Research

Australia is plagued by internet disconnections, drop-outs and slow download speeds, a survey has found.

The Choice internet satisfaction survey found six in 10 Australians have had issues with their service in the past six months. More than 75% of national broadband network customers surveyed said they had had problems, while more than 80% of ADSL and ADSL2 users listed varying speeds and connection issues.

“To make matters worse, some of the slowest providers also scored poorly when it comes to value for money and customer and technical support,” said Choice’s chief executive, Alan Kirkland. Telstra, Australia’s largest internet service provider, ranked last for value for money. The company’s customer and technical support also scored below the average.

To support the 2015 Open Internet Order (OIO), the Federal Communications Commission cited four potential violations of network neutrality over the previous ten years, only two of which it explicitly challenged. Why, then, did the FCC say a rule was desperately needed and Broadband Internet Access Service (BIAS) providers say the rule would be devastating given that their past behavior meant that the rule would not affect them much? To mix common sense with econspeak, why did anyone care about the Order if it was not binding? Tim Brennan, professor in the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County and former FCC Chief Economist, addresses this question and explores the potential effects of the OIO 2015 rule in “The Post-Internet Order Broadband Sector: Lessons from the Pre-Open Internet Order Experience.” In particular, he explores what lessons policymakers might learn from the handful of cases as they continue to grapple with net neutrality.

This post is the fourth in a series featuring the contents of a recent special issue of the Review of Industrial Organization, organized by the Technology Policy Institute and the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Technology, Innovation, and Competition. The short answer to why the Order matters if it doesn’t matter is that it is likely to affect future business models and network development. The longer answer is more nuanced. In summary, Brennan notes that the current net neutrality debate can be informed by past events, and should include additional issues in the present. He contends that things might not change all that much, under 2015 OIO or future net neutrality rules, but policymakers must consider how BIAS providers will be incentivized to innovate while stuck between edge providers and end users.

[Commentary] The Government Accountability Office issued a blistering report on the Federal Communications Commission’s efforts to assist low-income families. The report criticized the agency for spending $1.7 billion annually without knowing — or caring — whether any of this money actually helps narrow the digital divide. I advocated that Congress eliminate the Universal Service Fund’s shady, self-funding off-budget funding mechanism and instead make it a line item in the federal budget. This would make the program more transparent and subject to greater congressional oversight, which would help reduce fraud and abuse and keep program expenses tied to a fixed budget. Overall, the GAO report points to the difficulties that the FCC has, and will continue to have, by deciding simply to extend a Reagan-era telephone subsidy to cover broadband access. Unquestionably, the government should offer assistance to low-income consumers at risk of falling on the wrong end of the digital divide. But that assistance should be designed from the ground up, tailored to the needs of the population it seeks to serve, with controls to protect against fraud and abuse. As we have argued before, Lifeline needs revolutionary, not evolutionary, change.

[Lyon is an associate professor at Boston College Law School]

A Q &A with UC Santa Cruz sociology professor Lindsey Dillon.

Ars editors Annalee Newitz and Joe Mullin talked to UC Santa Cruz sociology professor Lindsey Dillon about how the Trump administration has been removing scientific and environmental data from the Web. Lindsey is part of a group called Environmental Data Governance Initiative (EDGI), which is working on ways to rescue that data and make it available to the public. Lindsey told us how EDGI got started in November 2016, within days of the presidential election. Its founders are scientists and academics whose main goal was to make sure that researchers and citizens would continue to have access to data about the environment. They organized data rescue events around the country, where volunteers identified vulnerable climate information on websites for several government agencies, including the EPA, DOE, and even NASA. The Internet Archive helped by creating digital records of all the at-risk pages.

Despite being still under development, it is envisaged that 5G networks will provide a ‘fibre-like’ experience to mobile users. As such, they are expected to accommodate services with very different requirements in terms of latency, bandwidth and reliability, among others, for the vertical sectors. However, the European Union has just approved the Telecommunications Single Market Regulation, which enshrines the network neutrality principle and guarantees that ‘all traffic through the Internet is treated equally’.

This article explores the potential conflict between net neutrality regulation and future 5G services, particularly regarding network virtualisation. We present a discussion on the challenges of building net neutrality upon judgements on whether traffic optimisation is objectively necessary. This proves complex in a technological environment that envisions network ‘slices’ created and priced on-demand according to the Quality of Service (QoS) required by specific applications at any given time. In addition, we argue that the ‘anything-as-a-service’ paradigm might turn into an important source of innovation for the future Internet infrastructure layer, and thus for the ecosystem as a whole.

A key concern with the Licensed-shared access (LSA) approach currently being developed by European regulators is that leaving incumbents and secondary users to agree to bilateral arrangements may be insufficient to incentivise an optimal level of sharing. We propose an efficient auction mechanism to incentivise incumbent users to offer shared access to the spectrum they use. The mechanism consists of two stages. In the first stage, LSA licences are auctioned. In the second stage, the incumbent is provided with a choice of either granting access under an LSA agreement to the winner of the auction or not. If the incumbent accepts, its existing licence fee is reduced, whereas, if it rejects, its existing licence fee is increased. The change in the licence fee is such that a rational incumbent always opts to share when it is efficient to do so, i.e. when the cost of sharing is below the value to the secondary user. We also explore how this simple mechanism can be extended to situations in which there is more than one incumbent in a band. Our proposed approach involves package (combinatorial) bidding and linear reference prices.

