Internet/Broadband

[Commentary] In April 2016, Verizon told Boston it was going to be spending $300 million to deploy FiOS, their wireline Fiber-To-The-Premises (FTTP) service, to the entire city over the next six years. Unfortunately, what Verizon’s CEO told investors on September 13th, 2017, shows it has deceived the citizens of Boston and harmed Massachusetts.

[Bruce Kushnick is executive director of New Networks Institute]

It's hard to run a successful business without access to high speed broadband. That was the message that repeatedly surfaced as Senate Democrats discussed issues important to rural America during a rural summit on Sept. 13.

Sen Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) joined senators from Montana, Delaware. North Carolina, Minnesota, Michigan and other states, along with national leaders, to discuss issues important to rural America, with an emphasis on boosting economic opportunity. Representing Wisconsin, Sen Baldwin was joined by Wisconsin Farmers Union President Darin Von Ruden and James Wessing, president of Kondex Corporation in Lomira.

In describing the importance of rural communities, Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) pointed out that about 60 million Americans live in rural areas, which is equivalent to 20 percent of the US population. However, the other 80 percent of the nation's population relies on that 20 percent for their food, energy and "so much of what they need to survive day to day."

There’s no question that high-speed Internet is a game-changer for rural Americans. It’s improving standards of living more than any new technology since the rural electrification effort in the early 20th century. That is—so long as you have access. And that’s the big challenge.

Rural Americans too often find themselves on the wrong side of the digital divide. In rural America, 28% of households lack access to high-speed, fixed service. In urban areas, only 2% go without. Rural Americans are missing out on opportunities for jobs, health care, education, and more, and there’s a significant cost to those lost opportunities. But I worry that we’re losing something even greater if rural communities remain stuck in the analog age. That’s the slow fade of rural communities themselves. To be clear, I’m not saying that the digital divide is the reason why rural communities are shrinking. This trend started before the commercial Internet even existed. What I am saying is that how we deal with the digital divide will affect the destiny of towns like Parsons and Ulysses and Beloit and Hiawatha. It’ll help determine if this population loss gets faster, slows down, or is potentially reversed. Broadband-enabled opportunities for jobs, education, health care, and agriculture can be a great equalizer for rural America. But so long as some rural communities don’t have broadband, they’ll fall further and further behind.

To spur network deployment in sparsely populated areas where the economic incentives for private investment don’t exist, the FCC is providing direct funding that leverages—not displaces—private capital expenditures. But we also want to modernize our regulations to give companies a stronger business case to build and expand high-speed networks. The plain truth is that bureaucratic red tape at all levels of government can slow the pace and increase the cost of network deployment.

[Commentary] It is more important than ever that we have accurate data on how broadband is deployed across the country. Yet many consider the Federal Communications Commission’s existing data to be inaccurate and unreliable.

With the FCC now having launched its 13th annual inquiry into the status of broadband deployment in America, it’s time to recognize we won’t get better deployment data from the commission until we take the politics out of broadband progress reports. While the vast majority of FCC staff are low-level, nonpartisan bureaucrats, bureau chiefs and the commissioners themselves are political appointees. Even without the threat of at-will removal, these appointees remain under strong pressure to toe the party line and adopt policies favored by the politicians who appointed them. Whether or not appointees are consciously aware of such political influence, recent FCC actions reflect an increasingly partisan agenda. If we want our telecom regulator to deliver accurate reports about the state of broadband deployment, we need to take the politics out of broadband progress reports. This means removing the “finding” from Section 706 that triggers further commission action and authority.

As Congress considers further telecom legislation — in the context of FCC reauthorization, net neutrality or a full-scale update to the Communications Act — it should re-examine Section 706 and consider implementing this fix. Maybe then we could finally trust the numbers the technocrats deliver.

