Internet/Broadband

Speedtest has long been the go-to for measuring internet speed, and now it’s launched the Speedtest Global Index, a monthly global ranking that allows you to see how your country stacks up when it comes to internet speed. The Global Index compiles data from the billions of tests consumers run on the service, and shows both mobile and fixed broadband speeds from around the world. Set to be updated monthly, each country’s ranking shows both its average download speed, as well as any difference in rank from the previous month. Click through on an individual country, and view both its average download and upload speed.

[Commentary] There is a long-standing tradition in American politics that when your term of office is over, you retreat quietly into the background and allow a tasteful period of time to pass before you get back into the arena. Former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler, however, does not appear to have bought into that tradition. Wheeler, apparently unhappy about the efforts of his successor, Ajit Pai, to undo the former chairman's signature regulatory enactment— the imposition of legacy common carrier price regulation on the internet—has continued to advocate for the survival of the regulatory structures he instituted while in office. It is difficult to see how the former chairman's internet policy is likely to make broadband services more available, better, or cheaper.

Whatever the role the FCC has to play in the modern communications market, Wheeler's retrogressive regulatory approach is counterproductive. America appears now to be suffering the consequences of it. If, as the data appear to suggest, Wheeler's signature regulatory contribution has cost the nation billions in network investment, reduced employment by 100,000 telecommunications jobs per year, and slowed improvements in broadband quality, it is incumbent on his successor to press forward with the clean-up hastily. Happily, Chairman Pai appears intent on doing precisely that. The sooner the broadband industry gets to say, “good riddance” to the Wheeler FCC's Title II regulatory regime, the better.

[Ford is Chief Economist of the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies]

[Commentary] The more we debate Title II versus Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act, the more it is clear that everyone wants the same outcome: we all want an open internet. The issue is determining which path will best enable the internet to be most accessible to Americans for opportunity, innovation and entrepreneurship, with the requisite transparency and privacy protections. Let’s end this debate once and for all.

A bipartisan Congress should put its differences aside to create a federal law that governs the internet. The solution to this is problem is not whether we go with Title I or Title II — the solution lies in “Title X,” a new law that will expressly set out the rules of the road for the entire internet ecosystem. The simple fact is — and I think most of us agree — that we do not want anyone to arbitrarily block or slow content on the web. We do not want discrimination in the flow of traffic on the internet. We want transparency in how our internet usage is impacted by Internet service providers (ISPs), edge providers and the government. Further, as we build out these digital networks, every community must be free of digital and infrastructure redlining.

Title X would be a law that harmonizes the ecosystem that has nurtured the innovation and led to the U.S. becoming a global leader in speed, access and adoption, while ensuring strong consumer protections — across all platforms and regardless of their provider. If ever we needed an X factor, we need it now, if we are to maximize the power and the promise of the internet.

[Kim Keenan is the president and CEO of Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council]

[Commentary] A new Broadband Access Coalition of internet service providers has joined forces with consumer, schools and health care advocacy groups to petition the Federal Communications Commission to open up the airwaves for spectrum best suited to a new, superfast broadband service for the whole of America.

This new approach does not rely solely on fiber, which is costly and difficult to deploy, but instead harnesses wireless broadband. This technology can be deployed at up to one tenth the cost of laying new fiber cabling to homes, with far fewer disruptions and project delays. It can also bring new superfast Wi-Fi services to areas that have no or little choice over their broadband provider. 94 percent of our internet traffic traverses Wi-Fi and home or business broadband connections – not more expensive cellular airwaves. The coalition’s petition proposes to open up new wireless spectrum for improving broadband services cost-effectively. This spectrum can provide great coverage in underserved rural areas, and can stimulate new competitive Internet Service Providers to enter the market and connect dense suburban areas. Unfortunately, the mobile industry is lobbying to secure this new spectrum band for its own exclusive use. The new wireless approach means consumers no longer have to be tethered to any physical infrastructure. Unlike challenging other traditional utilities, action doesn’t require consumers to overhaul their homes – all they have to do is make their voices heard.

[Fink is the CPO and Co-Founder of Mimosa Networks]

When the Federal Communications Commission went looking this year for experts to sit on an advisory committee regarding deployment of high-speed internet, Gary Carter thought he would be a logical choice. Carter works for the city of Santa Monica, California, where he oversees City Net, one of the oldest municipal-run networks in the nation. The network sells high-speed internet to local businesses, and uses the revenue in part to connect low-income neighborhoods. That experience seemed to be a good match for the proposed Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC), which FCC Chairman Ajit Pai created. One of the panel’s stated goals is to streamline city and state rules that might accelerate installation of high-speed internet. But one of the unstated goals, members say, is to make it easier for companies to build networks for the next generation wireless technology, called 5G. The advanced network, which promises faster speeds, will require that millions of small cells and towers be erected nationwide on city- and state-owned public property. The assignment seemed to call out for participation from city officials like Carter, since municipal officials approve where and what equipment telecommunications companies can place on public rights of way, poles and buildings. But the FCC didn’t choose Carter — or almost any of the other city or state government officials who applied. Instead the FCC loaded the 30-member panel with corporate executives, trade groups and free-market scholars.

