Tag: FCC

Congresswoman Proposes Broadband Internet Subsidies For Low-Income Families

For years, it was essential that every family had a phone line. The U.S. government started the Lifeline program to help impoverished families afford this essential communication tool. Now the Internet has overwhelmingly replaced traditional phone lines, but the Lifeline program hasn’t adapted to this reality. One Congresswoman is hoping to change that.

Ars Technica reports that Rep. Doris Matsui has introduced the Broadband Adoption Act of 2013. The bill would modify the Lifeline program to provide cheaper broadband Internet services to low-income families across the country.

“In today’s digital economy, if you don’t have access to the Internet you are simply at a competitive disadvantage. For example, more than 80 percent of available jobs now require online applications,” said Congresswoman Matsui. “The Internet is increasingly the economic engine for growth and innovation. The Lifeline program provides a tangible service to lower-income Americans and it is imperative that the Lifeline program be reformed and modernized to account for broadband services. We must ensure lower-income Americans have a greater opportunity to participate in the digital economy, whether it be for workforce training, education, finding a job or creating the next big idea.”

Matsui says that a recent FCC report found that nearly 100 million Americans are without broadband Internet services. She places the blame squarely on the high cost of broadband Internet in America. Many low income families simply can’t afford the high cost of broadband Internet. The bill would help to make faster Internet affordable to all.

Of course, the Broadband Adoption Act of 2013 isn’t just about providing faster Internet to low-income families. Matsui has envisioned a number of reforms to the Lifeline program for the FCC to enact if the bill were to become law:
The bill directs the FCC to establish a broadband Lifeline Assistance program that provides low-income Americans living in rural and urban areas with assistance in subscribing to affordable broadband service.
The proposal would require the FCC, in calculating the amount of support, to routinely study the prevailing market price for service and the prevailing speed adopted by consumers of broadband service.
The bill is technology neutral to promote competition from broadband service providers under the program.
The bill allows eligible consumers to choose how they would like their Lifeline support- whether for broadband, mobile, basic telephone services or a bundle of these services. The bill clarifies that eligible households will qualify for only one lifeline support amount for one of those functions, not for multiple purposes.
The bill requires the FCC to establish a national database to determine consumer eligibility for Lifeline and to prevent duplication.
The bill encourages the FCC to consider providing a preference to participating broadband service providers that include components involving digital literacy programs as part of their offerings.
Eligible households must meet federal low-income guidelines or qualify for one of a handful of social service programs including, but not limited to: SNAP, Head Start, WIC, National School Lunch Program, Tribal TANF or Medicaid.

It’s hard to see how anybody in the telecom industry would be opposed to this bill. It would net ISPs more subscribers to their expensive broadband plans while receiving plenty of free government money. There’s an argument to be had that we can’t be spending more money on social welfare programs, but the counterargument is that universal Internet access is worth it.

April 24, 2013

Julius Genachowski Stepping Down As FCC Chairman

Julius Genachowski has served as FCC Chairman since his appointment in June 2009. Over the years, he has spearheaded a number of projects, including the ambitious National Broadband Plan. Now he’s leaving that all behind.

The New York Times reports that Genachowski has announced his resignation from the FCC this morning. He’s expected to formally leave the Commission in the coming weeks.

This isn’t the first departure from the FCC in recent weeks. Commissioner Robert M. McDowell recently announced that he would be leaving the Commission after serving since 2006. Both departures leave the FCC with two open spots that are to be filled in the coming months.

Aside from the National Broadband Plan, Genachowski’s departure throws the fate of other FCC pet projects into question. For one, the FCC was trying to sell unused TV airwaves to mobile carrier operators. Broadcasters resisted the sale, however, and it remains to be seen if Genachowski’s successor will continue to push for the sale.

Another plan with an unclear fate it the City Gigabit Challenge. It pushed for each state to offer at least one gigabit network by 2015. It could be just the kick the Internet needs in the US, but his successor may not encourage such an endeavor.

Despite such concerns, Genachowski is confident in the FCC’s ability to continue its work:

“While there are challenges ahead in this fast-moving, globally competitive sector, a revitalized FCC is prepared to continue taking them on. I’m deeply grateful to President Obama for his vision, friendship, and the opportunity to serve our country. I’m proud of what we’ve done together to harness technology to advance the American dream for the 21st century. I know you’ll continue to fight hard to fulfill this agency’s vital mission, and I look forward to continuing to work together until my last day at the agency, and to count you as family and as an inspiration for long after that.”

Hopefully that work includes delivering broadband to the 19 million Americans who still don’t have it.

March 22, 2013

FCC To Hold First Gigabit Workshop This Month

In late January, the FCC announced the Gigabit City Challenge. The campaign aims to get at least one gigabit network in all 50 states by 2015. To do that, the Commission will be holding a number of workshops to help community and industry leaders get started.

Telecompetitor reports that the first FCC-hosted gigabit workshop will take place in Washington D.C. on March 27. The Commission isn’t saying what will happen at the workshop, but it revealed a rough idea of what the workshops will accomplish in the release:

The goal of this workshop is to explore how current gigabit communities deployed their networks, the economic and social benefits that accrue to gigabit communities, ways communities can aggregate demand in order to make a gigabit network deployment more economically appealing, and how communities can leverage their assets to incent an ultra-fast network.

