Internet/Broadband

[Commentary] Do you think it’s okay for your internet service provider—the company, such as Comcast or Verizon, that connects you to the internet—to decide which websites you can visit or to determine which streaming services will look best on your smart TV? If the answer is no, you’re probably in favor of network neutrality. Consumers Union, the policy and mobilization arm of Consumer Reports, thinks that rolling back the rules could diminish competition, harming consumers.

Comcast shares have tripled over the past five years even as network neutrality was debated and then approved by President Barack Obama's Federal Communications Commission in February 2015. Yet despite a pronouncement from President Donald Trump's new FCC Chairman, Ajit Pai, that he plans to kill net neutrality rules that regulate internet service providers as public utilities, the outlook for Comcast's stock going forward isn't nearly as bright, media analyst firm MoffettNathanson LLC said in a reported published June 20.

That's partly to do with Comcast's prosperous run-up -- sales grew to $80 billion in 2016 from $55 billion in 2011 -- as well as accelerating declines in cable TV subscribers and a flattening picture for internet growth. For MoffettNathanson, it all comes down to pricing power. Yes, your friendly neighborhood (monopoly) broadband provider can be expected to use Washington's deregulatory mood to raise prices. But it's unclear whether Comcast and other broadband providers will be able to hike prices enough to offset broader slowdowns in their core businesses: internet services and pay-TV.

An ad industry watchdog says it will refer Verizon to the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission for refusing to participate in an investigation of ads touting broadband service. The move by the National Advertising Division, a self-regulatory unit administered by the Better Business Bureau, stemmed from cable company Comcast's challenge to Verizon's ad boasts, including claims that "Only FiOS gives you equal upload and download speeds" and that FiOS is the "fastest" and "most reliable" Internet service. Comcast argued to the NAD that Comcast speeds were "faster and more reliable" than Verizon's, according to tests by the FCC. Comcast also said that its top-tier service offers 2 Gbps in both directions, which would contradict Verizon's claim of being the only service to offer equally fast upstream and downstream speeds.

The Lake County (MN) board of supervisors recently unanimously voted for a Lake Connections sale, offering the municipal broadband network up to what they hope is the highest bidder. Lake Connections was formed seven years ago and obtained $66 million in funding to build the municipally owned broadband network serving Lake County in Minnesota. The sale process will “… be a highly structured, collaborative process between the county and the US Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS), the lender that provided the majority of the funding for the network’s construction.” The county promised to kick in $15 million to fund the “drops” for the FTTP network. The Federal Communications Commission also provided a $3.5 million grant, according to the news report. On the one hand, the Lake County government feels strongly that this was the only way to bring advanced broadband services to their community, and apparently, would do it again if given the chance. On the other hand, it also reveals the financial commitments building and operating broadband networks requires, and the risk associated with it. Some argue that local governments shouldn’t take on that risk. The leadership of Lake County seems to think the private sector is better suited to finish and operate the network, probably due in large part to the financial obligations it requires.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) announced the creation of the Global Indigenous Ambassador Program. The program establishes two Indigenous Ambassadors, to be selected from underrepresented indigenous communities. Through the inclusion of a broader and more diverse base of knowledgeable constituents, ICANN will be better equipped to support the next generation of the global Internet community.

"This is an exciting opportunity for two Indigenous Ambassadors to learn about ICANN and the At-Large community, representing the best interests of Internet end users," states Loris Taylor, President & CEO, Native Public Media. ICANN is now accepting applications for two Global Indigenous Ambassadors. Applicants must be members of unserved or underserved tribal or native communities and meet the ICANN Fellowship Program criteria. Selected participants will receive travel, hotel, and per diem for the ICANN60 Conference in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, to be held 28 October – 3 November 2017. The deadline for submitting applications is 6 July 2017.

President Donald Trump will commit on June 21 to improving internet access in the country’s hardest-to-reach rural areas as a part of his forthcoming push to improve the nation’s infrastructure.

President Trump will outline his pledge during a speech in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, shortly after visiting Kirkwood Community College, which specializes in fields like precision agriculture. In the eyes of the White House, farmers can’t use emerging big data tools that track crops in real time without faster, more reliable broadband internet service — so the Trump administration intends to tackle that challenge as part of its campaign to upgrade the country’s roads and bridges. “Even in American agriculture, technology is the key to better yields and more returns,” said Ray Starling, the special assistant to the president for agriculture, trade and food assistance. Those farmers in the coming years will have to learn “not only how to turn a wrench,” Starling said, “but also how to write code and rewire circuit boards.” But Starling did not offer any specifics as to how Trump planned to improve broadband in the country’s agricultural heartland.

