Coverage of how Internet service is deployed, used and regulated.
Internet/Broadband
Report Finds Fastest, Slowest U.S. Broadband States and Cities
A new report from Cable.co.uk shows a wide diversity between the fastest and slowest US broadband states and cities. The fastest municipal speed in the country is in Washington (VA) with a download speed of 210.19Mbps, while the slowest is in North Slope Bo (AK) with a download speed of only 0.28Mbps. The speeds vary widely from municipality to municipality, even for municipalities in the same state. On a statewide basis, Rhode Island ranks at the top with an average speed of 36.69Mbps, while Montana was last. with an average speed of only 10.94Mbps
‘The ravages of cord-cutting’: AT&T’s race against time to save its TV business
AT&T's push to acquire DirecTV in 2015 looked like brilliance at first. Having captured most of the low-hanging fruit in the telephone and wireless markets already, AT&T's expansion into the television industry promised much more room for growth. By offering DirecTV directly to consumers, AT&T might gain new customers, hang onto old ones and take advantage of viewing data for advertising purposes. But almost from the beginning, the deal's potential seemed limited by the growing number of consumers who have been abandoning traditional television services.
With more Americans embracing online alternatives, AT&T may have inherited in DirecTV — and its 20 million subscribers — a brewing long-term headache that can be solved only by either preventing or compensating for the effects of cord-cutting. Now, it seems, that problem may be more acute than we thought.
Digital Inclusion Playbook
This Digital Playbook provides several core strategies for increasing digital equity and inclusion, ensuring that all community members will have the necessary resources for full participation in the economic, political, and civic opportunities available within Charlotte, North Carolina.
Rosenworcel Testimony at US Senate Commerce Committee NH Field Hearing on "Expanding Broadband Infrastructure in the Granite State"
I think it’s time for a National Broadband Map that offers an honest picture of wired and wireless broadband across the country. Too often the Federal Communications Commission cobbles together data for each individual rulemaking and report without a comprehensive and updated snapshot of where service is and is not. We can build this map in Washington, but it would be great if we had a clearer picture on the ground. I’m a big believer in the wisdom of crowds, so I think we should put it to the public. If you’ve not been able to get service, or live in an area that lacks it, help us make a map and write me at broadbandfail@fcc.gov. I’ve set this account up to take in your ideas. I will share every one of them with the agency Chairman—and put on pressure to do something about it.
For decades, the FCC has led the world with its auction models for the distribution of spectrum licenses. We’ve made a lot of progress powering the mobile devices that so many of us rely on every day. But take a drive along some rural roads and you will know there is room for improvement. It’s one reason why the AIRWAVES Act from Sen Maggie Hassan (D-NH) and Sen Cory Gardner (R-CO) is so important. It helps identify more licensed and unlicensed spectrum that can be brought to market to improve wireless broadband. On top of that, it sets up a fund whereby auction revenues will help support wireless broadband infrastructure in rural America. It’s the kind of creative effort that would in time lead to more coverage on a broadband map and also help bridge the Homework Gap.
If any economic activity meets the definition of interstate commerce, it’s the internet
[Commentary] In recent years, a number of states have endeavored to get into the internet policy game. As the internet diffuses across the economy, the urge to act at the state level will likely strengthen. We saw this recently when California legislators proposed their own internet privacy law after Congress struck down a 2015 internet privacy regulation using the Congressional Review Act, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued its Restoring Internet Freedom proposal.
But to the extent that Congress, the FCC, and the FTC have the authority to protect the free flow of internet activity against state-based obstacles and fragmentation, they should do so. In its coming order, the FCC should reaffirm the interstate nature of these services.
[Bret Swanson is concurrently president of Entropy Economics LLC]
Two Dedicated Activists Provide Crucial Support for Team Internet
Team Internet is a network of volunteers combining people power with technology to mobilize people across the country to pressure their lawmakers to stand up for Net Neutrality. Free Press Action Fund, Demand Progress and Fight for the Future launched the project in July. Since then, Team Internet volunteers have spoken in person about Net Neutrality to 200 members of Congress or their staff at both town halls and in-district meetings.
