Agenda

As the number of online comments in the Federal Communications Commission's network neutrality proceeding soars to record highs, groups on both sides of the debate are calling on Congress to investigate mounting allegations of fake public input. The latest allegations come from the conservative-leaning National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), which said a whopping 5.8 million pro-net neutrality comments submitted between July 17 and Aug. 4 using the same one sentence appear to be fake. The docket has been plagued for months by charges that many of the comments are duplicates, filed under fake names or submitted without the permission of the people who supposedly signed them. The growing controversy is raising questions about how the comments will be used when the FCC mulls a final order. "It's almost unimaginable how anybody thinks this could do any good," NLPC President Peter Flaherty said.

[Commentary] In a perplexing dance toward consensus, left and right have united to pour vinegar on Sinclair Broadcasting Group’s effort to add Tribune Media’s 42 television stations to the 173 it already owns. You’d think that Sinclair—which hikes on the conservative side of the news by forcing its stations to air commentaries by former Trump adviser Boris Epshteyn and other right-tilting segments (“Terror Alert Desk”)—would be cheered by its fellow media ideologues. But no. Newsmax, One America News Network and Glenn Beck’s the Blaze have joined with the lefties from Public Knowledge, Common Cause, Free Press and Media Matters for America to decry the $3.9 billion acquisition. The opposition doesn’t stop there. Such businesses as DISH Network and T-Mobile have decanted their protests, too, demanding that the Federal Communications Commission block the deal, as have broadcast trade associations.

The lefty opposition against Sinclair actually seems to be an argument against media diversity and for media homogeneity. Nowhere on television—not even on Fox-owned stations—is the conservative point of view pursued as aggressively as it is at Sinclair. If rejecting what other journalists are doing and following a unique viewpoint isn't the mark of media diversity, I don't know what is. If the left truly wished death upon Sinclair, it would urge the FCC to change ownership rules so that big broadcasters with different news “philosophies”—ABC (Disney), NBC (Comcast), and CBS—could buy more stations. But the left remains too stitched up in its 1950s thinking about consolidation to advocate that. Might Sinclair’s fight for Tribune’s stations turn out to be a fool’s bargain? For the media diversification reason chronicled above, the conventional television business model has passed its golden years. In 2015, the Bernstein research outfit predicted a “period of prolonged structural decline” for the television industry as viewers continue to defect from ad-supported outlets to on-demand services like Netflix and Hulu. Maybe instead of discouraging Sinclair from making the deal, the company’s foes and competitors should encourage them to close it.

The Federal Communications Commission launched a new inquiry seeking comment on ways to expand opportunities for next-generation services – particularly wireless broadband services – in mid-band spectrum. The NOI seeks comment on three specific mid-range bands (3.7-4.2 GHz, 5.925-6.425 GHz, and 6.425-7.125 GHz), and asks commenters to identify other non-federal mid-band frequencies that may be suitable for expanded flexible use.

The NOI asks for input on, among other things, the following issues:

• How can the Commission best provide for flexible use of these bands to allow the introduction of additional fixed and mobile wireless services?
• How can the Commission protect existing services against harmful interference?
• What are the appropriate authorization mechanisms to maximize efficiency and promote flexible wireless use, including exclusive use, non-exclusive use, and unlicensed use?
• Can service rules governing existing services be modified to make the bands more suitable for wireless use?
• Can existing rules be eliminated to reduce regulatory burdens and maximize efficient use?

Often sparring partners, the wireless industry and public interest advocates both came out in support of the AIRWAVES Act — but with very different hopes for where the legislation would lead.

The bill instructs the Federal Communications Commission to auction off the government-controlled spectrum of radio frequencies used for wireless communication, with the first auction to be held by next December. The bill would allow some spectrum for exclusive, or “licensed” use, as well as some for shared, or “unlicensed” use. Public interest advocates have pushed the FCC to give more access to unlicensed users by allowing them to share spectrum with private companies who get exclusive rights to certain bands. Those with licenses argue sharing can interfere with their signals. The AIRWAVES bill, which stands for Advancing Innovation and Reinvigorating Widespread Access to Viable Electromagnetic Spectrum, leaves the matter up to the FCC.

President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead antitrust enforcement at the Justice Department recently agreed to tell lawmakers if the White House tries to improperly influence any decision he makes on whether to allow AT&T’s $85 billion acquisition of Time Warner. The commitment came in a meeting between the nominee, Makan Delrahim, and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), who wrote a July 24 letter memorializing the discussion.

