Lauren Frayer

Central to the debate over the Federal Communications Commission's reclassification of broadband as a "common carrier" telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 is the effect on broadband network investment. In April 2017, the Phoenix Center released its first statistical analysis of the investment question and found that between 2011 and 2015, telecommunications investment differed from expectations by between 20 percent and 30 percent, or about $30 to $40 billion annually. That is, over the interval 2011 to 2015, another $150-$200 billion in additional investment would have been made "but for" Title II reclassification. In this paper I expand my statistical analysis, restricting the analysis to investments in property and equipment (thereby excluding investment in intellectual property), altering the control group, and evaluating other modifications to the statistical model. My prior results are confirmed in this updated analysis, again finding "that investment in total fixed assets would have been about $30 billion more annually" and "[i]nvestment in equipment and property would have been $20 billion more 'but for' reclassification."

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has a pretty savvy publicity team. The only problem? It isn’t exactly telling you the truth.

Net neutrality is an Obama-era policy designed to ensure that everyone has pretty much the same access to the internet — and that no company can pull strings to gain advantage over its competitors. The FCC points to public comments to suggest there is broad support for its plan to lift net neutrality restrictions — creating an unfettered free market in which providers could set whatever speeds they like — perhaps giving preferential treatment to companies that pay for it. But a closer look reveals the FCC’s plan is meeting stiff opposition by the same sectors cited by the FCC — the public and Silicon Valley.

Matthew Berry, chief of staff to Chairman Pai, recently sent out a series of tweets about broad support for Pai’s proposed “Restoring Internet Freedom” plan, which would dump net neutrality rules and allow ISPs like Comcast and AT&T to choke off traffic for some smaller websites in favor of large business partners. On May 11, Berry tweeted, “New @MorningConsult poll: 78% of Americans favor either light-touch Internet regulation or no regulation at all.” But Berry was a little selective in his choices about what elements of the poll to cite in his tweets. Though he didn’t say so, the poll also reveals that most of the people questioned lacked knowledge about “regulating internet access as a utility” – the legal underpinning of net neutrality. Sixty-four percent said they had knew “not much” or “nothing at all” about net neutrality. Once pollsters informed the voters that net neutrality “is a set of rules which say Internet Service Providers (ISPs) such as Comcast, Time Warner [now Spectrum], AT&T and Verizon cannot block, throttle, or prioritize certain content on the Internet,” nearly two thirds of the voters – 61 percent – said they “strongly support (24 percent) or “somewhat support” (37 percent) net neutrality.

President Donald Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting, according to current and former US officials, who said Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.

The information the President relayed had been provided by a US partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said. The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump’s decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency. “This is code-word information,” said a US official familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers to one of the highest classification levels used by American spy agencies. President Trump “revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies.”

On May 18, the Trump Federal Communications Commission will vote to adopt a final “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” (NPRM) that will officially begin the effort to repeal the 2015 network neutrality rules and the legal authority upon which they are based — Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Title II says that broadband Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like Comcast and AT&T are essential “telecommunications services,” and as such, can be prohibited from discriminating against or favoring certain Internet traffic. Anticipating a huge outcry, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai opened a “docket” for the public to submit comments, and it has — over one million comments have already been submitted. The final NPRM will start the official period for comments and reply comments on the proposal to repeal the rules (comments are currently due on July 17; replies on August 16). After the reply comment period is over, the FCC will draft its decision. Depending on the length and complexity of an issue, it usually takes anywhere from 2 to 6 months to draft a final decision. But Pai has made it clear that he already knows what the decision will say. He and his supporters are in a rush — the longer this proceeding goes, the more likely it will become a major issue in the 2018 election (based on the fundraising emails I’m getting, I’d say it already has).