Activists Iliana Gomez and Lesley Perg provide a critical backbone of support for Team Internet’s organizing infrastructure to make that happen. Since the end of August, they’ve done nearly all the work of the host-support team. This team has provided assistance to the scores of individuals — or hosts — who have organized meetings about Net Neutrality with their local congressional offices through Team Internet. Gomez and Perg call hosts and talk them through the details of their events, ensuring they have all the materials they need and are prepared to meet fellow activists and their lawmakers.
Tech Giants, Once Seen as Saviors, Are Now Viewed as Threats
At the start of this decade, the Arab Spring blossomed with the help of social media. That is the sort of story the tech industry loves to tell about itself: It is bringing freedom, enlightenment and a better future for all mankind. Mark Zuckerberg, the Facebook founder, proclaimed that this was exactly why his social network existed. In a 2012 manifesto for investors, he said Facebook was a tool to create “a more honest and transparent dialogue around government.” The result, he said, would be “better solutions to some of the biggest problems of our time.”
Now tech companies are under fire for creating problems instead of solving them. At the top of the list is Russian interference in last year’s presidential election. Social media might have originally promised liberation, but it proved an even more useful tool for stoking anger. The manipulation was so efficient and so lacking in transparency that the companies themselves barely noticed it was happening. The election is far from the only area of concern. Tech companies have accrued a tremendous amount of power and influence. Amazon determines how people shop, Google how they acquire knowledge, Facebook how they communicate. All of them are making decisions about who gets a digital megaphone and who should be unplugged from the web. Their amount of concentrated authority resembles the divine right of kings, and is sparking a backlash that is still gathering force.
GAO to probe FCC cyberattack that struck amid net neutrality debate
The government's top watchdog has agreed to investigate the reported cyberattack that targeted the Federal Communications Commission earlier in 2017 while the agency was preparing to roll back net neutrality regulations. A spokesman for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) confirmed it has accepted a request from two Democratic lawmakers to probe the distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack that the FCC said disrupted its electronic comment filing system in May. The spokesman said that the probe, which was first reported by Politico, is “now in the queue, but the work won’t get underway for several months.” The investigation will also examine the FCC’s broader cybersecurity efforts.
Trump Administration: Infrastructure Friend or Foe?
[Commentary] As a candidate, Donald Trump deserved credit for identifying a policy that damages jobs, competitiveness, and economic growth: underinvestment in infrastructure. Unfortunately, Trump’s plans as president, including his budget and tax proposals, in combination with congressional politics, suggest his overall impact on infrastructure will make a bad situation worse. Would the long-promised $1 trillion infrastructure fund more than make up for the problems the tax bill creates? The answer is no. A
s President Trump finally admitted, his plan will not work. Candidate Trump’s plan was premised on attracting private capital to fund infrastructure. But that would only help projects that directly produce revenues, leaving out such needed projects as local roads, schools, and fire stations, among others. Public funding is essential to building a broad coalition necessary to move forward with a national infrastructure bill. Private financing not only limits the kinds of projects financed, but also limits where the projects will be located. Other than in broadband, nearly all the kinds of infrastructure projects—airports, transit, bridges—capable of attracting the kinds of revenue necessary to secure funding, are in metropolitan areas. That would limit the political attractiveness of any legislation to rural congressional members, whose voting block is sizable. The administration’s tax plan, however, now makes the fiscal politics for public funds impossible. In short: Trump’s tax plan would decrease funds for the principal sources of infrastructure financing; his original infrastructure plan is dead; and his tax plan will put the country in a position where no infrastructure plan is likely to move forward. That combination would only intensify national infrastructure challenges.
[Blair Levin is a nonresident senior fellow with the Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program. Adie Tomer is a fellow at the Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program and leads the Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative.]
Frontier, CenturyLink, Windstream see broadband wireless as a gap filler for CAF-II obligations, but is it optimal?
[Commentary] Frontier's recent revelation that it intends to use fixed wireless to address the rural broadband availability problem using the second phase of the Federal Communications Commission’s Connect America Fund (CAF-II) program is set on a simple goal: extend broadband to areas where deploying wireline facilities is prohibitive. What’s interesting about Frontier is that other than being a supplier of backhaul, the company is mainly a wireline carrier.
Can it effectively overcome engineering and regulatory challenges to complement rural wireline broadband with wireless? There’s both regulatory and technical challenges. Putting aside these challenges, it's hard to not to see the benefits wireless broadband could bring for rural providers. These telcos can use a complementary approach to address remote areas that are still difficult to address even with CAF-II funding today.