Here’s hoping not all the workshops take place in D.C. It would be more advantageous for everyone if the FCC were to host a number of workshops in regions around the country so that every state can get in on the action.

Even with these workshops, it will be a daunting task to get a gigabit network in every state. The incumbent ISPs will lobby against any serious competition brought against them while arguing that nobody wants gigabit speeds in the first place. These workshops will hopefully prove once and for all that the majority wants gigabit speeds, and will do anything to get it.

If you want to check out the first workshop, it will be held in the Commission Meeting Room at the FCC headquarters.

March 6, 2013

White House: “It’s Time to Legalize Cell Phone Unlocking”

Less than two weeks after a petition on the We The People site crossed the 100,000 signature threshold, the White House has issued on official response on making cellphone unlocking legal again.

And they totally support it.

In a statement that can only be seen as a huge win for activists in this arena, the White House just announced that “it’s time to legalize cellphone unlocking.”

“The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties,” said Senior Advisor for Internet, Innovation, & Privacy David Edelman. “In fact, we believe the same principle should also apply to tablets, which are increasingly similar to smart phones. And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren’t bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network. It’s common sense, crucial for protecting consumer choice, and important for ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive wireless market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers’ needs.”

In January, unlocking new cellphones became illegal via a decision from the Library of Congress. In short, they reversed their decision to exempt cellphone unlocking from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It’s still legal to unlock phones purchased before January 26th, but doing so on any device purchased after that cutoff mean you could run afoul of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Edelman goes on to explain that the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) previously made their opinion on the matter known – full support for the concept of cellphone unlocking. But that the NTIA’s recommendation was ultimately rejected by the Library of Congress.

The Library of Congress also released a statement.

“The rulemaking is a technical, legal proceeding and involves a lengthy public process,” they said.

And although they recognize that “rulemaking serves a very important function, but it was not intended to be a substitute for deliberations of broader public policy,” it doesn’t look like the Library is planning on fast-tracking the will of the people here (and now the White House).

“Clearly the White House and Library of Congress agree that the DMCA exception process is a rigid and imperfect fit for this telecommunications issue, and we want to ensure this particular challenge for mobile competition is solved,” said Edelman, also noting that the White House respects the process performed by the Librarian of establishing and eliminating exceptions – in this case having to do with the DMCA.

Here’s what the White House says about moving forward:

The Obama Administration would support a range of approaches to addressing this issue, including narrow legislative fixes in the telecommunications space that make it clear: neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation.

We also believe the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), with its responsibility for promoting mobile competition and innovation, has an important role to play here. FCC Chairman Genachowski today voiced his concern about mobile phone unlocking, and to complement his efforts, NTIA will be formally engaging with the FCC as it addresses this urgent issue.

Last week, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said that the FCC would be looking into the issue.

March 4, 2013

FCC Will ‘Look at’ the Illegal Phone Unlocking Issue

After gaining a lot of traction on the internet, the current illegality of unlocking cellphones will receive a federal investigation.

Back in January, the Library of Congress decided that the unlocking of cellphones would no longer reside on the exemptions lists for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act – a move that basically turned unlocking cellphones into an illegal activity. As of right now, it’s still legal to unlock phones purchased before January 26th, but unlocking phones purchased past that date will run you afoul of the DMCA.

Of course, many feel that unlocking cellphones should be legal in all respects – it’s their device once they buy it, and it’s that simple.

Late last month, a petition on the White House’s We The People site to make unlocking legal crossed the required signature threshold, which means that the Obama administration is forced (to a certain extent) to issue an official response. While we’re still waiting for that response, today we learn that the Federal Communications Commission will look into the matter.

“The ban raises competition concerns; it raises innovation concerns,” FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski told TechCrunch.

“It’s something that we will look at at the FCC to see if we can and should enable consumers to use unlocked phones.”

At this point, Genachowski isn’t sure about what power the FCC has to enact change in this matter. But they will look into it.

In the meantime, we will wait on the White House’s response. That petition currently boasts over 112,000 signatures.

March 1, 2013

FCC Votes To Free Up Spectrum For Wi-Fi Devices

The spectrum freed up for Wi-Fi is a finite resource. Too many devices can congest the networks and slow down service for everybody. The FCC wants to prevent that from happening, and have taken steps to relieve congestion with its latest proposal.

The FCC announced today that it has unanimously voted to free up 195 MHz of additional spectrum in the 5 GHz band. This new spectrum will be available to unlicensed devices. The Commission also proposed to relax regulations on wireless devices and to streamline existing rules.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said the Commission is taking “a big step to ease congestion on traditional Wi-Fi networks, which will mean faster speeds and fewer headaches from U.S. consumers.”

The FCC notes that the freed up spectrum will not only help decrease congestion in public spaces, but it will help increase speeds of personal wireless networks in the home. That’s great news for those of who have multiple devices running on a single Wi-Fi network in the home.

Before you start lining up more devices on your personal network, know that the FCC has only voted on a proposal to free up the spectrum. The Commission now has to take public comments before making its final decision. The plan will probably not face any real opposition, however, as industry groups are already praising it.

