August 2017

AnonOps, a group affiliated with the online activist group known as Anonymous, posted what it says are the private cell phone numbers and email addresses for 22 Republican members of Congress in a bid to push for President Trump's impeachment, reigniting the use of hacked information in US political battles.

Rob Pfeiffer, chief editor of online publication The Anon Journal, said that the move was spurred by Trump's contentious reaction to violent clashes in Charlottesville. He did not know how the information was obtained, whether it was a leak or an online hack. He said some of the cell phone numbers, for example, had been verified as real. Among the politicians on the list were Sens. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Bob Corker of Tennessee and Charles Grassley of Iowa. The goal, said Pfeiffer, is for people to contact these members of Congress to more forcefully condemn the president and call for Trump's impeachment. Pfeiffer said more GOP lawmakers could see their personal contact information released soon.

The current network neutrality fight is really a wide-ranging power struggle between internet service providers and internet activists, between Republicans and Democrats. The battle is only partly about the ends—a free internet—and much more about the means: potential heavy regulation of ISPs as monopolies. Classifying ISPs as “common carriers,” under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act, means they could be regulated like monopolies.

That could go as far as setting rates for broadband, like public utilities commissions do for electricity, according to ISPs and other critics. Tom Wheeler’s FCC promised not to go this far, by forbearing, or refraining, from utilizing most of Title II. ISPs aren’t buying it. “Even if the FCC decides to forbear from regulating [ISPs] from certain or many provisions of Title II in the near term, the fact that at any time it could implement additional rules under Title II jurisdiction creates uncertainty in the industry,” says Comcast. Verizon and Comcast now advocate Section 706 regulations almost identical to what they fought against because they are so spooked by the prospect of Title II monopoly regulation—and perhaps because they know they can beat it in a lawsuit.

In arguing against the FCC’s net neutrality regulations, ISPs, Republicans in Congress, and the FCC chairman are saying that Title II is overkill. The previous FCC majority’s goal was to set some standards for equal access to the internet. Those who oppose the decision say it went overboard by pulling out a big club used to smash 19th- and 20th-century monopolies, not to nurture and fine-tune modern tech providers. But what if those modern tech providers are, in fact, acting like monopolies from 100 years ago?

[Commentary] Private businesses can and should have the discretion to block web content they find objectionable. That discretion is, however, precisely the opposite position taken by Google and others in the network neutrality debate at the Federal Communications Commission. Under current FCC rules (47 CFR 8.5), “A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content...” If they were broadband Internet access service providers, GoDaddy, Google, and Scaleway would be prohibited by current federal law from blocking access to Daily Stormer. But none of these entities meets the FCC’s technical definition of a “broadband Internet access service provider.” Instead each of these entities has the power and the discretion to block Internet content that it dislikes. That discretion, however, is difficult to exercise.

[Harold Furchtgott-Roth is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute]

In a victory for broadband overbuilders, a Louisville US District Court judge has ruled that a local "one touch make ready" ordinance related to access to utility poles is within the city's right to manage rights of way, granting a city request for that summary judgment and denying AT&T's request that it declare the ordinance unlawful and block enforcement.

AT&T and the Louisville Metro Council had filed cross motions for summary judgment, and the city prevailed. AT&T had sought to overturn the "one touch" ordinance, which had been sought by Google Fiber, that made it easier for competitors to AT&T (BellSouth), like Google, to attach to utility poles, including rearranging existing BellSouth attachments without providing notice to AT&T beforehand unless it would cause an outage. Comcast also filed suit, citing a conflict with Federal Communications Commission pole attachment rules. But the FCC, under then-Chairman Tom Wheeler, weighed in with the court to say that the FCC's pole-attachment rules did not supersede the local "one touch" ordinance.