Network management

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.

Verizon’s Director of Network Planning Vincent O’Byrne outlined a Verizon next generation broadband strategy. That strategy is heavily focused on NG-PON2. It apparently will not include G.fast. “We have no strategy for G.Fast,” O’Byrne replied when I asked him why Verizon was not using G.fast for their multidwelling unit (MDU) deployments. O’Byrne stressed the goal of taking fiber all the way to the living unit, even in MDU environments. O’Byrne cited a variety of factors for passing on G.fast in favor of a true fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) approach. Those reasons include poor copper network conditions across some of Verizon’s territory, as well as past copper broadband experiences in MDUs that Verizon does not want to repeat.

Verizon has been using VDSL and ethernet over copper to reach individual units in MDUs, when bringing fiber to its basement. They’ve run into considerable operational and interoperability challenges with this approach, O’Byrne noted. “We see ourselves in this same situation with G.fast five years from now,” O’Byrne explained.

In a recent perspective, I reviewed a report authored by Dr. Christopher Hooton of the Internet Association on the impact of Net Neutrality regulation on broadband infrastructure investment. My earlier review of the IA Report focused mainly on Dr. Hooton’s difference-indifferences (“DiD”) model, which from an empirical perspective is the only analysis he offered that could plausibly quantify the effects of the regulation since it involves a counterfactual.

In this perspective, I return to Dr. Hooton’s analysis. My interest in further analysis stems from Dr. Hooton’s claim that his evidence leans in the direction of a positive investment effect in that his “regression coefficients of interest were positive in all but one case.” (That negative case being his primary DiD analysis.) Closer inspection of these “positive” cases reveals errors as severe, if not worse than, the errors plaguing his DiD analysis, including the fabrication of much of his data.

[Commentary] Many business models have been disrupted by the internet. The next incumbent industry being challenged includes the old-style cable and telecom companies. They do everything they can to throw mud on the open-access fiber-optic infrastructure — including UTOPIA — that some of us enjoy along the Wasatch Front. Don’t fall for it. The future is brighter than the negativism of these companies and their allies in the Utah Taxpayers Association. That negativism leads to flawed studies like that from the University of Pennsylvania, which are easily rebutted by Next Century Cities and the Coalition for Local Internet Choice. But one has to take a moment to understand why Utahns, and everyone in the country, want the opportunity for gigabit broadband at better prices.