Internet/Broadband

The Federal Communications Commission’s Wireline Competition Bureau released updated data on fixed broadband deployment as of June 30, 2016. These data were collected through FCC Form 477 and are available on the FCC’s Broadband Deployment Data – FCC Form 477 webpage.

Competitive cable operator WOW! reaffirmed a commitment not to implement data caps and usage-based policies for all of its high-speed Internet customers, holding that it’s taking the “consumer side” in that debate. WOW! said the promise of no data caps comes amid recently updated Internet-only plans and new bundles, adding that it now offers speeds up to 500 M bps across 95% of its footprint. WOW is also pushing ahead with a rollout of 1-Gig speeds using DOCSIS 3.1 technology, starting in markets that include Auburn and Huntsville (AL), Evansville (IN), and Knoxville (TN).

The “Customer is Always Right” maxim was perpetuated because it reflected a truth: in a competitive market, the seller that gives the customer what the customer wants will succeed and others will fail. But there is not enough competition in cable broadband markets to force cable companies to focus on satisfying customer needs as a path to beating the competition and “winning” the customer.

Some of the Internet's biggest names are banding together for a “day of action” to oppose the Federal Communications Commission, which is working to undo network neutrality regulations for Internet providers that it passed during the Obama Administration. Among the participants are Etsy, Kickstarter and Mozilla, the maker of the popular Firefox Web browser. Also joining the day of protest will be Reddit, the start-up incubator Y Combinator, and Amazon.

On July 12, the companies and organizations are expected to change their websites to raise awareness of the FCC effort. Mozilla, for example, will change what users see on their screens when they open a new browser window. The digital rally recalls a similar online effort in 2012 by Google, Wikipedia and others to protest federal legislation on Internet piracy. The companies blacked out their websites in an effort to show how the bill could lead to censorship.

Network neutrality doesn’t just cover streaming video. It also ensures that you can use the devices that you want. Under the current net neutrality rules, your internet provider can’t stop you from connecting any laptop, tablet, smartphone, or Wi-Fi router you want to your home network. Without net neutrality, the days when broadband companies and cell carriers could let traffic flow faster to one brand of phone or computer over another could be coming. And that’s just the start.

With people connecting more and more devices, from voice-controlled personal assistants like Apple’s forthcoming Home Pod to thermostats to cars, net neutrality becomes that much more important, even as the federal government moves to drop its own protections. Dismissing the rules could be a big problem for the future of the Internet of Things, since companies like Comcast–which is already working on its own smart home platform–certainly have the motivation to create fast and slow lanes for particular gadgets and services. If your internet provider can decide which personal assistant or smart home gadgets you can or can’t use, the broadband can dictate the winners and losers in the Internet of Things race. That wouldn’t bode well for competition, innovation, or you.

As detailed in this BULLETIN, a proper implementation of Title II precluded the Federal Communications Commission’s approach, forcing the Agency to ignore the “vast majority of rules adopted under Title II” and “tailor[] [Title II] for the 21st Century.” Surprisingly, the DC Circuit found in United States Telecom Association v. FCC that the agency had wide latitude to interpret the Communications Act and not only upheld the agency’s decision to reclassify but also its gross distortion of Title II. In so doing, the DC Circuit has extended Chevron deference beyond any reasonable limit, greatly expanding the Commission’s authority well beyond its statutory mandate.

This BULLETIN first presents several examples of how the 2015 Open Internet Order ignores both the plain language of Title II and the extensive case law to achieve select political objectives, followed by a discussion of the DC Circuit’s acceptance of such legal perversions. Next, this BULLETIN discusses how the FCC attempted to use the same theory of the case found in USTelecom to regulate the prices of Business Data Services. Conclusions and policy recommendations are at the end.

[Commentary] What America needs is clear, consistent, and sustainable internet policy. That can only come through legislation. We need a diligent rewriting of the 21-year-old act that guides telecommunication and internet policy. At the time of the law’s passage, there were just 13 million internet users in the United States. Today, there are 287 million.

The new telecom and internet law doesn’t have to be long and complicated, but it does have to be comprehensive. It has to enshrine the Clinton-era principles into law. It’s time to remove any ambiguity about whether the internet’s infrastructure is a public utility. It should not be. Competition and light-touch regulation built the internet, and they should keep on building it.

[Glassman was a former president of The Atlantic, publisher of The New Republic, executive vice president of US News & World Report, and editor-in-chief and co-owner of Roll Call.]

Rivada Networks might have lost the FirstNet contract to AT&T, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t still in the game. Led by co-CEOs Declan Ganley and former Sprint CFO Joe Euteneuer, Rivada Networks continues to respond to states that issue RFPs seeking input from vendors willing to build and maintain a statewide public safety LTE radio access network (RAN) that would be interoperable with FirstNet’s network. While FirstNet as an organization wants to see all the states opt in to the network it’s creating with AT&T, the law said states must be given the option to opt out. According to Ganley, that’s an important piece of the entire FirstNet endeavor. Spectrum was specifically allocated to FirstNet in part because public safety wanted to move away from the “stove piping” of the past where one vendor dominated. Moving to the inherently open LTE standard provided a way to do that.

Public policies are critical in narrowing the digital divide for older adults and ensuring more accessible broadband access. As the current Federal Communications Commission attempts to change the Lifeline program, policy makers should be reminded that older adults constitute a large number of the program’s beneficiaries, requiring access to essential communications with 911 and other emergency service providers, healthcare practitioners, family and friends and other caregivers. Policies and programs addressing privacy and security also are important for this cohort. Broadband access must be viewed as one of many fundamental civil rights. Guaranteeing that all older adults have unfettered internet access will maintain the vibrancy of these alternatives and others, while ensuring that they aren’t further disadvantaged in the technology revolution.

[Commentary] This post kicks of a series of blogs examining some of the more pernicious myths and misunderstandings in telecommunications policy. With a new fire lit under the network neutrality warriors, misinformation runs rampant and spreads quickly.

Let’s turn to the first myth: that financial data shows that Title II isn’t hurting Internet service providers’ investment in their networks.

Financial filings shows broadband investment went down roughly 2-3 percent after the Open Internet Order, consistent with industry’s own findings. It’s especially important that we see continued investment in the infrastructure that supports “best-efforts” open Internet. And there is good reason to think Title II would affect this. Not only did the Open Internet Order take potential business models off the table, and throw others into uncertainty under the Internet Conduct Standard, it represents the first step down the slippery slope to more onerous utility regulations, such as network unbundling requirements or price regulation.