Internet/Broadband

For many, it's been a years-long pipe dream: Ultra-fast, lag-free Internet that comes to your PC or smartphone via satellite instead of a wire into your home. Facebook, Google and even SpaceX have all explored the idea, partly in hopes of selling broadband access to a growing market with enormous potential — the developing world. But now, a former Googler and friend of Elon Musk has beaten them all to the punch, becoming the first to receive permission to actually build a next-generation satellite Internet service that targets US customers. If it takes off, the project could benefit Americans nationwide by providing broadband anywhere in the United States, particularly in rural areas where it can be difficult to provide fast Internet connections using traditional ground-based cables.

At the heart of Greg Wyler's new network are a fleet of 720 satellites, all orbiting the earth at an altitude of roughly 745 miles. The first satellites would launch next year, and service could start as early as 2019. On June 22, federal regulators voted to give Wyler and his company, OneWeb, approval to use the airwaves that will beam the Internet down to earth.

A tiny Internet service provider has sued Comcast, alleging that the cable giant and its hired contractors cut the smaller company's wires in order to take over its customer base. Telecom Cable LLC had "229 satisfied customers" in Weston Lakes and Corrigan (TX) when Comcast and its contractors sabotaged its network, the lawsuit filed recently in Harris County District Court said. Comcast had tried to buy Telecom Cable's Weston Lakes operations in 2013 "but refused to pay what they were worth," the complaint says.

Starting in June 2015, Comcast and two contractors it hired "systematically destroyed Telecom’s business by cutting its lines and running off its customers," the lawsuit says. Comcast destroyed or damaged the lines serving all Telecom Cable customers in Weston Lakes and never repaired them, the lawsuit claims. Telecom Cable owner Anthony Luna estimated the value of his business at about $1.8 million, which he is seeking to recover. He is also seeking other damages from Comcast and its contractors, including exemplary damages that under state statute could "amount to a maximum of twice the amount of economic damages, plus up to $750,000 of non-economic damages," the complaint says.

Charter has agreed to pay $13 million to New York State after failing to complete broadband construction that was required as part of its purchase of Time Warner Cable. Charter can get $12 million of that back if it completes the buildout under a revised schedule.

Charter was required to extend its network to 36,250 homes and businesses in the state within one year of the TWC merger being approved, but it only completed the buildout to 15,164 of them by the May 18 deadline, state officials said. The NY Public Service Commission is taking public comments on the settlement before giving it final approval. The $13 million payment includes $1 million in grants for computer equipment and Internet access for low-income residents. The other $12 million is "a security to meet its network expansion commitment going forward," which Charter can recover upon completing the merger conditions. "To ensure the company keeps its promise, Charter will forfeit its right to earn back up to $1 million each time it misses a six-month build-out target," the state said. Charter can "earn back up to $12 million based on future performance," the settlement said.

Local Des Moines (IA) CBS affiliate KCCI featured a story recently on ‘cord cutting’ of wireline telephone service that highlights the challenges of the current rural broadband regulatory framework for small, rural telecommunication companies. The report is somewhat misleading, in that it doesn’t provide a full explanation. An Ogden Telephone Company customer, Christina Janssen-Solheim, was featured because she complained about a policy of the phone company that is directly tied to the current regulatory framework. Janssen-Solheim complained that she was going to be charged $80 per month if she wanted to disconnect her landline telephone.

[Commentary] Thanks to the open internet, a new generation of activists fighting for civil rights and equality has been able to make their voices heard in ways previously unimaginable. Now the Trump Administration is trying to turn back the clock and silence them by undoing the Network Neutrality rules. That is simply unacceptable. We have fought and won this fight before, and now it’s time to get organized again. Send your comment to the Federal Communications Commission today.

With the Trump administration waging a war on so many communities — from attempting to gut health-care coverage for millions of people to repeatedly trying to implement an unconstitutional Muslim ban — now, more than ever, we need the open internet to organize and fight back. I’ll work hard to protect Net Neutrality from inside the halls of Congress, but we need your voice too.