Driving around rural Erie County, Pennsylvania, what you notice — aside from rolling hills, old farm houses, and the occasional small town — are the movie rental stores. There are a lot of them. Jamie Buie is the manager of Family Video in Erie City. As she rang up a customer with a towering stack of DVDs, she said her decision to take a job here five years ago came down to internet access. "For the longest time, we had satellite internet," Buie said. "And with satellite internet, you have no way to stream movies at all. So that was why I originally picked my job with Family Video, so I could get cheap rentals." Thirty-eight percent of people in rural Erie County don’t have access to fixed broadband, according to the FCC’s 2016 Broadband Progress Report. Nationwide, almost 40 percent of rural Americans lack access to fixed broadband, compared to just 4 percent of urban Americans. The movie rental business might benefit from lack of broadband, but it’s hurting many others.

[Commentary] On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States used an unlikely vehicle to expand the scope of First Amendment protection for Internet users. In Peckingham v. North Carolina, speaking for five members of the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy started with the general principle that the Court has always recognized the “fundamental principle of the First Amendment ... that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more.” This is the second important Supreme Court opinion addressing the role of the Internet in American life. The first, Reno v. ACLU, was issued in 1997, during the Internet’s dial-up era. Its depiction of the Internet as a medium deserving the same high degree of First Amendment protection as traditional print media played an essential role in the legal framework for the Internet’s evolution over the last two decades. Justice Kennedy’s Peckingham decision consciously builds upon Reno’s recognition of the Internet as offering “relatively unlimited low-cost capacity for communication of all kinds,” specifically citing how people use Facebook (“users can debate religion and politics with close friends ... or share vacation photos”), LinkedIn (“users can look for work [or] advertise for employees”) and Twitter (“users can petition their elected representatives and otherwise engage with them in a direct manner”) as examples. Justice Kennedy stressed the importance of insuring that the law leave ample room for the further evolution of the Internet’s platform for free expression.

[Andrew Jay Schwartzman is the Benton Senior Counselor at the Public Interest Communications Law Project at Georgetown University Law Center's Institute for Public Representation]

[Commentary] Presently, we are on the cusp of another internet reinvention called Web 3.0, and its opening act, the internet of things. Whether the promise of Web 3.0 is fully realized, however, will depend on the policy decisions we make today. The promise of Web 3.0 is finished without open networks to connect it. Precisely, the kind of openness the Trump Federal Communications Commission is trying to remove by undoing the existing Open Internet Rules. Thus far, the debate surrounding the Trump FCC’s undoing of the Open Internet Rules has been an echo of the arguments of 2014 and 2015 prior to the adoption of those rules. In fact, the entire open internet debate is rooted in arguments that have been frozen in time. There has never been a better description of the issue at the heart of the open internet debate: whether the companies that sell internet access to consumers should also be able to exploit their often-uncompetitive position to impose terms, conditions and fees on the activities that connect to the internet. An open internet means access to any content can’t be constrained. But the future and Web 3.0 are way beyond media. The call and response mechanism for Netflix to deliver a movie over broadband internet is a far cry from channeling the flood of intelligence created by billions of connected microprocessors. Hopefully, the nation’s tech leaders will help President Donald Trump see that future and the importance of keeping the internet fast, fair, and open.

[Tom Wheeler is a former chairman of the FCC]

[Commentary] Given the current climate at the Federal Communications Commission, it is not surprising that instead of writing a genuine apology, the FCC chose to dispute the fact that John Donnelly, a reporter for CQ Roll Call, was manhandled by FCC security as he attempted to ask Commissioner Michael O’Rielly a question. Following the “Save the Internet” rally that took place ahead of that day’s FCC vote to revoke net neutrality protections, open internet advocates — myself included — were treated with hostility in the FCC building when trying to access the meeting. Advocates were directed by guards to throw away signs tucked away in their bags before entering the building, and once inside, directed to the overflow room. Despite being a former FCC commissioner, guards and FCC officials made it difficult for me to enter the main meeting room even though I explained that a seat was being saved for me. I was also told that I could not stand in the back of the room. When finally seated in the press section, I was told that I could not move to any other vacant seats. It is not normal for public input to be unwelcome at the FCC, as it appears to be today. Chairman Pai must welcome comments from people of all stripes, return civility and respect to the debate and ensure that the FCC electronic filing system is prepared to handle the many more millions of comments that are expected. Americans, who have come to rely on the internet as an integral part of their lives, deserve and expect no less.

[Tristani is a special adviser to the National Hispanic Media Coalition and served as a FCC commissioner from 1997 to 2001. She is also a former executive director of the Benton Foundation.]