Ars Technica

Verizon’s plan to deploy fiber to 900 homes and fix problems with its DSL network in South New Jersey is “haphazard” and fails to “address the systemic problems” faced by Verizon customers, an independent government agency said. The New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, a watchdog agency that advocates on behalf of utility customers, wants state utility regulators to move forward with an investigation into Verizon’s plan to fix service problems. Division of Rate Counsel Director Stefanie Brand made the agency’s position clear in a letter to the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU).

The BPU has been considering whether to launch an investigation of Verizon as requested by 17 cities and towns who say the company “has, through neglect, abandoned and retired its copper landline infrastructure in most of South Jersey.” Verizon attempted to prevent a formal investigation by submitting a plan to improve service on September 19, but Rate Counsel argued that the BPU should investigate instead of simply taking Verizon’s word that it will fix the problems.

Two lawyers and legal researchers based at Stanford University have formally asked a federal court in San Francisco to unseal numerous records of surveillance-related cases, as a way to better understand how authorities seek such powers from judges.

This courthouse is responsible for the entire Northern District of California, which includes the region where tech companies such as Twitter, Apple, and Google, are based. According to the petition, Jennifer Granick and Riana Pfefferkorn were partly inspired by a number of high-profile privacy cases that have unfolded in recent years, ranging from Lavabit to Apple’s battle with the Department of Justice. In their 45-page petition, they specifically say that they don’t need all sealed surveillance records, simply those that should have been unsealed—which, unfortunately, doesn’t always happen automatically.

AT&T is getting rid of Internet Preferences, the controversial program that analyzes home Internet customers' Web browsing habits in order to serve up targeted ads.

“To simplify our offering for our customers, we plan to end the optional Internet Preferences advertising program related to our fastest Internet speed tiers," an AT&T spokesperson spoketh. "As a result, all customers on these tiers will receive the best rate we have available for their speed tier in their area. We’ll begin communicating this update to customers early next week.” Data collection and targeted ads will be shut off, AT&T also confirmed. Since AT&T introduced Internet Preferences for its GigaPower fiber Internet service in 2013, customers had to opt into the traffic scanning program in order to receive the lowest available rate. Customers who wanted more privacy had to pay another $29 a month for standalone Internet access; bundles including TV or phone service could cost more than $60 extra when customers didn't opt in.

The Federal Trade Commission will appeal a court decision that let AT&T avoid punishment for throttling the Internet connections of customers with unlimited data plans. The FTC sued AT&T in October 2014, seeking refunds for customers. But in August, a three-judge panel at the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of AT&T, overturning a District Court decision that had gone in the FTC's favor. The FTC's options include seeking a rehearing of the case in front of the entire Ninth Circuit appeals court, and that is what the commission will do. "We are going to be seeking a rehearing in that matter," FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez told US senators during an FTC oversight hearing Sept 29. If the FTC fails at the appeals court level, it could take the matter to the US Supreme Court, but Chairwoman Ramirez did not address that possibility.

An Alabama man who worked as a Verizon Wireless technician has agreed to plead guilty to a federal hacking charge in connection to his illegal use of the company's computers to acquire customer calling and location data. The man, Daniel Eugene Traeger, faces a maximum five years in prison in October. He admitted that he sold customer data—from 2009 to 2014—to a private investigator whom the authorities have not named.

According to the man's signed plea deal, "At some point in 2009, the Defendant met a private investigator ("the PI") who wanted to buy Verizon customer information from the Defendant. The Defendant accepted the PI's offer. The defendant used Verizon computer systems and facilities to access customer call records and customer location data that he knew he was not authorized to access, and provided that information to the PI even though the Defendant knew that he was not authorized to provide it to a third party. The Defendant accessed customer call records by logging into Verizon's MARS system. The Defendant then compiled the data in spreadsheets, which the Defendant provided to the PI, including by e-mail. The Defendant accessed customer location data using a Verizon system called Real Time Tool. Using RTT, the Defendant "pinged" cellular telephones on Verizon's network and provided location data for those telephones to the PI." The plea agreement said that Traeger began making $50 monthly in 2009, when he sold two records a month. By mid-2013, he was earning $750 each month by selling 10 to 15 records. In all, the plea deal says he made more than $10,000 over a five-year period.

One of the members of the Federal Communications Commission, Jessica Rosenworcel, has asked the agency to investigate the ban on journalists’ Wi-Fi personal hotspots at the presidential debate held at Hofstra University. The host venue demanded that journalists pay $200 to access the event’s Wi-Fi and were told to shut down their own hotspots or leave the debate. At least one photo showed a handheld device that was being used to scan for and locate “rogue” Wi-Fi networks.