The National Cable and Telecommunications Association said that the FCC’s bid to free up more spectrum will help meet increasing consumer demand:

“…existing Wi-Fi spectrum is growing increasingly congested and more must be found to meet skyrocketing consumer demand and enable increased speeds of next-generation Wi-Fi. More extensive use of the 5 GHz band, along with additional unlicensed spectrum in other bands, will permit cable companies and other innovators to continue to provide Americans with new benefits, businesses with new opportunities, and those in need with life-saving connections.”

The FCC’s proposal fits snugly into its National Broadband Plan that aims to increase access to broadband across the nation. Freeing up more Wi-Fi can help accomplish that, but let’s hope the Commission can get to work on setting up Gigabit networks across the nation as well.

[h/t: The Hill]

February 20, 2013

FCC Report Shows ISPs Are Mostly Delivering What You Pay For

Once a year, with no specific schedule in mind, the FCC offers up a report on broadband quality in America. It’s part of the Commission’s National Broadband Plan that seeks to study broadband growth in the U.S. and ways to expand cheap, fast Internet across the country. This month’s report shows that ISPs haven’t really improved much since the last report in July.

Let’s get the most important part of this report out of the way. Are ISPs not delivering advertised speeds? Some aren’t, but the majority of them are, at least during peak periods. The study found that in September of last year, ISPs delivered 97 percent of advertised speeds with some even going above and beyond the call of duty by offering over 100 percent of their advertised speeds.

Of course, there are some ISPs that are still not delivered anywhere near their advertised speeds. Some of these ISPs include AT&T, Qwest, Windstream and Lexington’s own Insight. All of which are offering anywhere between 80 and 90 percent of the advertised speeds.

Which ISPs are going above and beyond what they promise? Cablevision, Verizon Fiber and ViaSat are all offering more than 100 percent of their advertised speeds. Amazingly, ViaSat is offering almost 140 percent more than what they currently advertise in download streams.

Moving on, the FCC report reveals that consumers are continuing to migrate to faster Internet speeds. This is only a good thing as it’s once again proving wrong the concept that most Internet consumers don’t want faster speeds. In even further good news, 46 percent of consumers on 0 to 1 Mbps speed Internet moved up to a faster speed tier between April and September of last year. Unfortunately, the study doesn’t say to which tier these folks moved to, but it was enough to raise the average speed of the Internet in the U.S. to 15.6 Mbps. The FCC notes that this is an annualized increase of 20 percent.

Finally, the report found that satellite Internet is making huge leaps and bounds in terms of advertised speeds versus actual speeds. You already saw before that ViaSat was offering 140 percent of its advertised speeds, and that carries over to the actual charts which shows that satellite Internet providers on average offer 137 percent of their advertised speeds. Coming in second place is Fiber, which offers 115 percent of its advertised speeds. Cable is second with 98.5 percent, and DSL is last with 85.3 percent.

The FCC points out, however, that satellite Internet, which is largely offered as an alternative to rural homes that can’t access to terrestrial lines, still has issues with latency. That is the time it takes to connect and transfer information is still very slow compared to land lines. That being said, satellite Internet companies are improving their technology every year which has led to this year’s massive jump over its traditionally advertised speeds.

US ISPs still delivering what you pay for

So, what can we take away from this report? It’s good that ISPs are still mostly delivering what they advertise, and that people are still upgrading to higher speeds. What the FCC report doesn’t take into account, however, is the prohibitive prices and refusal to expand that keep most consumers away from high speed Internet. Those issues need to be addressed before we start seeing truly remarkable results from these reports.

It seems that the FCC will be focusing on this more in the future. In a statement to The Hill, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said that “we most continue to see increases in broadband speed and capacity” to “unleash innovation and realize broadband’s full potential.” Let’s hope the Commission will actually do something about that this year.

February 15, 2013

The Case For Faster, Cheaper Internet

The United States has a problem – our Internet costs far too much for speeds that barely amount to anything. The FCC engineered a plan to get us on the right track with the National Broadband Plan, but not a lot has come of it yet. Now one Internet fairness proponent has come out swinging in favor of cheaper Internet for all.

Susan Crawford, former special assistant to President Obama for science, technology and innovation, recently went on air with veteran journalist Bill Moyers to talk about the current state of the Internet in the U.S. Here’s what you can expect to hear about:

“Government has allowed a few powerful media conglomerates to put profit ahead of the public interest – rigging the rules, raising prices, and stifling competition. As a result, Crawford says, all of us are at the mercy of the biggest business monopoly since Standard Oil in the first Gilded Age a hundred years ago.”

Susan Crawford on Why U.S. Internet Access is Slow, Costly, and Unfair from BillMoyers.com on Vimeo.

If you want to learn more about Internet monopolies and how it affects our economy, Crawford has written a book about it called Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age.

[h/t: Gizmodo]

February 11, 2013

FCC Challenges All 50 States To Each Get At Least One Gigabit Network By 2015

For millions of Americans, having access to speedy Internet is still an impossibility. The FCC has promised it would fix this when it announced the National Broadband Plan in 2010. Since then, there hasn’t been much progress made on the agency’s goal of making sure everybody has access to inexpensive broadband Internet. At a meeting on Friday, the Commission finally showed some signs that it’s starting to get serious.