Network neutrality advocates have set Sept 27 for their next coordinated protest of rolling back the Title II classification, as the Republican-majority Federal Communications Commission has proposed. The July 12 network Day of Action was an online and FCC-centric protest, the Sept 27 Day of Advocacy will be about facetime with policymakers, both on the Hill and at the FCC. According to Public Knowledge, one of the backers of the protest, the September event will feature participants going to Capitol Hill to make their case. The next day the protest will move to the FCC for the monthly open meeting to "let the commissioners know how you feel about net neutrality."

As Internet-based distributors move up and down the stack to become vertically integrated platforms with a preferred suite of affiliated content, there is a growing concern among policymakers that innovation among independent content creators and websites may be threatened. More fundamentally, the Internet is not one thing—it is many things, and our current regulatory regimes are struggling to address that complexity. These new platforms give rise to potential conflicts of interest, in which it might pay for a vertically-integrated platform owner to sacrifice some profits (if any) in its distribution division in order to support an affiliated (or favored, third-party) application.

This essay focuses on identifying and fixing this potential regulatory gap when crafting a “net neutrality” policy—a set of rules or standards designed to spur innovation at the “edge” of the Internet by preventing Internet service providers (ISPs) from engaging in discriminatory conduct. But the essay could just as easily be directed at the powerful online platforms wielded by Amazon, Facebook, or Google. The applicability of this remedy to other parts of the Internet is natural, not because market power is paramount there (though it certainly exists), but because there is a large enough threat to innovation in adjacent markets to online shopping, social media, and search, respectively.

[Singer is Principal, Economists Inc., and Senior Fellow, George Washington Institute of Public Policy. The author has served as a consultant to both ISPs and independent cable networks in regulatory matters.]

Apparently, House Commerce Committee Republican leadership got together, both in person and by phone, with the major trade associations on both sides of the network neutrality issue August 7 in a series of meeting throughout the day to discuss possible legislative pathways to clarifying the Federal Communications Commission’s network neutrality authority. The associations involved, according to sources, included NCTA: The Internet and Television Association, CTIA (the wireless industry), USTelecom, and the Internet Association. The associations were asked for, and answered with, suggestions for changes, updates, and input, or alternatives, based on a starting point of draft bills dating back a couple of years that included no blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization, though with paid prioritization language that was flexible enough not to be a blanket prohibition, say, only prohibiting “anti-competitive” or discriminatory paid prioritization.

At a recent panel convened by the Wireless Future Project at New America, Ellen Satterwhite, of the American Library Association, noted that 40 percent of libraries cannot meet the minimum speed requirements set by the Federal Communications Commission (100Mbs for small libraries and 1Gbs for large ones) because of high costs or lack of access. We need only look at Idaho to get a glimpse of this absurd pricing: One library there pays $1000 per month for 5Mb service, while another pays $650 per month for 40Mb service.

So how can we ramp up connectivity in these areas? One potential solution that has shown promise is fixed wireless internet. This, in a nutshell, involves beaming internet access from a broadcasting tower directly into people’s homes via a small receiver on their roof. These sorts of point to multi-point (P2MP) fixed wireless services are becoming increasingly popular, particularly in Middle America, in part because of the relative ease of deployment and the ability to provide gigabit-level speeds. You might be wondering, then, how we can encourage fixed wireless. At the panel, advocates and industry leaders discussed the possible benefits of expanding, or sharing, wireless spectrum access in the 3.7-4.2GHz band to wireless internet service providers, or WISPs. This would be a boon to rural WISPs like Jeff Kohler’s Rise Broadband. Kohler noted that companies like Rise are starting to “feel the squeeze” on the spectrum they’re currently allowed to operate on. He also noted that the cost per customer is considerably less as well, often being roughly $250 for someone using fixed wireless, where the average rural fiber consumer could be upwards of $1,000. In fact, the overall cost of deploying “wireless fiber” for his company was roughly one-tenth of the price of standard fiber.

An emerging debate about whether elected officials violate people's free speech rights by blocking them on social media is spreading across the US as groups sue or warn politicians to stop the practice.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued Gov Paul LePage (R-ME) and sent warning letters to Utah's congressional delegation. It followed recent lawsuits against the governors of Maryland and Kentucky and President Donald Trump. Politicians at all levels increasingly embrace social media to discuss government business, sometimes at the expense of traditional town halls or in-person meetings. "People turn to social media because they see their elected officials as being available there and they're hungry for opportunities to express their opinions and share feedback," said Anna Thomas, spokeswoman for the ACLU of Utah. "That includes people who disagree with public officials." Most of the officials targeted so far — all Republicans — say they are not violating free speech but policing social media pages to get rid of people who post hateful, violent, obscene or abusive messages.