[Commentary] The week of June 12, the European Union Directorate-General for Competition released a report on the effects of zero-rating practices on competition in broadband markets, commissioned from consultants DotEcon, Aetha, and Oswald & Vahida. The report reviewed both the theoretical arguments regarding zero-rating and competition (including work by myself and Roslyn Layton) and actual experiences with the practice from European Union countries.

The report’s findings are extremely informative, given the extent to which the purported harms from zero-rating alarmed a large number of United States advocates in the past. Notably, this resulted in the February 2015 Open Internet Order requiring case-by-case analysis of alleged breaches of a zero-rating general conduct standard in agreements between broadband internet access service operators and end consumers.

[Bronwyn Howell is a faculty member at the School of Management, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.]

This paper reviews experiences with subsidizing telecommunications services, and broadband in particular, in the United States and around the world. Based on those lessons it proposes a path forward intended to yield the biggest broadband bang for the subsidy buck.

Specifically, an effective broadband subsidy program would:
Set a single, clear objective: bring broadband service to populated areas that do not have it.
Define “broadband” by taking into account consumer demand characteristics. This definition should be use-centric, not technology-centric. Any technology should be eligible to participate in the auction.
Make the program a one-time subsidy.
Rank-order the bids in terms of cost-effectiveness in terms of new locations, not area, connected per subsidy dollar. Fund the most cost-effective project first, the next most costeffective second, and so on until the budget is exhausted.
Rigorously evaluate the results and have organizations other than the one implementing the program conduct the evaluations.

[Commentary] In order for us to expand prosperity and extend economic opportunity to more Americans, we must remain on the cutting edge. This means that government at all levels must focus on removing barriers to innovation and ensuring that technological advances aren’t strangled by bureaucratic red tape.

For starters, we’re taking aggressive action to speed the roll-out of next-generation wireless networks. But to get to the 5G future that will make the Internet of Things fully possible, we’ll need much more infrastructure than what today’s networks demand. If America is to lead the world in 5G, we need to modernize our regulations so that infrastructure can be deployed promptly and at scale. Another Federal Communications Commission priority has been making the agency more agile and responsive.

[Commentary] Because infrastructure supply-siders wield considerable influence in this debate, connectivity efforts have taken center stage, pushing inclusion efforts and research to the side. Yet, effective policy will require customized approaches that focus on specific places and communities, matching both demand and supply concerns. Researchers agree. Broadband policy needs to move towards a more nuanced view. Hopefully policy makers will adopt it.

[Will Rinehart is a tech policy analyst in DC]

As part of its ongoing efforts to accelerate access to high-speed Internet service, the Federal Communications Commission is seeking comment on ways to increase deployment, competition and innovation in the market for broadband in apartments, shopping malls and other “multiple tenant environments,” or MTEs. While FCC rules currently bar telecommunications and video services providers from entering into exclusive agreements that can stifle competition in MTEs, the FCC has adopted a Notice of Inquiry seeking information about what additional barriers to deployment may exist. The FCC is requesting input on whether and how it should act to remove any barriers that raise the cost and slow deployment in MTEs of next-generation networks, which are critical to jobs, health care, education, innovation, and information.

Specifically, the Notice seeks comment on:

• The current state of broadband competition in MTEs.
• Whether there are state and local regulations that may inhibit or have the effect of inhibiting broadband deployment and competition within MTEs, such as by preventing market entry or mandating infrastructure sharing by private companies.
• Whether the Commission should take any action regarding service providers’ exclusive marketing and bulk billing arrangements within MTEs.
• How revenue sharing agreements and exclusive wiring arrangements between MTE owners and Internet service providers may affect broadband competition within MTEs.
• Other practices that may impact the ability of Internet service providers to compete in MTEs.