CNET reports that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski recently met with a room full of mayors across the U.S. to issue a challenge to them. It’s called the “Gigabit City Challenge” and its goal is to have at least one city in every state outfitted with gigabit Internet by 2015. It’s a bit more ambitious than the original National Broadband Plan that categorized “broadband” as being 100 Mbps.

“American economic history teaches a clear lesson about infrastructure. If we build it, innovation will come,” said Genachowski. “The U.S. needs a critical mass of gigabit communities nationwide so that innovators can develop next-generation applications and services that will drive economic growth and global competitiveness.”

So, what spurred the FCC to finally start taking gigabit Internet expansion seriously? As you can imagine, the increased rate at which gigabit networks are being announced was a major contributor. The gigabit networks in Chattanooga, Kansas City and Seattle are specifically called out as being major innovators in bringing faster Internet to the masses.

Any of the aforementioned cities will tell you, however, that installing gigabit networks takes a lot of time, and more importantly, a lot of money. How is the FCC going to overcome the hurdle of established ISPs refusing to put forth the cash to renovate and expand their current networks? The Commission says it will establish “a new online clearinghouse of best practices to collect and disseminate information about how to lower the costs and increase the speed of broadband deployment nationwide.”

To compliment the new clearinghouse, the Commission will also “hold workshops on gigabit communities:”

The workshops will convene leaders from the gigabit community ecosystem—including broadband providers, and state and municipal leaders— to evaluate barriers, increase incentives, and lower the costs of speeding gigabit network deployment. Together, the workshops will inform the Commission’s clearinghouse of ways industry, and local and state leaders can meet the challenge to establish gigabit communities nationwide.

The FCC has honorable intentions with its latest “challenge,” but we’ll have to see if it can spur the change needed to bring gigabit broadband to every state in the U.S. ISPs have traditionally avoided these kind of major investments instead relying on slow Internet and abusive data caps to make a quick buck. Getting local government on board is a good first step, but now it has to find some common ground with an industry that doesn’t care much for the Commission or its regulations.

January 21, 2013

Advocacy Groups Urge FCC To Investigate Data Caps

At CES, Sen. Ron Wyden laid out his tech policy plans for 2013. One of the more prominent plans was to introduce legislation that would prevent ISPs from instituting data caps. Now some advocacy groups have added their voices calling for federal regulation of data caps.

The Hill reports that Public Knowledge and Free Press are now asking the FCC to launch an investigation into how ISPs utilize data caps on their networks. The groups also want Congress to hold hearings on the issue to determine if data caps are really necessary. One report seems to think they aren’t.

A report from The New American Foundation late last year found that data caps are, by and large, used only to introduce false scarcity into the broadband market. This allows ISPs to retain high prices and charge users who use more data.

Advocacy groups also call out ISPs that use data caps as a way of discouraging competition. Many ISPs impose strict caps so consumers don’t stream as much video on services like Netflix so consumers are forced to subscribe to cable TV packages that the ISP also conveniently owns. Such actions are not punishable by law at the moment, but proposed legislation from Sen. Wyden would make it punishable under antitrust laws.

What do ISPs have to say about all of this? They claim that data caps are incredibly fair, and actually bring value to the consumer. The companies argue that having data tiers allows consumers who only use the Internet for email can pay for less while those who use a lot of data can pay for more. The major flaw with that reasoning, however, is that ISPs are still discouraging Internet use on their networks when they should be encouraging it. The Internet is a major force of innovation and education, and data caps only impede that in the name of short term profit.

So, how likely is the FCC to take on data caps? The Hill suggests that the commission may take on data caps if it can win its lawsuit against Verizon. The company claims that the FCC has no authority to implement net neutrality rules. If Verizon wins, it would set the kind of precedent that would make data cap regulation almost impossible.

January 15, 2013

It’s Been a Good Year for Unnecessary Censorship [VIDEO]

Every week, Jimmy Kimmel ~~pays tribute~~ gives a giant f**k you to the FCC with his segment “This Week in Unnecessary Censorship.” A well-placed bleep and a pixellation can make even the most innocent phrases sounds absolutely filthy, as is evidenced by the bit.

And now that 2012 is winding down, Kimmel has just released the year-end wrap up of one of his best segments. Here it is, “This Year in Unnecessary Censorship”:

In other news, I really need to start watching Judge Judy.

December 19, 2012

AT&T Fined $700,000 by the FCC Over Plan-Switching

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission this week issued an Enforcement Bureau consent decree stating that AT&T has agreed to pay $700,000 to the U.S. Department of Treasury to “resolve complaints that the company switched certain consumers to its mandatory monthly wireless data plans even though it had promised they could retain their existing pay-as-you-go data plans.”

AT&T is also now required to refund excess charges that were paid by individual customers, which could be as much as $25 or $30 a month in the case of customers who didn’t use much data.

