Internet/Broadband

The most viable way to provide broadband internet service to under-served parts of Pipestone County (MN) is with a wireless system, and even that is not feasible without a grant. Those were the findings of a broadband internet study Pipestone County commissioned earlier in 2017 to find out what it would take to provide broadband access to the under-served parts of the county. Doug Dawson, President of CCG Consulting, and Mark Mrla, business unit manager with Finley Engineering, presented the results of the study Sept. 12 to the Pipestone County Board. The study examined three scenarios to bring broadband to 1,747 homes where it is not currently available: Build a complete fiber system; build a hybrid fiber and wireless system; or an all wireless system. An all-fiber system requiring 458 miles of fiber was estimated to cost $12,359,445, a hybrid system $5,327,253, and an all wireless system $1,002,809.

[Commentary] One of us is the inventor of the personal computer, and the other a former commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission. We come from different walks of life, but each of us recognizes that the FCC is considering action that could end the internet as we know it.

If FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s majority permits fast lanes for the biggest internet service providers (ISPs like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T), companies could speed up or slow down the sites and services they prefer. That’ll be great for their business affiliates and corporate friends, but woe to the startup that wants to build the next great web service — it could find itself in the slow lane, unable to compete with established firms. And pity the local blogger who criticizes her ISP’s crummy service — the broadband gatekeeper would be free to slow or silence her.

The path forward is clear. The FCC must abandon its ill-conceived plan to end net neutrality. Instead of creating fast lanes for the few, it should be moving all of us to the fast lane by encouraging competition in local broadband connectivity and pushing companies to deliver higher speeds at more affordable prices. It’s the right thing for us as consumers and as citizens.

[Steve Wozniak is a computer engineer who co-founded Apple Computer, Inc. with Steve Jobs. Michael Copps, a member of the Federal Communications Commission from 2001 to 2011, is a special adviser for Common Cause.]

[Commentary] As the Federal Communications Commission takes up the issue of whether to reverse the Obama-era Open Internet Order, a key question consumers and policymakers alike are asking is: What difference do these rules make?

My research team has been studying one key element of the regulations – called "throttling," the practice of limiting download speeds – for several years, spanning a period both before the 2015 Open Internet Order was issued and after it took effect. Our findings reveal not only the state of internet openness before the Obama initiative but also the measurable results of the policy's effect. The methods we used and the tools we developed investigate how internet service providers manage your traffic and demonstrate how open the internet really is – or isn't – as a result of evolving internet service plans, as well as political and regulatory changes.

[David Choffnes is a researcher at Northeastern University]

In his ongoing push to get rid of network neutrality rules, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai claimed in Sept that the rules caused capital investment in wireless networks to drop in 2016. But in doing so, Chairman Pai hasn't addressed data from earlier years that doesn't fit his anti-net neutrality narrative.

Chairman Pai beat the drum again this week in the FCC's annual report on wireless competition, which emphasizes the investment drop in 2016. The current net neutrality rules were voted in by the FCC in February 2015 and took effect in June 2015. But investment also dropped between 2013 and 2015, before the current rules were in place, Democratic FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn pointed out. "The discussion of investment in the mobile wireless services industry is fundamentally flawed. By highlighting a decrease in investment between 2015 and 2016, this section was clearly written to support the false narrative that the 2015 Open Internet Order deterred wireless carriers from investing in their networks," Commissioner Clyburn said.

AT&T is trying to take the fight over the Obama-era net neutrality rules to the US Supreme Court. On Sept 29, AT&T, the cable industry group NCTA, and CenturyLink filed separate appeals asking the court to overturn the controversial 2015 rules. A federal appeals court last year upheld the rules, which were passed by a Democrat-controlled Federal Communications Commission and supported by President Barack Obama. The broadband industry says it has no problem with the idea of an open internet, but it argues the new classification applies outdated regulations that have stifled investment.

