared and Sold Consumers’ Sensitive Data

The operators of a lead generation business have agreed to settle charges brought by the Federal Trade Commission that the company misled consumers into filling out loan applications and sold those applications – including consumers’ sensitive data – to virtually anyone willing to pay for the leads.

In its complaint, the FTC alleges that Blue Global Media, LLC and its CEO Christopher Kay operated dozens of websites that enticed consumers to complete loan applications that the defendants then sold as “leads” to a variety of entities without regard for how the information would be used or whether it would remain secure. The websites, which operated under such names as 100dayloans.com, 1hour-advance.com, cashmojo.com and clickloans.net, offered services to consumers seeking a variety of loans, including payday and auto loans. The company claimed it would search a network of 100 or more lenders, and connect each loan applicant to the lender that would offer them the best terms.

The FTC charged that, in reality, the defendants:

  • sold very few of the loan applications to lenders;
  • did not match applications based on loan rates or terms; and
  • sold the loan applications to the first buyer willing to pay for them.

FCC Chairman Pai Appoints Jerry Ellig Chief Economist

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai announced the appointment of Jerry Ellig as chief economist for the FCC. Dr. Ellig currently serves as a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Dr. Ellig’s work focuses on the role of economic analysis in the U.S. regulatory process, competition policy in telecommunications, broadband and electronic commerce, and performance management in government agencies. Most recently, he has published a series of papers that assess the quality and use of regulatory impact analysis in both executive branch and independent agencies. These papers identify best practices, shortcomings, and reasons for variation in the quality of agencies’ analysis.

Dr. Ellig has worked as a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University since 1996. He previously served in the federal government as deputy director of the Office of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission (2001-03) and as a senior economist at the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress (1995-96). He has also served as an associate professor of economics and adjunct professor of law at George Mason University. He holds a Ph.D. and M.A. in economics from George Mason University in Fairfax, VA, and a B.A. in economics from Xavier University in Cincinnati.

FTC Acting Chairman Ohlhausen Announces Departure of Tad Lipsky and Appointment of Markus Meier as Acting Director of Competition Bureau

Federal Trade Commission Acting Chairman Maureen K. Ohlhausen announced that Abbott (Tad) Lipsky, Acting Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, retired effective July 3, 2017. Lipsky was previously a partner in the law firm of Latham & Watkins LLP, and brought 40 years of experience in antitrust law to the position, including previously serving as Deputy Assistant Attorney General to President Reagan’s first Assistant Attorney General, William F. Baxter. He also served on the Trump administration transition team for the FTC.

Alan Devlin, an Acting Deputy Director of the Bureau of Competition also left the Commission July 3, 2017, for private practice.

Markus H. Meier, who has served as Acting Deputy Director of the Bureau of Competition since November 2015, replaces Lipsky as Acting Director of the Bureau of Competition. Meier has led the Health Care division within the Bureau of Competition since 2006. He brings nearly 30 years of experience in antitrust, serving previously in private practice and the U.S. Army. As part of these changes, Acting Chairman Ohlhausen has also appointed Haidee L. Schwartz as an Acting Deputy Director of the Bureau of Competition. Schwartz previously served as an Attorney Advisor to Acting Chairman Ohlhausen, and as a counsel practicing antitrust law at O’Melveny & Myers LLP in Washington D.C. Marian R. Bruno will continue to serve as Deputy Director, Bureau of Competition, a position she has held since 2008. She will continue to bring her strong leadership, immense skills and expertise to the Bureau’s mission.

An audacious 5G power (pole) grab

[Commentary] Telecommunications companies are preparing to roll out the next generation of wireless networks, dubbed “5G,” which promise an enormous increase in capacity and connectivity. These networks not only will increase competition in broadband, they are a key enabling technology for a host of advanced products and services. They also represent a gateway to better economic opportunities in inner-city areas that are underserved by broadband today.

But these new networks are different in structure and appearance too. Instead of high-powered antennas on tall towers, they rely on an array of lower-power transmitters closer to the ground that serve much smaller “cells.” That’s why mobile phone companies are concerned that cities and counties will throw up bureaucratic or financial roadblocks to 5G in their communities. It’s not a groundless worry; wireless companies already have encountered local resistance in places where they have introduced the new technology. It’s the look and the intrusiveness of the small cell networks that seems to spark the controversy. People are upset about the deployment of thousands of pieces of equipment the size of small appliances being placed strategically and liberally on publicly owned “vertical infrastructure” (that’s bureaucratese for municipal utility poles, street lights and even traffic lights). That means a lot of equipment in full view and in proximity — really close in some cases — to houses and people. The wireless industry has a solution to this potentially huge NIMBY headache: A bill in the California legislature (SB 649) that would “streamline” the approval process for putting small cell networking gear on public poles and lights. If it’s on property the government controls, approval would be automatic in most cases, so local governments couldn’t drag out the permitting process with public hearings and studies. The bill also would limit how much rent locals can charge the companies for space on their poles and lights.

The telecommunication industry has been pushing this “streamlining” strategy in other states, with various degrees of success. Eleven have adopted some sort of laws to limit the local permitting process and pole fees. Legislators in other states, like Washington, have been more skeptical. California’s lawmakers ought to be wary as well and show more interest in protecting the rights of communities to govern the use of their infrastructure, rather than letting telecommunication companies make those decisions for them.

© 1994-2025 Benton Institute for Broadband & Society. All Rights Reserved.