Network management

Longtime Comcast customer Drew Weaver was surprised in mid-May of 2017 when he got an automated call notifying him that he’d gone over his 1TB monthly data cap. First of all, Comcast alleged that he'd exceeded the data cap two months in a row, and Weaver says he never got a notification about the first overage. Moreover, Weaver just didn't believe that he'd used more than 1TB of data. But after a weeks-long, tedious process of troubleshooting with Comcast, the company insisted that its data meter was accurate. Comcast agents also repeatedly urged Weaver to pay an extra $50 a month to upgrade to an unlimited data plan or risk paying a $10 overage fee for each additional 50GB, up to a maximum of $200 in extra fees each month.

According to Comcast, Weaver had used up his "courtesy months" in which a customer is allowed to exceed the data cap without penalty and would have to pay overage charges going forward unless he limited his usage or bought unlimited data. Weaver could afford the additional payments—but out of principle, he decided not to give Comcast the extra money. And so he ended his nearly 14 years of being a Comcast customer.

Proponents and opponents of data caps make conflicting claims about the effect of data caps on prices, network capacity and speeds, subscription, congestion, and consumer surplus. In this paper, we survey the academic literature on data caps and analyze the relationship between the characteristics of each paper's model or data and the paper's results.

We find that model or data assumptions about service differentiation, purpose of the data cap, and amount of competition strongly influence each paper's results. Consequently, conclusions about the effect of data caps are often limited to certain types of service providers (fixed or mobile) and/or to certain types of data caps (heavy-users or profit-maximizing). We find that most proponents' claims about data caps in fixed broadband service are incorrect, and that most proponents' claims about data caps in mobile broadband service are likely to be correct if and only if data caps increase competition. We also discuss how data caps may be evaluated under the FCC's 2015 Open Internet Order. We find that heavy-users caps on mobile broadband service are likely to satisfy the Order's rules, that profit-maximizing caps on mobile broadband service may or may not satisfy the rules, and that caps on fixed broadband service are unlikely to satisfy the rules.

[Scott Jordan is associated with the University of California, Irvine]

Because whether and how to regulate various parts of the Internet supply chain (or, if you prefer, ecosystem), I will try to explain below why common carriage obligations, such as network neutrality, are different from public utility regulation (even though most utility providers are common carriers), which is different from natural monopoly regulated rate of return/tariffing/price regulation. I will briefly explore some of the arguments in favor of applying some sort of public forum doctrine or common carrier obligation to social media platforms, and — because this invariably comes up in telecom space — why platform or other infrastructure providers are not and should not be covered by Title II or the Federal Communications Commission, even if we agree they should have some sort of public forum or even public utility obligations.

Despite assertions by Title II fans that the common carrier regulation regime has not adversely affected broadband investment, the Free State Foundation begs to differ and says it has the data to back that up. That came in reply comments—due Aug. 30—on Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai's proposal to roll back Title II and reconsider the rules against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization.

Free State pointed to research by its own Michael Horney that indicated Title II had depressed broadband capital investment by $5.6 billion in 2015 and 2016. The Title II reclassification went into effect June 12, 2015. But Free State says that is of more than scholarly interest and that that foregone investment has hurt the economy and job creation. He says the other side has little evidence to back their dismissals of the economic impact argument.

What I want to talk about today: the Federal Communications Commission’s efforts to harness the power of communications technology to improve the lives of the American people and boost economic growth and US competitiveness. I’d like to focus on three specific priorities. Think of them as the three "I's": Inclusion, Investment, Innovation.

With high-speed internet access in West Virginia’s rural areas seriously wanting, Sen Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) is pushing policy proposals favored by players on the right and left. According to the Federal Communications Commission, the Mountain State ranks 48th in the nation for broadband coverage. That helps explain why Capito co-chairs the Senate’s Rural Broadband Caucus, and why she’s willing to try practically anything. Last week, Sen Capito joined Sen Kirsten Gillibrand, (D-NY), in introducing the Broadband Connections for Rural Opportunities Program Act, which would channel as much as $50 million in grants annually to build out broadband infrastructure through a Department of Agriculture entity, the Rural Utilities Service.