The fine ends an FCC Enforcement Bureau investigation that found AT&T forced certain customers, who were grandfathered in with pay-as-you-go data plans, into newer (and more expensive) monthly data plans. In September 2009 AT&T made monthly data plans mandatory for new subscribers, but told the grandfathered customers that they could keep their plans. In November 2009, AT&T began transferring these users, without their consent, to the same data plans that were offered to new subscribers.

“Today’s action sends a clear signal that wireless carriers can’t wrongfully charge consumers,’’ said Julius Genachowski, FCC chairman. “These strong FCC accountability measures will ensure customers are not over-charged. I am pleased that AT&T is taking the appropriate steps to resolve this issue.”

AT&T has also agreed to a compliance plan, which includes customer notifications, customer representative training, and compliance reports to the FCC.

In July of this year, AT&T followed Verizon by changing its subscription model once again. Though AT&T didn’t force customers from their monthly data plans to the new shared data plans, Verizon did end its grandfathered unlimited data plans, upsetting many customers. It was a blatant cash grab that left customers paying more for each GB of data, but Verizon was upfront about the matter, meaning the FCC is unlikely to issue a fine for its actions.

November 7, 2012

FCC Needs Your Help In Testing Mobile Broadband Speeds

The FCC, love ’em or hate ’em, has been instrumental in increasing broadband speeds across America. The National Broadband Plan has encouraged ISPs to increase their speeds and spread the Internet to more communities across the U.S. Their latest report on broadband performance was encouraging. Now they’re taking it to the next level.

The FCC announced today that they will be launching a measurement of mobile broadband service across the nation. They will hold an open meeting on September 21 to take input from concerned citizens and stake holders on how they should proceed with the test.

Much like the broadband performance report, the FCC will create a tool that lets American citizens test the speeds of their mobile broadband connections. This will allow them to report their speeds directly to the FCC so they can compile a report of which service providers are actually providing the speeds and coverage that they promise in advertisements.

The FCC hopes that the data they collect will prove valuable to consumers who wish if they’re being overcharged for subpar service. They also hope that it will help to spur competition among mobile carriers. It would be nice to see AT&T and Verizon actually compete instead of the current charade of competition they put on. An unlimited data plan like T-Mobile currently has in place would be welcome from the big players as well, but the FCC’s test is unlikely to influence such an outcome.

Interested parties who attend the open meeting will be able to meet with Commission staff from the Office of Engineering and Technology. Representatives from the Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau will also be present to take questions from both the industry and consumers.

The National Broadband Plan is more than just increasing speeds of broadband. The U.S. is currently the leader when it comes to mobile broadband, and the FCC obviously wants to keep that lead. Consumers holding wireless carriers accountable is the first step to an even better mobile infrastructure. In our world of wireless devices, such an infrastructure is becoming increasingly important.

September 6, 2012

FCC Report Shows Rural Communities Still Don’t Have Broadband

There was a sign of hope earlier this month. A sign that maybe, just maybe, access to fast and affordable Internet was increasing across the country. It’s true that developed areas are getting access to faster and cheaper Internet, but rural communities are still getting screwed over according to a new report from the FCC.

The FCC recently wrapped up its annual broadband progress report and published the findings today. There’s a bit of good news to be had, but there’s plenty that needs to be worked on according to the report. There is still a lot of people who have no access to broadband Internet.

Let’s start with the good news first: the FCC found that more people have access to broadband Internet than last year. They found that 7 million more people in the U.S. now have access to what the FCC considers broadband – 4 Mbps or higher.

With the addition of 7 million people, 94 percent of Americans now have access to the Internet. Most of those people are getting their access through cable or DSL. Unfortunately, super fast Fiber makes up less than 20 percent of American households, but that number should increase by a bit once Google Fiber launches in Kansas City later this year.

In other good news, the U.S. is now the global leader in 4G wireless coverage. You can thank the wireless wars in the U.S. for that as all the major carriers are competing to outshine the rest in terms of 4G coverage.

All good things must come to an end, however, and that’s where the bad news begins. Even with a 7 million increase in broadband access, there are still an estimated 19 million Americans who lack access to basic broadband. It’s important to remind you that the FCC is rather generous in defining broadband at 4 Mbps. It’s kind of sad that people in rural areas can’t even get speeds at which other people take for granted.

What’s worse is that an alarming 40 percent of people who can purchase broadband choose not to. Why would anybody deny themselves the convenience? The cost or a perception that the Internet isn’t useful to their everyday lives. It’s easy to understand the latter reason, especially for folks who didn’t grow up with the Internet, but it’s a shame that cost is still a factor in the proliferation of broadband.

The cost is always going to be the biggest obstacle to the spread of broadband throughout the country. The worst part is that the cost isn’t just stopping people from upgrading to broadband from DSL or dial-up, but it’s also preventing people from getting faster Internet. The cost of Internet is still abhorrently expensive. Until prices come down, you’re not going to see the FCC’s goal of 100 million homes with 100 Mbps downstream/50 Mbps upstream become a reality.

You can read the rest of the FCC report here. It’s a long read, but there’s plenty of good stuff in there about the present state of the Internet in the U.S. It also gives some hope that the situation on cost and availability may be improving. We’ll have to wait until next year’s report to find out.