[Tom Struble is a technology policy manager with the R Street Institute, a free market think tank]

Indigenous peoples living on tribal lands are some of the most underserved people in the US when it comes to broadband. Many tribes share similar barriers no matter where they are in the country. But one group of tribes in southern California is using every tool it can think of, including using television spectrum to broadcast internet wirelessly. Unfortunately, they've run into one totally unique hurdle: TV channels are bleeding over the border from Mexico, and eating up their spectrum.

Pandering to the base is a tradition as old as politics itself. But in the social media age, it’s easier than ever for politicians to take those tailored messages—the kind they might not like to share with the whole world—and disseminate them only to the people who are most likely to agree. And targeting allows campaigns to silo thousands of possible audiences with just a click, making it harder than ever to hold politicians accountable for all of it.

Some have taken to calling this type of ad a “dark post,” an overly nefarious name for what is, in actuality, just the way digital ads operate today. Technically speaking, Trump's ad buy works the same as one for the pair of Zappos shoes that somehow follows you around the internet. You’re seeing those shoes because Facebook thinks you're in the market for shoes. But President Trump isn’t running a shoe store; still less than a year into his term, he's already running a reelection campaign. And when the president sends one subset of the population a message that the rest of the population can’t see—especially one that's at odds with reality—it feels like a fundamental failure of government transparency.

A group of Democratic senators has joined in a call for the Federal Communications Commission to allow for public "review and comment" on tens of thousands of network-neutrality complaints provided through a Freedom of Information Act request in May, saying the FCC has not provided sufficient opportunity to vet them.

They said the documents were only produced a few days before the August Open Internet Order proceeding deadline and were only posted to the FCC website recently. “Although the Commission has undertaken an historic proceeding to undo the Open Internet Order, the FCC has failed to provide stakeholders with an opportunity to comment on the tens of thousands of filed complaints that directly shed light on proposed changes to existing net neutrality protections,” they wrote in a letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. “The public deserves an opportunity to review and analyze evidence that has a direct impact on the proceeding.” The senators want Chairman Pai to tell them what efforts the FCC has taken to analyze the complaints, responses from ISPs and other documents, how it will incorporate them into the record and when, whether the FCC will issue a public notice and comment cycle on them.

Signing on to the letter were Senators Ed Markey (D-MA), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Al Franken (D-MN), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Kamala Harris (D-CA).

In a new report from the Internet Society, a think tank founded by Vint Cerf, authors recommend governments take a “multistakeholder” approach—inviting members of the public and representatives from various industries—to create “consensus policy” surrounding the internet. They could determine what should be censored, how encryption affects national security, and whether citizens maintain their personal freedoms online. That approach is distinct from the “multilateral” approach in which several governments work together, excluding representatives from civil society. “Measures that may be intended to secure cyberspace will increasingly undermine personal rights and freedoms,” the report predicted. “If current trends are any indication, more and more governments will restrict and control Internet use and access through censorship, network shutdowns and other means.”

Organizations representing broadband providers have asked the Federal Communications Commission to modify its proposal for the Connect America Fund (CAF II) Auction. The CAF II auction will award funding rejected by price cap carriers in parts of 20 states. The auction is designed to award funding to the provider that offers to deploy service at the lowest level of support. In comments filed with the FCC, one broadband provider organization expressed concern that the proposed auction design could prevent the full amount of available funding from being awarded, while another argued against package bidding. At least two comment filings argued that measures aimed at preventing collusion were too harsh and could deter small broadband providers from participating.

After years of largely avoiding regulation, businesses like Facebook, Google and Amazon are a focus of lawmakers, some of whom are criticizing the expanding power of big tech companies and their role in the 2016 election.

The attacks cover a smattering of issues as diverse as antitrust, privacy and public disclosure. They also come from both sides, from people like Stephen Bannon, President Trump’s former chief strategist, as well as Sen Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). Many of the issues, like revising antitrust laws, have a slim chance of producing new laws soon. But they have become popular talking points nonetheless, amplified by a series of missteps and disclosures by the companies. The companies, recognizing the new environment in Washington, have started to fortify their lobbying forces and recalibrate their positions.