The legislation introduced by Sen Gillibrand would provide as much as 75 percent of the construction and select deployment costs of a high-need broadband project, and it mentions prioritizing applicants such as state, local and tribal government stakeholders and nonprofits. Typically, low-interest loans and grants made through the Rural Utilities Service have gone to local co-ops and utilities.

Attorney Daryl Parks has filed a formal Federal Communications Commission complaint against AT&T on behalf of three African American low-income residents of Cleveland (OH) alleging digital redlining. The complainants--Joanne Elkins, Hattie Lanfair, and Rochelle Lee--allege that "wealthier and predominantly white areas have gotten premium upgradable high speed broadband access at bullet speed," while the three complainants "receive slow speeds at a rate as low as 1.5 mbps downstream or less, although they pay AT&T for high speed access."

They say that is unjust and unreasonable discrimination in violation of the Communications Act. They also allege that is part of a pattern of discrimination by AT&T nationwide, relying on a study by the National Digital Inclusion Alliance. The parties say they met with AT&T in July, which "flatly" denies that it is redlining, hence the suit. The complaint concedes AT&T offered to expand a 5G wireless broadband pilot program, but says that is not sufficient. Parks and company want the FCC to investigate the charge, including holding a hearing, which would likely be before the FCC's Administrative Law Judge, and they want damages.

The Web is a key space for civic debate and the current battleground for protecting freedom of expression. However, since its development, the Web has steadily evolved into an ecosystem of large, corporate-controlled mega-platforms which intermediate speech online.

In this report, we explore two important ways structurally decentralized systems could help address the risks of mega-platform consolidation: First, these systems can help users directly publish and discover content directly, without intermediaries, and thus without censorship. All of the systems we evaluate advertise censorship-resistance as a major benefit. Second, these systems could indirectly enable greater competition and user choice, by lowering the barrier to entry for new platforms. As it stands, it is difficult for users to switch between platforms (they must recreate all their data when moving to a new service) and most mega-platforms do not interoperate, so switching means leaving behind your social network. Some systems we evaluate directly address the issues of data portability and interoperability in an effort to support greater competition.

[Commentary] The desirability of regulations applicable to broadband internet service should be measured against their impact on investment, competition, and consumer welfare. If the regulations cause more harm than good, it’s time to revise them. This type of analysis is going on now at the Federal Communications Commission as the agency examines the desirability of continuing to apply what is called “Title II regulation” to the internet. Title II regulation, whose name comes from Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, was applied to the Internet two years ago by the agency at the behest of the previous Chairman. But the new Chairman has concluded tentatively that Title II regulation should be eliminated based on the test outlined above, and as a result, the agency is expected to decide soon whether to do so.

Go! Foton agrees with the new FCC chairman that Title II regulation does more harm than good. We therefore welcome the FCC’s action to examine the implications of Title II internet regulation and ultimately roll it back.

[Dr Simin Cai is Chief Executive officer at Go! Foton]

One of the biggest pressure points for anti-racist activists right now is domain registrars like GoDaddy, which sell addresses that point web users toward a site. While anyone can hook up a server to the internet, domain name sales are regulated by the multinational organization ICANN, which hands off management of generic top-level domains (gTLDs) to organizations called registries.

Registries can then sign contracts with ICANN-accredited registrars, which act as middlemen and sell domain names to the public. If registrars refuse to serve a site, the seemingly obvious solution — which several people have mentioned online — is to found your own “free speech” registrar. However, obvious isn’t the same thing as practical. ICANN usually takes a hands-off approach to moderating registrars’ content, and some registrars play host to unsavory spam and malware domains. But even if an alt-right registrar could get accredited, it probably wouldn’t be a profitable business.