"My office has asked the @FCC Enforcement Bureau to investigate, figure out what happened," Commissioner Rosenworcel tweeted. "Something not right with #WiFi situation at @HofstraU last night." Karla Schuster, a spokeswoman for Hofstra University, said, "The Commission on Presidential Debates sets the criteria for services and requires that a completely separate network from the University’s network be built to support the media and journalists. This is necessary due to the volume of Wi-Fi activity and the need to avoid interference. The Rate Card fee of $200 for Wi-Fi access is to help defray the costs and the charge for the service does not cover the cost of the buildout. For Wi-Fi to perform optimally the system must be tuned with each access point and antenna. When other Wi-Fi access points are placed within the environment the result is poorer service for all. To avoid unauthorized access points that could interfere, anyone who has a device that emits RF frequency must register the device. Whenever a RF-emitting device was located, the technician notified the individual to visit the RF desk located in the Hall. The CPD RF engineer would determine if the device could broadcast without interference."

News organizations attending Sept 26’s presidential debate must pay $200 for a “Secure Wireless Internet Connection” at Hofstra University in New York state. While profiteering during a high-profile occasion such as this is not unheard of—$15 for a patch cable?—what’s worse is that event staff at Hofstra University are reportedly using a $2,000 device to actively scan for hotspots and other ad-hoc Wi-Fi networks. Politico reporter Kenneth Vogel said that journalists are essentially being given an ultimatum: use your own hotspot and get “tossed” from the debate site. (Of course, this problem can simply be solved via a Bluetooth or USB tether from an active smartphone to a laptop.)

Hofstra's action may be unlawful under an advisory published by the Federal Communications Commission in January 2015 which found that "willful or malicious interference with Wi-Fi hotspots is illegal." The FCC fined fined Marriott $600,000 in October 2014 for blocking customers’ personal Wi-Fi hotspots at a Nashville (TN) branch. Although Marriott paid the fine, it remained defiant and filed a request for rulemaking with the commission, asking that Wi-Fi blocking be permitted. Marriott’s reasoning was that it could better manage the security of its own network if it blocked unauthorized Wi-Fi broadcasts.

If you were worried that the debate over Internet data caps would get bogged down in technical mumbo-jumbo, fear no more—it's actually much simpler than you think. Mediacom, a US cable company with a little over 1.1 million Internet subscribers in 22 states, has put the matter to rest by explaining to the Federal Communications Commission that its customers shouldn't get unlimited data because using the Internet is just like eating Oreos. "You have to pay extra for double-stuffed," Mediacom Senior VP and General Counsel Joseph Young wrote in a filing with the FCC. Young went into more detail, just to make sure the nation's broadband regulators fully understand how Internet data is just like sandwich cookies.

AT&T has sued Nashville (TN) to stop a new ordinance designed to accelerate the deployment of Google Fiber. The lawsuit was filed in US District Court in Nashville Sept 22, only two days after the Nashville Metro Council passed a “One Touch Make Ready” rule that gives new Internet service providers faster access to utility poles. The ordinance lets a single company make all of the necessary wire adjustments on utility poles itself, instead of having to wait for incumbent providers like AT&T and Comcast to send work crews to move their own wires. Google Fiber says it is waiting on AT&T and Comcast to move wires on nearly 8,000 poles. AT&T’s lawsuit claims that the ordinance is preempted by Federal Communications Commission pole attachment regulations and violates AT&T’s 58-year-old pole attachment contract with Nashville. The company seeks a declaration that the ordinance is unlawful and a permanent injunction preventing the local government from enforcing it.

Charter is trying to convince the Federal Communications Commission to backtrack on a plan that would force cable providers to charge a separate fee for cable modems.

Charter is unusual compared to other cable companies in that it doesn’t tack on a cable modem rental fee when offering Internet service. But FCC officials don’t think that’s good for consumers, because the price of Charter Internet service is the same whether a customer uses a Charter modem or buys their own. Charter argues that it doesn’t pass the cost of the modem on to consumers. “Our pricing is competitive and comparable to other providers,” Charter told Ars. In addition to the base price, other providers "charge a modem fee of around $10. Our service isn’t $10 more expensive. We don’t bake in a modem fee, we include it for free with the service." Charter said, "If transparency is the ultimate goal of the FCC’s provision, we would be more than happy to specifically note on our customers’ bills that our modems are free."