[Commentary] What is the role of cities in assuring that their residents have the affordable bandwidth necessary to thrive in the 21st century information economy? Municipal governments—more than other jurisdictions—will directly affect the cost of deploying fiber, the foundation for the abundant bandwidth that will serve next generation networks like 5G Mobile and the Internet of Things. Yet with a huge range of choices on how to influence their local broadband market, governments can struggle to understand how best to proceed. Into that breach arrives a new report entitled “Municipal Fiber in the United States: An Empirical Assessment of Financial Performance” by Christopher S. Yoo and Timothy Pfenninger of the University of Pennsylvania. Its stated purpose is to help municipalities by filling an “information gap by conducting a systematic analysis of every municipal fiber project in the United States.” Critically, the report concludes that the projects are money losers. I’m certain the report will provide sound bites for opponents of such projects. Unfortunately, for municipal leaders seeking a map for the path forward, it is both largely irrelevant and misleading. It’s a shame that the authors narrowly focused their gaze on Excel spreadsheets while ignoring how markets and communities are responding to the need for more abundant bandwidth. The report’s core message—which can be summarized as ‘let them eat DSL’—is one that does not deserve serious attention from cities.

The Federal Communications Commission has not evaluated the Lifeline program’s performance in meeting its goals of increasing telephone and broadband subscribership among low-income households, but has recently taken steps to do so. Lifeline participation rates are low compared to the percentage of low-income households that pay for telephone service, and broadband adoption rates have increased for the low-income population even without a Lifeline subsidy. Without an evaluation, which GAO recommended in March 2015, FCC is limited in its ability to demonstrate whether Lifeline is efficiently and effectively meeting its program goals. In a July 2016 Order, FCC announced plans for an independent third party to evaluate Lifeline design, function, and administration by December 2020. FCC and the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC)—the not-for-profit organization that administers Lifeline—have taken some steps to enhance controls over finances and subscriber enrollment. Nevertheless, GAO found weaknesses in several areas. GAO makes seven recommendations, which FCC generally agreed with:
require Commissioners to review and approve, as appropriate, spending above the budget in a timely manner;
maintain and disseminate an updated list of state eligibility databases available to Lifeline providers that includes the qualifying programs those databases access to confirm eligibility; this step would help ensure Lifeline providers are aware of state eligibility databases and could also help ensure USAC audits of Lifeline providers can verify that available state databases are being utilized to verify subscriber eligibility;
establish time frames to evaluate compliance plans and develop instructions with criteria for FCC reviewers how to evaluate these plans to meet Lifeline’s program goals;
develop an enforcement strategy that details what violations lead to penalties and apply this as consistently as possible to all Lifeline providers to ensure consistent enforcement of program violations; the strategy should include a rationale and method for resource prioritization to help maximize the effectiveness of enforcement activities;
ensure that the preliminary plans to transfer the USF funds from the private bank to the U.S. Treasury are finalized and implemented as expeditiously as possible;
require a review of customer bills as part of the contribution audit to include an assessment of whether the charges, including USF fees, meet FCC Truth-in-Billing rules with regard to labeling, so customer bills are transparent, and appropriately labeled and described, to help consumers detect and prevent unauthorized charges; and
respond to USAC requests for guidance and address pending requests concerning USF contribution requirements to ensure the contribution factor is based on complete information and that USF pass-through charges are equitable.

More than half of Americans think the US media reports news with a bias. The good news? The press gets a better grade today than in recent years, according to a new survey.

The 20th annual State of the First Amendment survey, out from The First Amendment Center at the Newseum Institute in Washington (DC), found 57% of Americans who participated in the survey said that the news media reports with bias. Even at a time when the Trump Administration is clashing with the mainstream media, this response is better than in 2016 when 77% of Americans said the media was biased. A similar response was found in 2015, when 76% answered that way. Respondents thought more favorably of the press in 2013 and 2014, when 54% and 59% said they thought the media was biased Perhaps fueling the lack of trust in the media is the vacuum in which many people get their news. More than half (53%) of the 1,009 adults, surveyed in May 2017, said they preferred to get news from outlets aligned with their political views. The center's executive director Lata Nott called that finding "both obvious and disheartening" and "one of the factors that keeps us so divided," in an essay accompanying the report.

10 findings about smartphones:

1) About three-quarters of U.S. adults (77%) say they own a smartphone, up from 35% in 2011.
2) Half of younger adults live in a household with three or more smartphones.
3) Mobile devices aren’t just for calling or texting. Americans are using their phones for a variety of nontraditional phone activities, such as looking for a job, finding a date or reading a book.
4) The smartphone is becoming an important tool for shoppers.
5) Growing shares of Americans – especially those who are lower-income – rely on smartphones to access the internet. Overall, 12% of U.S. adults were “smartphone-only” internet users in 2016 – meaning they owned a smartphone but did not have broadband internet at home. This represents an increase from 8% in 2013.
6) More than half of smartphone owners say they get news alerts on their phones, but few get these alerts frequently.
7) While smartphones are becoming more integrated into our lives, many users aren’t taking the necessary steps to secure their devices.
8) Smartphone ownership is climbing in developing nations, but the digital divide remains. Median smartphone adoption in developing nations rose to 37% in 2015, up from 21% in 2013, according to a Pew Research Center survey of 21 emerging and developing nations conducted in 2015. But with a median of 68%, advanced economies still have considerably higher rates of smartphone adoption, with the highest rates among surveyed countries found in South Korea, Australia, Israel, the U.S. and Spain.
9) Americans have different views about where it is and isn’t appropriate to use a cellphone.
10) The smartphone is essential for many owners, but a slight majority says it’s not always needed. Some 46% of smartphone owners said their smartphone is something “they couldn’t live without,” compared with 54% who said in a 2014 Pew Research Center survey that their phone is “not always needed.”