Ars Technica

One of the most immediate changes with the Chairman Ajit Pai Federal Communications Commission was that the FCC leadership now fully supports zero-rating, the practice in which Internet service providers exempt some websites and online services from data caps, often in exchange for payment from the websites. Zero-rating is controversial in the US and abroad, with many consumer advocates and regulators saying it violates the net neutrality principle that all online content should be treated equally by network providers. But some zero-rating proponents believe it can serve a noble purpose—bringing Internet access to poor people who otherwise would not be online.

That's the view of Roslyn Layton, who served on Presidnet Trump's FCC transition team, does telecommunication research at Aalborg University in Denmark, and works as a visiting fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Layton believes that zero-rating should be used to get poor people on the Internet in the US, similar to the "Free Basics" program that Facebook has implemented with mobile carriers in developing countries.

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.

On May 11, the Supreme Court will meet privately to discuss the controversial privacy question of whether the authorities need a court warrant to force mobile phone companies to divulge their customers' cell site data. This data shows where you were (according to a cell tower) and when you made a call. This information can paint a canvas of one's whereabouts, yet it's not constitutionally protected material because it's viewed as an ordinary business record held by the telcos.

Courts have largely interpreted this to mean that the authorities can get the data without probable-cause court warrants. There are five cases on the high court's conference list in which cell-site data, obtained without a probable-cause warrant from a judge, was instrumental for the authorities to prosecute for armed robbery, drug running, and illegal possession of weapons. The defendants are asking the court to revisit the so-called third-party doctrine—a legal theory that allows authorities to obtain private information on people if that information is considered a normal business record voluntarily given to and held by a third party. In this case, the data is deemed a business record of the mobile phone companies, which are required to disclose it as part of government investigations.

Cities and towns in Maine that want to provide their own broadband service just helped defeat a proposed law that would have made it impossible to build taxpayer-funded networks.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Nate Wadsworth, a Hiram Republican, would have imposed stringent conditions that critics say would make it all but impossible for Maine towns and cities to build their own high-speed networks when cable and telephone companies decline to provide upgraded service. Municipal officials and one ISP that has partnered with a city for a municipal project objected to the bill in a hearing. The next day, a legislative technology committee voted 12-0 against the bill, effectively killing it.

SpaceX said its planned constellation of 4,425 broadband satellites will launch from the Falcon 9 rocket beginning in 2019 and continue launching in phases until reaching full capacity in 2024. SpaceX gave the Senate Commerce Committee an update on its satellite plans during a broadband infrastructure hearing. Satellite Internet access traditionally suffers from high latency, relatively slow speeds, and strict data caps. But as we reported in November, SpaceX says it intends to solve these problems with custom-designed satellites launched into low-Earth orbits.

No major Internet service provider has done more to prevent implementation of network neutrality rules in the US than Verizon. After years of fighting the rules in courts of law and public opinion, Verizon is about to get what it wants as the Federal Communications Commission—now led by a former Verizon lawyer—prepares to eliminate the rules and the legal authority that allows them to be enforced.

But Verizon's general counsel, Craig Silliman, wants you to believe that Verizon never opposed net neutrality rules, even though it sued the FCC to eliminate them. He's also making the claim that the FCC isn't even talking about eliminating the net neutrality rules, even though FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is proposing to do exactly that.

Mass hacking seems to be all the rage currently. A vigilante hacker apparently slipped secure code into vulnerable cameras and other insecure networked objects in the "Internet of Things" so that bad guys can't corral those devices into an army of zombie computers, like what happened with the record-breaking Mirai denial-of-service botnet. The Homeland Security Department issued alerts with instructions for fending off similar “Brickerbot malware,” so-named because it bricks IoT devices. And perhaps most unusual, the FBI recently obtained a single warrant in Alaska to hack the computers of thousands of victims in a bid to free them from the global botnet, Kelihos. On April 5, Deborah M. Smith, chief magistrate judge of the US District Court in Alaska, greenlighted this first use of a controversial court order. Critics have since likened it to a license for mass hacking

Canada is taking a much stronger stand against data cap exemptions than the United States. In the US, the Federal Communications Commission's new Republican leadership signaled that it won't enforce network neutrality rules against zero-rating, the practice of favoring certain Internet content by exempting it from customers' data caps. The FCC made that clear when it rescinded a determination that AT&T and Verizon Wireless violated net neutrality rules by letting their own video services stream without counting against customers' data caps while charging other video providers for the same data cap exemptions.

Canada is also taking a case-by-case approach to zero-rating instead of banning it outright. But April 20, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) ordered changes to one carrier's zero-rating program and announced that it will enforce stricter guidelines for determining whether zero-rating programs are discriminatory. Zero-rating "generally gives an unfair advantage or disadvantage to certain content providers and consumers," CRTC said in an announcement. The group said that it is "strengthen[ing] its commitment to net neutrality," and it also published detailed guidelines and its decision against Videotron, a telecom whose "Unlimited Music" program exempts certain online music providers from data caps of subscribers with certain mobile data plans.

Google Fiber and other Internet service providers that want to build new networks might get good news from the Federal Communications Commission, which is considering rules that would speed up the process of attaching wires to utility poles. Current FCC rules allow for up to a five-month waiting period before new ISPs can install wires on utility poles that already hold the wires of incumbent providers. This is a problem for Internet users, who often don't have any choice of high-speed providers. The new FCC proposal from FCC Chairman Ajit Pai could shave a couple of months off the maximum waiting periods. The rules wouldn't eliminate all the problems that recently caused Google Fiber to cut its staff and pause fiber operations in 11 cities while it pursues wireless networking technology. But Google Fiber said the initial FCC proposal is a good step.

A Federal Communications Commission plan to eliminate price caps in much of the business broadband market uses a new test for determining whether customers benefit from competition. Even if a business that needs broadband has only one choice today, the FCC would consider the local market competitive if there's a second broadband provider within a half mile. The proposal from FCC Chairman Ajit Pai will hurt small business customers of ISPs, according to a federal office that advocates on behalf of small businesses. But at least for now, the FCC plans to move ahead with a final vote at its meeting on April 20.

You may be thinking, "There are no price caps for broadband in the US!" That's true for the home Internet service market, but the FCC imposes price regulation on certain types of business broadband. So-called Business Data Services (BDS) provided by traditional phone companies like AT&T and Verizon use dedicated links to deliver "secure, reliable, and low-delay transmission service for moving voice, data, and video traffic" at speeds of up to 45Mbps upstream and downstream, the FCC's deregulation proposal says. Pai's definition of "sufficient competition" has drawn fire. The plan would treat an entire county as competitive "if 50 percent of the locations with BDS demand in that county are within a half mile of a location served by a competitive provider." A county would also be considered competitive if 75 percent of Census blocks in the county have a cable provider.