Internet/Broadband

[Commentary]

• Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai plans to reverse the agency’s open internet rules passed in 2015.
• The Open Internet Rule makes sure that the internet, the most important network of the 21st century, is open and available to everybody, and not controlled by a handful of companies.
• More than half of American consumers don’t have a choice when signing up for internet service, allowing monopolists to make the rules.
• The Open Internet Rule, as it currently stands, ensures that there is oversight in the internet marketplace.
• There are four companies, cable and telephone, that provide three-quarters of the access to the internet for American consumers, and they would prefer to be unregulated.
• The Open Internet Rule is the law of the land that protects consumers. If Congress or the Trump administration’s FCC eliminate the rule, consumers will lose their current protections. Without the Open Internet Rule, cable and phone companies will pick what you see, what you pay, and what you have to pay extra for. Congress plays an important role in the oversight of the FCC and in how the internet is regulated.
• The Open Internet Rule has been successful in protecting consumers, in stimulating innovation, and in providing good returns for those who provide internet service. If it isn’t broken, it doesn’t need to be fixed.

[Wheeler is a visiting fellow in Governance Studies. Wheeler is a businessman, author, and was Chairman of the Federal Communication Commission from 2013 to 2017.]

The Federal Communications Commission is currently in the process of redefining much of rural and low-income America in reverse when it comes to internet access. The good news: There is still time to tell them that’s a bad idea. In fact, just recently, the FCC listened to calls from stakeholders, as well as 12 members of the US Senate, to extend the time allotted for people to weigh in.

So let’s all get cracking! Let’s not let the agency change the rules for its own homework assignment so it doesn’t have to do the project. Congress told them in no uncertain terms to get real, high-functioning connectivity to all Americans, to every corner of our nation. No one should have to settle for less.

The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee held a hearing Sept 14 titled, "FCC’s Lifeline Program: A Case Study of Government Waste and Mismanagement". Committee members criticized the subsidy program for phone and Internet access that was the subject of a recent watchdog report detailing cases of fraud and abuse. Chairman Ron Johnson (R-WI) said at a hearing that there “probably” needs to be a complete overhaul of the Lifeline program. “We need to completely rethink how we distribute that subsidy,” Chairman Johnson said.

Sen Claire McCaskill (D-MO) called on the Federal Communications Commission to crack down on the companies that she says are defrauding the program. “Why are we providing these companies with this massive opportunity for fraud?” Sen McCaskill said. Both Sens McCaskill and Johnson suggested diverting funds from Lifeline towards programs focused on expanding rural internet access.

Once again we will read headlines trumpeting faults in the Federal Communications Commission’s Lifeline program that do not match the realities of the day. Despite significant reforms made under the previous administration and no new evidence of waste, fraud, or abuse, the Lifeline program continues to be under attack while our nation’s most vulnerable remain on the wrong side of the digital and opportunities divide. I am especially disappointed by the current FCC majority and those who repeatedly reject real reform efforts. This administration refuses to allow new broadband providers into the Lifeline program, which will deepen and cement the digital divide while omitting the fact that the Lifeline program has one of the lowest improper payment rates of all government subsidy programs.

Continuing to vilify our nation’s only means-tested universal service program and remaining on the sidelines while communities and their residents do without connectivity, is a dereliction of the oath we were sworn to uphold. I, for one, remain committed to working with those who wish to improve the only FCC program that directly tackles the challenge of affordability in communications. Going forward, it is my sincere hope that those who are empowered to help those in need, will offer solutions, not attacks, so that we may enable all of our citizens to participate in a 21st century digital economy.

[Commentary] Rural areas don’t need to wait on expensive and hard-to-build fiber-to-the-home networks to start using broadband. In many cases, fixed wireless can provide a fast and affordable last-mile connection in underserved areas. And some communities are building the system themselves.

WISPs – Wireless Internet Service Providers – are the un-song heroes closing the digital divide in rural communities. New technology makes WISPs faster than ever, much more affordable than fiber, and a great option in areas where terrain and population density make wired systems problematic.

[Craig Settles is a broadband industry analyst and consultant]

Passed 27 years ago, the Americans with Disabilities Act mandates equal rights and opportunities for people with disabilities. Title III of the ADA specifically mandates that all public and private institutions and spaces render themselves accessible to those with sensory, cognitive, and physical limitations–think of Braille on store signs, sound-enabled walk signals, on-ramps carved into sidewalks. But over the past year and a half, a string of lawsuits filed on behalf of people with disabilities against companies indicates that one crucial space has been bypassed in effectively interpreting the purpose of the ADA: the internet.