“I particularly appreciated your commitment that you will brief me, in an appropriate setting, any time the White House initiates an inappropriate communication with you or anybody in the Antitrust Division,” the senator wrote to Delrahim after the meeting. People familiar with the meeting, which also included Senate and Justice Department staffers, confirmed the exchange and said the men also generally discussed the importance of the department’s independence. They said Delrahim additionally provided assurances that officials at the White House have not sought to lobby him on AT&T. The White House and the Justice Department communicate with one another, but protocols governing those discussions seek to assure that the department can operate free from improper political intervention.

Rep Austin Scott (R-GA) brought back his End Taxpayer Funded Cell Phones Act before House lawmakers left town. That’s the legislation that GOP leadership fast-tracked straight to floor consideration immediately after its introduction in 2016. (They tried to advance it under suspension of the rules, and it went down 207-143.) It now has 18 GOP backers, triple what it had before. “My bill will reform the Lifeline Program and restore it to its original purpose of providing landline services and prohibit Universal Service support for mobile services,” Rep Scott said. A GOP leadership aide said there’s no talk on when and if the measure may be brought to the floor this time around.

US companies are largely unprepared for what's about to hit them when sweeping new European Union data laws take effect in 2018. The regulation — the General Data Protection Regulation (or GDPR) — is intended to give users more control of how their personal data is used and streamline data processes across the EU. Companies that fail to comply with the complex law will face steep fines of up to 4% of their global annual revenue.

Europe has by far taken the most aggressive regulatory stance on protecting consumer privacy and will in many ways be a litmus test for regulating the currency of the data economy. It impacts a huge number of businesses from advertisers to e-commerce platforms whose data flows through EU countries. That means everyone from Google to your neighbor who sells shoes on eBay could be affected.

BT has offered to spend up to £600 million to connect the final 1 million homes and businesses in rural areas of Britain to a broadband connection suitable for most needs.

The company said every home and business in the UK would have a broadband speed of at least 10 megabits per second (Mbps), fast enough to stream movies, video conference and browse the web. Properties will either be connected via the Openreach network through fibre-optic cables, the network of copper lines, or through the fixed wireless system, where connections use radio and, in some cases, satellite signals. BT said the cost of its plan would be between £450m and £600m and that 99 per cent of homes and businesses will be connected by 2020. BT made the offer after the government committed to a 10Mbps target under a Universal Service Obligation (USO). The government said it would now consider BT’s plan, while also conducting a consultation into whether it should introduce the USO in regulation.

Amazon, Facebook, Google and Netflix — along with their telecommunication industry foes —have not committed to sending their chief executives to testify before the US Congress in September on the future of network neutrality. Not a single one of those companies told the House Commerce Committee, which is convening the hearing, that they would dispatch their leaders to Washington (DC) in the coming weeks, even at a time when the Trump administration is preparing to kill the open internet rules currently on the government’s books.

The panel initially asked those four tech giants, as well as AT&T, Charter, Comcast, and Verizon, to indicate their plans for the hearing by July 31. For now, though, the committee said it isn’t giving up and would extend its deadline, as it continues its quest to engage the country’s tech and telecom business leaders on net neutrality. “The committee has been engaging in productive conversations with all parties and will extend the deadline for response in order to allow for those discussions to continue,” a spokesman said.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a prominent privacy rights watchdog, is asking the Federal Trade Commission to investigate a new Google advertising program that ties consumers’ online behavior to their purchases in brick-and-mortar stores.

The legal complaint, to be filed with the FTC on July 31, alleges that Google is newly gaining access to a trove of highly sensitive information -- the credit and debit card purchase records of the majority of US consumers -- without revealing how they got the information or giving consumers meaningful ways to opt out. Moreover, the group claims that the search giant is relying on a secretive technical method to protect the data -- a method that should be audited by outsiders and is likely vulnerable to hacks or other data breaches. “Google is seeking to extend its dominance from the online world to the real, offline world, and the FTC really needs to look at that,” said Marc Rotenberg, the organization’s executive director. EPIC alleges that if consumers don’t know how Google gets its purchase data, then they cannot make an informed decision about which cards not to use or where not to shop if they don’t want their purchases tracked. The organization points out that purchases can reveal medical conditions, religious beliefs and other intimate information.