August 21, 2012

US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Butts, Cuss Words

The Supreme Court of the United States has unanimously dismissed some fines divvied out to television broadcasters by the Federal Communications Commission due to cussing and the occasional frame or two of nudity.

The court sided with the broadcasters because it said broadcasters didn’t have a way of expecting that celebrities’ unplanned utterances of cuss words on awards shows (looking at you, Bono) or even the brief flash of Dennis Franz’s plump loaf of an ass on NYPD Blue would elicit fines from the FCC. Actually, the FCC didn’t have any problem with Franz showing his backside; apparently, the example that earned NYPD Blue‘s broadcaster, ABC, a fine from the FCC involved some lady-butt display in a 2003 episode.

While this ruling is a welcome reprieve for ABC, which faced fines of up to $1.24 million for allegedly violating the FCC’s guidelines on indecency, the court’s decision isn’t a full-on ruling on the constitutionality of the FCC’s indecency policy. According to the Associated Press, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, “It is unnecessary for the court to address the constitutionality of the current policy.”

Given the judicial branch of the U.S. government is often perceived as a bunch of stiff robes, the decision indicates that even the high court can agree that mild obscenities aren’t going to bright about the end of days. And besides, if a court on which sits that gesture-flicking jester, Justice Antonin Scalia, can’t abide by a few blue words and the occasional backside of a grown man, then really, where has our national sense of humor disappeared to?

June 21, 2012

Google “Surprised” that UK Privacy Agency Cares About Privacy

The Information Commissioner’s Office in the United Kingdom announced last week that it would be re-opening its inquiry of Google and its payload data-collecting Street View cars. In a letter sent to Google’s Global Privacy Counsel, Peter Fleischer, ICO Head of Enforcement Steve Eckersley cited recent revelations that arose from the Federal Communication Commission’s investigation of the Street View cars’ spying habits as grounds to revisit the case.

Today, The Telegraph has obtained and published in full a copy of Fleischer’s reply to the ICO and, unsurprising, Google resorts to the most commonly accepted form of apology in our modern era: the non-apology.

Fleischer’s lengthy missive to the ICO begins with how “profoundly sorry” the company was about the payload data collection then reminisced about Google’s cooperation with the ICO. However, before individually addressing each of Eckersley’s questions, Fleischer added, “Google is surprised that the ICO has decided to re-open its investigation into this matter,” and proceeded to redirect the ICO with an undue lesson in data storage as well as adherence to the story that Google didn’t know nothin’ about no Street View spying before 2010.

Fleischer continues to attest that Google doesn’t actually know what is included in the collected data apart from what it supplied the ICO with in 2010 because it hasn’t looked at it. Whether you believe that or not is up to you, but given Google’s bloodlust for consumer information, believing that Google wouldn’t access that data is akin to expecting that a rabid pack of cheetahs wouldn’t run down a zebra coated in bacon grease.

However, Google did comply with the ICO’s request to supply a copy of the original software design with the reply. Fleischer also included “certificates of destruction in respect of payload data collected in the UK” and closed the letter with the suggestion that the ICO should have no other questions for Google.

That last part is a dry pill to swallow. I understand that this is legal-speak politesse, leading an investigator into agreeing that, yes, there is nothing more to see here, but that is ingenuine. In all truth, there may be nothing left to see here but it’s hard to take Google at its word because the company has become a masterful escape artist when it comes to directly answering questions. With that history of obfuscation never far behind, Google should leave it to the ICO to decide when the investigation is over.

June 20, 2012

Google Street View Faces Probe in Australia

The Google Street View wi-fi spying scandal may have been quelled in the United States, but the fun’s just getting started in other parts of the world. Over the weekend, an independent privacy watchdog in United Kingdom launched an investigation into Google’s use of the Street View cars to sponge up information from people using unsecured wi-fi networks. Today, Australia’s government is joining Team Investigate Google.

Australia’s Privacy Commissioner, Timonthy Pilgrim, is planning to reassess whether Google should be referred to the Australian Federal Police following the U.S. Federal Communications Commission report that found Google had essentially covered up the wi-fi spying habits of the Google Street View car in spite of Google previously saying it wasn’t really doing all that spying.

Google’s Street View cars typically drive around the world and photograph ground-level images so that users of Google Maps can take walking virtual tours of different areas. However, information was recently made public that not only were Google Street View cars secretly collecting personal information from unencrypted wi-fi networks like browser histories, emails, chats, passwords, and many other bits of personal data, but that supervisors at the company actually knew about the info-siphoning.

The FCC has fined Google for delaying and obstructing the agency’s investigation into the Google Maps spying on wi-fi practice but didn’t really do anything to Google for being a Big Brother creep and spying on people. More, the fine was a measly $25,000, which is barely a bite of bread crust for Google. Stay tuned to see what Australia’s government decides to dish out to Google (if anything).

May 29, 2012

$200 Million Raised for Gigabit-Per-Second Broadband Initiative

A startup in Ohio called Gigabit Squared has raised roughly $200 million to fund a gigabit-per-second broadband initiative involving six universities across the U.S.