Republicans, who now control the FCC, have already begun the process of dismantling the rules. In May FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, appointed by President Donald Trump, opened a proceeding to rewrite the rules. The FCC could vote to repeal the rules as early as December. Legal experts say this makes it less likely the Court will take the case. "The Supreme Court isn't likely to play a starring role on net neutrality now," said Matt Schettenhelm, a litigation and government analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence. "The court's likely to take a back seat, letting the FCC move ahead with its work to undo the 2015 order." This means the fight for net neutrality is likely to go on for several years as Democrats, consumer advocates and internet companies like Mozilla, which support the rules, have vowed to continue to fight.

Google failed to deploy gigabit internet and video service to parts of the Kansas City metro area in the timeframe it promised. The Kansas Corporation Commission confirmed that Google missed deadlines to bring service throughout four Kansas cities — Mission Hills, Westwood, Westwood Hills and Kansas City. Google said in 2012 that it planned to bring service throughout those cities within five years.

The Kansas City Star has taken its watchdog role quite seriously with regard to Google Fiber. The report about the Google missed deadlines was followed a few days later by an editorial from the Star’s editorial board questioning the benefits Google Fiber had brought to the Kansas City area. The editorial noted, for example, that Google’s commitment to install free high-speed internet service for non-profits in the area is expected to end by January, even though 40 non-profits have not yet been connected. According to the editorial, Google Fiber “has changed Kansas City but hasn’t transformed it.” This attitude is quite different from what Telecompetitor experienced in another gigabit city — Chattanooga, where local utility EPB was the first U.S. network operator to undertake a citywide gigabit rollout and where local supporters helped leverage the gigabit rollout to attract numerous high-tech companies to the community, bringing new jobs and generally helping to revitalize the community.

As Facebook sought to polish its reputation, industry leaders were wrestling with the misuse of marketing tools that had been developed for their benefit.

Facebook is seen as an unavoidable force, not only because it’s the second-biggest seller of online advertising after Google, but also because it provides companies with unprecedented methods for targeting ads to people based on their tastes and habits.

“Sometimes our industry gets so enamored with new things that we lose sight of unintended consequences,” said Sarah Hofstetter, chief executive of the ad agency 360i. “Data and personalization is one of those things. It can be used for phenomenal targeting of potential consumers to buy cookies, toys and book hotel rooms, but it also can be used to target hate groups and inspire nefarious outcomes.” She added, “Whether they like it or not, media companies have a tremendous responsibility to protect the public from itself.”

But while the social concerns over such misuse are clear, brands are not responding by changing the way they spend their advertising budgets, as they did when ads for brands like AT&T were discovered on YouTube videos promoting terrorism and hate speech.

More and more rural electric cooperatives are learning that their existing distribution networks can lend themselves to highly efficient deployment of broadband for their member-owners. Based on the distances that define rural America, one of the surest ways to effectively build a broadband network is to use an existing electric co-op infrastructure. Many co-ops have found that building out a broadband network is a productive way to serve customers, and can actually be profitable as well. But the challenges they face are numerous, and every build-out brings a new set of circumstances. With that in mind, CoBank interviewed leaders from six co-ops that have launched successful broadband initiatives in order to find out what works – and what doesn’t.

The Democratic Party is making high-speed Internet access a new plank in its economic agenda as it tries to regain trust among middle-class Americans in the country's heartland. Democratic lawmakers are calling for $40 billion in new federal funding for infrastructure projects for rural and tribal areas and other regions, whose access to fast, affordable broadband has lagged behind that of dense, urban areas. The proposal, unveiled Sept 28, would have Internet providers compete for the right to build out the networks -- local governments and cooperatives would also be eligible for funding.

Drawing parallels to the 1930s-era push for nationwide electricity, Democrats say the plan would benefit farmers, medical patients and students in the most remote and underserved areas. The effort suggests Democrats are seeking to turn Internet access into a campaign issue in upcoming midterm races. By incorporating rural broadband into the party's overarching “Better Deal” economic plan, the “digital divide” is gaining a prominence that has rarely been seen before in the party's platform.

This report describes “Phish For The Future,” an advanced persistent spearphishing campaign targeting digital civil liberties activists at Free Press and Fight For the Future. Between July 7th and August 8th of 2017 we observed almost 70 spearphishing attempts against employees of internet freedom NGOs Fight for the Future and Free Press, all coming from the same attackers.