It makes sense that the ADA’s mandates around internet accessibility would be fuzzy. In 1990, when the law was passed, the web was a fringe pastime. Why concern yourself with e-commerce accessibility when Americans were still doing their shopping in brick-and-mortar stores? Now, however, 79% of people in the U.S. shop online; in that and so many other ways, including access to financial services, the internet has effectively transitioned from a privilege to a necessity. And Mark Lacek, a marketing CEO who was tipped off to the string of web-accessibility related lawsuits by his business attorney, saw an opportunity to help companies build ADA compliance into their online operations.

The Federal Communications Commission’s recent inquiry into reducing the minimum speeds for broadband—something that sparked criticism among open internet advocacy groups—is the latest example of how FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has failed to champion policies that would enable rural broadband to succeed once it’s built.

The most recent indication that the rural broadband promised under Pai’s chairmanship might not be the digital divide fix the FCC thinks is the agency’s approach to its annual evaluation of broadband standards, which is mandated by Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the subsequent Broadband Data Improvement Act of 2008. According to the notice adopted on Aug. 8, the FCC will “seek comment on whether a mobile speed benchmark of 10Mbps/1Mbps is appropriate for mobile broadband”—and, more to the point, if mobile broadband is good enough to replace fixed broadband. While seemingly innocuous, this is a marked pivot from the standards adopted under former Chairman Tom Wheeler, which established 25Mbps/3Mbps as the minimum. Given Pai’s initial opposition to those standards as a commissioner (ones that were in line with telecommunications lobbyists) and the short period for comment of the current inquiry, the new move seems like a clear move against innovation. More importantly, the new inquiry’s focus on lowering broadband speeds at a time when the FCC has demonstrated a commitment to rural broadband seems like an easy out in defining what progress for the latter would look like. In other words, the move would shrink the onus on internet providers to provide customers with the best possible service—and rural communities will have the most to lose before they get a chance to gain.

[Commentary] I authored a number of empirical studies examining the effect of network neutrality regulation on investment, employment, and broadband speeds. A few parties offered comments and criticisms on my research including the Open Technology Institute at New America, AARP, and Netflix. Of these, the criticisms levied against my work are either uncompelling or wrong. While I found no valid or meaningful criticisms of my work, one attempt to discredit it was so incoherent and inaccurate that I feel it is worth commenting on more fully to avoid confusion. It is clear from its comments that Free Press has zero comprehension of my empirical analysis.

Three dozen organizations, including Common Cause, the Communications Workers of America, and the Benton Foundation, have sent letters to individual members of the Senate asking them to preserve the Lifeline communications subsidy program from what they say are Federal Communications Commission efforts to undermine it. The Lifeline program is part of the Universal Service Fund subsidy and is directed at those who can't afford access to basic communications—originally phone and increasingly internet. In the letter, the groups dub the program a "successful public-private partnership." "While critics have focused on alleged fraud and abuse as a reason to eliminate or limit the program, these critiques ignore the reforms already adopted that safeguard the program," the groups said. "Lifeline modernization involved sweeping reforms, including minimum standards obligations, additional cost-control measures, and a budget of $2.25 billion annually. These reforms are rapidly being implemented and are the most effective way to safeguard the program and ensure that program funds go to families in need. Implementation of the newly adopted independent eligibility verifier begins this year and will be complete by the end of 2019." [The Benton Foundation was a signatory on the letter]

The internet is now a fundamental component of the American economy, creating new ways to educate, employ, bring services to, and entertain every person. Broadband, especially wireline broadband in American homes, is the essential infrastructure for unlocking the internet’s economic benefits. However, broadband infrastructure is far from ubiquitous, both in terms of where it operates and who subscribes to it, and those deficits are not shared evenly across the country. As such, policymakers must understand how the national digital divide varies depending on the place.

The following research assesses both components of the digital divide, and for the first time studies them in every American metropolitan area and neighborhood. Identifying local gaps—and not just in where telecommunications infrastructure goes, but also who subscribes to it—more comprehensively portrays the extent of digital disconnect.