Gigabit Squared has called upon the the University Community Next Generation Innovation Project (Gig.U), which consists of 30 universities, to tap the 6 communities to develop the ultra-fast broadband networks. Blair Levin, executive director of Gig.U, commenting on the ample funding, “yes, America needs an upgrade, and that, yes, there are investors and innovators willing to step up to get it done.” The project will be known as The Gigabit Neighborhood Gateway Program, and will be the first multi-community broadband gigabit deployment in the U.S.

Each Gigabit Neighborhood Gateway Program project will consist of:

– The use of underutilized network assets and capacity and local investment to drive services and unlock long-term value and sustainability,
– A framework to create new capacity and spur development, including community service applications that promote better health, education and community services,
– Previously unavailable speed and bandwidth,
– Digital economic development strategies to aggregate revenues and lower the overall costs of scaling gigabit-broadband, and
– A future-state network that will serve as a platform for innovation, next generation application development, workforce development and job creation.

Mark Ansboury, president of Gigabit Squared, states, “The Stimulus Funding was a great jumpstart to get broadband initiatives on track in the U.S. But it is just a starting point – In order to realize true economic revitalization, we’re urging our national and community leaders to think and act in more creative ways. And we’re backing those efforts with significant investment of our.”

In related news, the National Association of Broadcasters has recently given the FCC and Google the go-ahead in moving forward with white spaces, which are unused television bands that can be used for ultra-fast wifi connections.

May 24, 2012

FCC Rule Change Would Pave The Way For Internet TV

A little while ago we brought you news that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski had voiced support for usage-based pricing of broadband internet service. Speaking at the annual conference of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Genachowski said that such a pricing model would promote fairness to the customer and innovation among ISPs. Nevertheless, it’s concerning for “cord cutters” who have scaled back or eliminated cable service in favor of streaming internet.

Genachowski’s comments notwithstanding, however, it seems the FCC is also mulling changes that would be decidedly beneficial to cord cutters. The agency is considering changing the definition of “multichannel video programming distributor” (MVPD) to include internet based organizations like YouTube, Hulu, or Netflix.

Historically, MVPDs have been clearly defined as content providers like satellite and cable companies. Under existing FCC rules, networks are required to sell their content to any MVPD that wants it. By changing the definition of MVPD to include online-only services, the FCC would make it so that Hulu, for example, could purchase content from CBS and CBS would be obligated to sell (CBS is one of the few holdouts that does not allow its content on Hulu).

The question of what constitutes an MVPD arose when Sky Angel, an online-based Christian media company approached the Discovery Channel about offering Discovery Channel programming to Sky Angel customers. When Discovery refused to sell, Sky Angel appealed to the FCC. Though the FCC originally ruled that Sky Angel was not a MVPD, and thus Discovery was not obligated to sell Sky Angel their content, Sky Angel’s continued appeals have prompted the FCC to consider changing the rules about what makes a MVPD.

Speaking at the NTCA conference, FCC General Counsel Austin Schlick acknowledged that the move would have “very, very broad implications.” Not only is Schlick right, he may have left out a “very.” So far, internet-based content services like Netflix, Hulu, and the like have been at the mercy of content owners. To return to a previous example, that’s why you can’t watch CBS programming on Hulu, but you can watch CBS on even the smallest and least significant cable provider in the country. According to the FCC’s current rules, Jim’s Cable TV and Used Car Repair in Podunk, USA counts as a MVPD, and CBS is obliged to sell their content. But since Hulu is not an MVPD, CBS is under no such obligations. If the FCC changes its rules about what makes an MVPD, all that could change.

Such a rule change would also pave the way for niche-based content providers like Sky Angel to offer a selection of cable and network programming tailored to the needs and desires of its audience. What’s more, it would also pave the way for exactly the kind of content offerings that Apple reportedly wants for the long-rumored iTV. If the FCC does change the rules for what makes a MVPD, it could be a major game-changer for the whole TV industry.

May 23, 2012

FCC Chairman Supports Usage-Based Broadband Pricing

You probably remember the early days of the internet’s growth and popularity in the 1990s, when more and more people were getting computers with dial-up modems and people were still figuring out the etiquette of email. Back then, a lot of us had limited internet plans. You paid a fee per month for a certain amount of internet time. Just as with cell phone plans nowadays, people with such plans worried about going over their internet minutes and being charged extra for it. Within a few years, though, unlimited plans were all the rage. Now you could spend as much time as you wanted on the internet without worrying about going over your minutes.

Then came broadband, and since unlimited dial-up plans were so popular, the service providers kept them in place as broadband proliferated. Now not only could we spend as much time as we wanted on the internet, we could do all the stuff we wanted a whole lot faster. In recent years, though, the advent of streaming video has made internet service providers wonder whether unlimited internet for all is really the best way to go. Companies like Comcast and Time Warner have recently begun experimenting with usage-based pricing and data caps. While such moves allow the providers to squeeze more revenue out of their broadband internet offerings, they are immensely unpopular with subscribers, who have gotten too accustomed to the all-you-can-eat internet buffet to be happy about having caps put on how much they can consume.

Now, though, it looks like usage-based pricing has a new ally. Speaking at the annual meeting of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association – “The Cable Show,” as the conference is called – FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski voiced support for usage-based internet pricing. Such a model, he said, would “help drive efficiency in the networks” while also promoting competition among providers and being more fair to users.

