Internet/Broadband

A new Consumer Reports survey shows that a majority of Americans favor net neutrality rules that prevent internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking lawful online content.

One main finding was that the majority of Americans—57 percent—support the current network neutrality regulations that ban ISPs from blocking or discriminating against lawful content on the internet. Sixteen percent said they opposed these regulations, while about a quarter didn't express an opinion on the topic. An even larger majority—67 percent—said that ISPs shouldn't be allowed to choose which websites, apps, or streaming services their customers can access. Almost as many—63 percent—don't think an ISP should be allowed to modify or edit content consumers try to access on the internet. When it comes to paid prioritization deals, in which ISPs can provide faster delivery of content to companies that pay a fee for it, roughly half the respondents—48 percent—said they didn't believe such practices should be permitted, while 26 percent said they should be permitted, and 26 percent expressed no opinion.

Of all concerns we have, probably the biggest one centers around something called paid prioritization. That’s where the broadband providers get to enter into special relationships with certain websites to get their websites into a “fast lane“ to get their content to users faster. There are a lot of problems with this idea. The first one is pretty obvious; a “fast lane” doesn’t exist. Fiber is fiber, and things travel across it at the same speed unless another force is acting on it. That means that in order to build the fast lane, you basically need to slow everything else down. Quite simply, we don’t think our users should be artificially slowed down. With extremely limited exception, the open Internet order bans paid prioritization. Walking back the order puts it back on the table, and that is dangerous. The same thing is true for blocking and throttling. These are not allowed by order of the open Internet order, except for network maintenance reasons. That is extremely important to the open Internet, and the customers we serve. It needs to persevere.

In rural America slow internet can mean more than missing shows on Netflix. Poor service limits access to health, business, and education opportunities that are readily available in urban locations with fast networks.

So far, major telecommunication companies have kept their attention on urban markets. Even when they have made the effort to tackle rural access, they have later scaled back on their commitments. Why? Customers were using too much data on their “unlimited” service plans. It’s an easy economic decision for them to make, but it doesn’t help the 39 percent of rural Americans living without high-speed internet access. In place of private companies, federal funding has been crucial in deploying rural broadband. But the level of funding has not kept pace with technology. As internet speeds get faster, the technology and infrastructure required to provide them becomes more expensive. While experts debate how to deploy broadband and what level of funding should be directed toward fostering adoption, the Federal Communications Commision seems to have an entirely different solution, and it’s not what you might expect.

Accusations that Google has tampered with search results are not uncommon and date back to the earliest days of its search engine. But they are taking on new life amid concerns that technology behemoths are directly — or indirectly — censoring controversial subjects in their response to concerns over so-called fake news and the 2016 presidential election.

In April, Google announced an initiative called Project Owl to provide “algorithmic updates to surface more authoritative content” and stamp out fake news stories from its search results. To some, that was an uncomfortable step toward Google becoming an arbiter of what is and is not a trustworthy news source. “They’re really skating on thin ice,” said Michael Bertini, a search strategist at iQuanti, a digital marketing agency. “They’re controlling what users see. If Google is controlling what they deem to be fake news, I think that’s bias.”

On Sept 21, the Open Technology Institute filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission about the availability of broadband across the United States.

In its comments, OTI explained that mobile broadband is not a substitute for fixed broadband—they are complements. Mobile services are generally more expensive, less reliable (particularly in rural areas), slower, and are also subject to restrictive data caps and expensive overage fees. Consumers also typically access mobile broadband on portable devices with smaller screens and limited computational abilities that cannot complete the full range of functions of a desktop or laptop computer for work, entertainment, and educational purposes. OTI also urged the FCC to continue steadily increasing its speed benchmarks to reflect the changing nature of fixed broadband.

AT&T says the latest claims that it is ignoring the broadband needs of low-income residents in Detroit are false and that it continues to enhance speeds. In a new complaint filed at the Federal Communications Commission, the telecommunications company has been accused of ignoring the broadband needs of low-income residents in Detroit. The practice is called “digital redlining,” a process of income-based discrimination carried out against lower-income neighborhoods.

“We do not redline,” AT&T said. “Our commitment to diversity and inclusion is unparalleled." AT&T added that its network investments are in line with the rules set by the FCC's Communications Act and that it will present its side of the story. "Our investment decisions are based on the cost of deployment and demand for our services and are of course fully compliant with the requirements of the Communications Act," AT&T said. "We will vigorously defend the complaint.”

The Federal Communications Commission approved its 20th Annual Mobile Wireless Competition Report. For the first time since 2009, the FCC makes an affirmative finding that the metrics assessed in the Report indicate that there is effective competition in the marketplace for mobile wireless services. The 20th Report concludes that competition continues to play an essential role in the mobile wireless marketplace, driving innovation and investment to the benefit of the American people and economy.

[Commentary] As progressive luminaries like Tim Wu and Susan Crawford continue fighting for utility-style regulations for broadband providers, prominent conservatives like Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon have begun demanding similar utility-style regulations for other internet “gatekeepers,” including major websites and online platforms like Google and Facebook. Even if you accept the premise of that argument — and reasonable minds disagree over just how much control is too much for one corporation to have — it’s far from clear that utility-style regulation is the proper response.

Indeed, in the dynamic markets for internet services, imposing true utility-style regulations would be a huge mistake. By giving up on market forces and ceding dominance to a single firm, utility-style regulation makes future competition impossible. Fortunately, strong antitrust and consumer protection laws can save us from this downward spiral of utility-style regulation.

NTCA–The Rural Broadband Association recognized 13 companies in rural areas of the United States and Canada that have earned Smart Rural Community Showcase awards as part of the association’s initiative to highlight efforts that make rural communities vibrant places in which to live and do business. The following broadband providers received national recognition:
CL Tel (Clear Lake, Iowa)
Dakota Central (Carrington, N.D.)
GBT (Rush Center, Kan.)
GVTC Communications (New Braunfels, Texas)
Hartelco (Hartington, Neb.)
Marquette-Adams Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (Oxford, Wis.)
Mosaic Telecom (Cameron, Wis.)
Panhandle Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (Guymon, Okla.)
Quadro Communications Co-operative, Inc. (Kirkton, Ont., Canada)
Red River Communications (Abercrombie, N.D.)
Totelcom (DeLeon, Texas)
Webster-Calhoun Cooperative Telephone Association (Gowrie, Iowa)
West Carolina Tel (Abbeville, S.C.)

Without a Net: The Digital Divide in America – a new documentary from Academy Award nominee Rory Kennedy and Verizon – focuses on the deep inequalities in America's education system that are keeping millions of students in digital darkness. The film, narrated by Academy and Grammy Award winner Jamie Foxx, and premiering on National Geographic at 10 p.m. ET on Tuesday, September 26th, spotlights the 'haves' and 'have nots' as it relates to technology in classrooms and presents the emotional and economic impact on students who lack access.

The film presents in-depth interviews with students, parents, educators, administrators and learning experts across the U.S., especially those from disadvantaged areas, and the frustrations, anxieties and challenges of trying to create a modern, tech-focused learning environment to ensure students are prepared to join the global digital workforce. Education experts weigh in on the serious inequalities in access and funding, as well as the need for multi-faceted solutions to close the technology gap.