Widespread support for strong network neutrality rules continues, both from individuals who use the Internet and companies that offer websites and applications over the Internet. But Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has made a point of trumpeting anti-net neutrality sentiment as the FCC begins the process of reclassifying Internet service providers and eliminating net neutrality rules. The sentiment in favor of net neutrality from individuals and website operators is a repeat from 2014, when most of the 4 million public comments supported strong net neutrality rules. In that case, a Democratic-led commission decided to strengthen its initial proposal and reclassify ISPs while outlawing blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization in 2015.

HBO comedian John Oliver acknowledged in a Youtube video that there were racist comments filed in support of net neutrality and had a simple message for any of his viewers who may have written them: “Stop it. Do not f---ing do that.” “Writing racist things on the internet is not how you win the net neutrality debate,” Oliver said. “It’s how you win the presidency.” The late-night host urged his audience to “comment in a clear, civil fashion” in support of net neutrality. The Internet Association, a Silicon Valley trade group that supports the net neutrality rules, also condemned racist comments against Chairman Pai. “Hateful or threatening speech in any form is counter to our mission and values,” said Michael Beckerman, the group’s CEO. “The merits of net neutrality can be articulated with both passion and respect. We stand with the millions of people who advocate for a free and open internet but also strongly denounce the use of hateful or threatening language to achieve this goal."

The Lifeline Connects Coalition met with Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s Wireline Legal Advisor, Dr Jay Schwarz, on May 11, 2017, to discuss the draft Open Internet NPRM and the Commission’s commitment to support broadband services through the Lifeline program. It also discussed the upcoming increase in the Lifeline minimum service standards and current barriers to entry and industry consolidation in the Lifeline program.

While national news outlets continue to debate the “fake news” controversy, new evidence confirms that consumers are not questioning the veracity of their local television newscasts, sports reports, weather forecasts and traffic updates.

This is according to research released today from Coda that reports the opinions of more than 2,400 television viewers that have watched local news programming across all platforms in the past week. According to the research, viewers believe — and enjoy watching — local news anchors and reporters on television. In addition, Coda says, “local news viewers are tuning in to their most trusted stations for accurate weather forecasts, dependable traffic updates, local sports coverage, breaking news, and even to learn about new products and services.” The Coda data reveal that many viewers watching local broadcast news are also accessing local TV stations’ digital platforms for information about their cities, towns and communities. Almost seven out of ten local news viewers (65%) also access one or more digital platforms for local news, which include local TV station websites, social media, mobile apps, blogs or targeted emails. Local TV station websites top the list, with 40% of viewers consuming local news through this digital platform, followed by social media sites (25%) and local TV station apps (23%).

Internet subcultures take advantage of the current media ecosystem to manipulate news frames, set agendas, and propagate ideas. Far-right groups have developed techniques of “attention hacking” to increase the visibility of their ideas through the strategic use of social media, memes, and bots—as well as by targeting journalists, bloggers, and influencers to help spread content. The media’s dependence on social media, analytics and metrics, sensationalism, novelty over newsworthiness, and clickbait makes them vulnerable to such media manipulation. While trolls, white nationalists, men’s rights activists, gamergaters, the “altright,” and conspiracy theorists may diverge deeply in their beliefs, they share tactics and converge on common issues. The far-right exploits young men’s rebellion and dislike of “political correctness” to spread white supremacist thought, Islamophobia, and misogyny through irony and knowledge of internet culture. Media manipulation may contribute to decreased trust of mainstream media, increased misinformation, and further radicalization.

Ting, the wireline internet division of Tucows, does not envision Google Fiber’s recent troubles posing challenges to the larger fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) service community. Elliot Noss, president and CEO of Tucows, said that there are still plenty of opportunities to expand its FTTH reach. “There are certainly markets that had, had some conversation with Google who have been in contact with us,” said Noss. “But at the end of the day, it's such a big market, and Google had such big halo that I don't know that will necessarily have a material impact.” Noss added that having a larger amount of FTTH service providers is a benefit to all players that participate in the fiber broadband segment.