While Genachowski may be right about usage-based pricing and its potential to be fairer to users and drive competition, the adoption of limited internet plans raises potential issues for so-called cord cutters. People who have scaled back or eliminated their traditional cable television plans in favor of using services like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Instand Video to get the bulk of their television content. Cord cutters rely on their internet connection for entertainment more than most. With the cable companies (and other content providers) wary of cord cutters and what they represent, there is a very real possibility that the cable companies could use usage-based pricing as a means of squeezing extra money out of customers who have abandoned the companies’ traditional cable offerings.

May 23, 2012

FBI Is Hoping To Wiretap Internet Services – Should It Be Allowed?

As technologies have advanced, they have dramatically changed the way that we live and interact. We, as consumers, have become accustomed to the convenience, capabilities, and even the entertainment that they provide. But, should these same advantages be applied to other areas such as law enforcement?

This topic has recently come up for debate after the FBI indicated that it is contemplating legislation that would require Internet firms to build backdoors into their services for government surveillance. The bureau is hoping to amend the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) in order to require companies such as Google, Microsoft, Apple, and Facebook to comply with federal wiretapping orders if the need arises.

CALEA, in its current form, applies to telecommunications companies. It was amended in 2004 to also include broadband networks, but if the FBI’s effort works, it could also force Web companies to alter their code to ensure surveillance capabilities.

“Basically, the FBI wants to amend CALEA to keep up with the changes in technology that have taken place over the last 18 years since CALEA became law,” Michael Donahue, partner at Marashlian & Donahue, LLC, tells WebProNews.

In the past, the FBI has worked to develop independent solutions for these types of companies, explained Donahue. However, due to budget cuts, the funding for them no longer exists.

These recent developments are part of the bureau’s mission to resolve, what it calls, its “Going Dark” problem. According to information released by the FBI, “Going Dark” refers to “law enforcement’s limited capability to comprehensively and lawfully collect data and information, conduct electronic surveillance and analyze the raw data due to the rapid evolution of telecommunications and data collection technology and services.”

Research shows that the “Going Dark” problem dates back several years. Under this initiative, Donahue told us that the FBI is trying to achieve the following actions:

To commit the FCC to regulate technical standards for solutions
To require the FCC to approve a standard in order for it to be considered a safe harbor
To eliminate or modify the current exemption in CALEA for private networks (i.e., Universities, Colleges, etc.)
To eliminate or modify the current exemption for information services
To provide stronger enforcement of existing requirements that providers that enable encryption are also able to decrypt the information for law enforcement
To require providers to certify their CALEA compliance annually

“While this was a small problem a number of years ago,” pointed out Donahue, “it’s becoming an increasingly larger problem as more services are moving to different technologies and more innovative technologies that are not currently covered by CALEA, or they fall into a gray area where CALEA may or may not apply.”

The FBI has said that, with this move, it has no intention of gaining more authority. It believes the amendment would be a natural evolution of its current tools and that it would help their agents do their jobs more effectively.

“What it’s [FBI] seeking is the ability to go to a provider and obtain the kind of information that it’s authorized to get under the law in a cooperative manner,” said Donahue.

He went on to say that law enforcement currently runs into the problem of, after obtaining the court order, finding the company doesn’t have a solution in place for letting it get the information it needs. Another issue that law enforcement is facing is dealing with a company that has a solution but finding that it hasn’t been maintained, thus making it unusable.

Since these problems have persisted for several years without a solution, the FBI has reported the non-compliant parties to the FCC. Based on current processes, the commission, in turn, investigates the companies to see if they are in compliance with CALEA and its own rules. The FCC then has the authority to fine or require the companies to comply. Although the commission has not issued any notices of liability yet, Donahue told us that he wouldn’t be surprised if it does in the near future.

The current form of CALEA is careful to include protections for the privacy and security of users, but there are concerns being raised over these areas in light of a potential amendment the FBI is pushing. The FBI has yet to release an official proposal, but tech companies, privacy advocates, and consumer groups are not likely going to be supportive of such a measure.

The monitoring of users’ online activities has become increasingly controversial in recent years, and it has sparked the introduction of numerous bills in Congress. However, given the reactions to SOPA and CISPA, it is not likely that the FBI’s amendment proposal will pass without a fight.

“There are valid arguments on both sides, and I think what’s important is that both sides recognize there are privacy issues, there are issues with network security and cybersecurity and the ability of third parties to obtain access to systems,” said Donahue.

“The key is to have a framework in place that addresses those issues to balance those with law enforcement’s concerns,” he added.

This week FBI Director Robert Mueller criticized the press regarding its informal proposition saying that the media had presented a “distortion of what our needs are.”

“What we are seeking is the ability to enforce that order, and be able to obtain those communications,” Mueller said. “And what we’re looking at is some form of legislation that will assure that when we get the appropriate court order, those individual companies that are served with that order do have the capability and the capacity to respond to that order.”

 Since it is an election year, Donahue told us that it was unlikely that we would see any type of proposal from the FBI this year.

May 18, 2012