WebProNews

Tag: FCC

  • The FCC Is Still Trying That Net Neutrality Thing

    The FCC Is Still Trying That Net Neutrality Thing

    In no way is the title of this post meant to be against the concept of net neutrality. Quite the opposite, in fact. That being said, considering how directly connected the telecommunications industry is to the political machine in the United States, I’ve pretty much given up hope for true net neutrality being implemented.

    I suppose the FCC should be commended for going forward with the concept, as watered down as their version is, but there’s a real sense that whatever version the United States receives will have the fingerprints of AT&T, Verizon, Time-Warner and any other powerful telecom entity in the United States all over what gets adopted. Considering AT&T’s burning love for capping its Internet customers, as well as their oft-discussed political influence via the purchase of various politicians, and the Supreme Court’s previous acquiescence to Verizon over the FCC, and it’s easy to see why this particular writer isn’t holding his breath for true net neutrality in the United States.

    Editorials aside, the FCC has officially laid down the soon-to-be cast aside guidelines for what net neutrality adherence would mean in the United States. The rules, courtesy of an FCC pdf, are as follows:


    i. Transparency. Fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their broadband services;

    ii. No blocking. Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services; and

    iii. No unreasonable discrimination. Fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.

    These “three basic rules” should be the backbone of any Internet network — in a perfect world, anyway — but we already know that AT&T and Verizon oppose these rules, thanks to their desire to turn the Internet into a 21st century cable television subscription package, and when you consider the sway these corporate entities have over the very government that supposedly backs the FCC, you can see why it’s hard to be optimistic about net neutrality being truly adopted in the United States.

    With that in mind, at least the FCC is giving it the old college try. These net neutrality provisions are scheduled to become active rules on November, 20th of this year, but it’s doubtful these rules go unchallenged by the corporate masters who rule the telecommunications industry.

  • FCC Investigating Legality Of BART Celluar Service Shutdown

    FCC Investigating Legality Of BART Celluar Service Shutdown

    Last week the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system shut off transmitters which make it possible to obtain cellphone reception in their underground stations. Their reasoning was to disrupt a potential protest that could materialize after a fatal police shooting (the protest never happened though).

    It now appears that the Federal Communications Commission is looking into the San Francisco trance agency for blocking the aforementioned cellphone service. FCC spokesman Neil Grace told The Hill:

    “Any time communications services are interrupted, we seek to assess the situation … we are continuing to collect information about BART’s actions and will be taking steps to hear from stakeholders about the important issues those actions raised, including protecting public safety and ensuring the availability of communications networks.”

    Numerous people began questioning the legality of the shutdown, as most saw it as a violation of the First Amendment. The hacktivist group Anonymous also disagreed with BART’s methods, and proceeded to deface the website, and even released the user info database from MyBart.gov.

    Yesterday BART authorities prepped for another surge of protests after Anonymous called for a real-lfe protest on Monday night. Using Twitter hashtags such as #BartOp and #MuBARTak (a reference to the former Egyptian leader who killed telephone and Internet access in the country).

    It should be noted that no arrests were made during the protests and cellphone service was functional during the protest.

    [Lead image courtesy]

  • The Changing Media Landscape – Is There a Solution?

    The Changing Media Landscape – Is There a Solution?

    New media has completely transformed the way consumers gather news and information. While it has created many new opportunities, it has also brought about numerous challenges to traditional media and even contributed to, what some consider, dying business models.

    Some traditional media enterprises have embraced new media with great success. Others, however, have not had the same experience. One of the biggest blows, if you will, to traditional media has been that consumers have become reporters themselves. We have seen how powerful these reports have been in events involving the Middle East, the death Osama bin Laden, and more.

    Today, consumers no longer have to wait until designated times to get their news and information. Not only that, they don’t even have to visit specific news sites to find out what’s going on. News today is easily accessible wherever consumers are.

    How do you consume news? Do you utilize traditional media forms, or do you rely on new media outlets? Let us know.

    The big question in all this is, how will media continue to evolve? This is exactly what the FCC and the FTC sought out to do some 2 years ago. When the effort began, it seemed to lean heavily in the direction of saving journalism, namely, struggling media enterprises. In 2010, the FTC released its “Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism,” which was received with much criticism.

    Since then, the FTC has not been involved with the effort. The FCC, however, recently released its own “Future of Media” report called “The Information Needs of Communities: The Changing Media Landscape in a Broadband Age.” This report was met with both criticism and praise. Most of the criticism came from the left, and the praise came from right wing groups that want to preserve the First Amendment.

    Speaking about the report, Adam Thierer, a senior research fellow with the Technology Policy Project at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, told us the report was a “welcome relief.” He said, “It shied away from the more extreme types of proposals that we had heard some academics put out there in the past.”

    The report focuses on the abundance of media and how consumers can access this wealth of information with as little as a click of a mouse, but it didn’t actually call for any drastic recommendations. It did note that traditional media institutes are struggling and that high-quality journalism was hard to find, even in this age of abundance. However, consumers now have choice, which was something that was strictly limited before.

    The FCC admits that getting both really high-quality journalism and giving consumers options is a difficult challenge. Although the commission did not provide a solution to this dilemma, it did advise the media to continue experimenting with processes and systems.

    Media reform group Free Press strongly opposed the report and called it a “major disappointment.” In a press release, President and CEO Craig Aaron said, “The report discusses many important ideas, but where the FCC actually has the power to help local communities, the agency abdicates its responsibility in the areas.”

    Free Press, along with many other media reform organizations, hoped that the report would call for more aggressive policy proposals to ensure quality news and information for local communities.

    “If the FCC decides to relax, waive, or ignore its own rules that prevent the formation of local media monopolies, it may temporarily help pad the profits of the large conglomerates, but it will not cure what ails journalism or the media industry,” said Aaron. “The only way to ensure vibrant, quality journalism-and a healthy democracy-is to engage the public so starved for meaningful local news and information today. We hope that this report can still serve as a catalyst for better public policy to address the serious problems the document identifies.”

    On the other side of controversy, Thierer said, “There’s an important wall in America, a wall between, if you will, press and state… that wall is rarely breached, and it should not be breached so easily just because there’s a time when the media is struggling in this country, as they are today.”

    “This debate has a level of elitism at the margins at times where some people say, ‘You need to eat your greens and find the good journalism,’” he said. “Living in an age of abundance in the Internet and digital world… we can spend a lot of time online – probably messing around, watching and listening to all sorts of stuff, including a lot of nonsense – and not always consuming that which others think is best for us. But the question is, how do you force them to do that?”

    He also asks the question, “Do you want a massive bailout of failing journalistic enterprises?”

    From a practical standpoint, Thierer believes that if the government begins to impose policy on the media, it will only lead to more policies. While the government could bring some improvements to the media sector, he doesn’t think that it should be able to force what it thinks users should consume.

    “Information technology is moving way too fast for our federal regulators to keep up with it,” he said. “We live in gut-wrenching, interesting, disruptive times… some of this experimentation and evolution is just going to have to play itself out… there isn’t any easy answer.”

    Do you think the government needs to step in to help improve the media sector?

  • Comcast’s New Lobbyist: Conflict of Interest?

    Comcast’s New Lobbyist: Conflict of Interest?

    Many people within the American public have, and still, criticize the Comcast and NBC Universal merger. However, the disapproval reached a new level last week. Meredith Attwell Baker, a commissioner with the FCC, announced that she would be leaving the commission when her term ends next month to take a lobbyist position with none other than Comcast.

    In case you forgot, this announcement comes just a little less than four months since Baker voted to approve the cable giant’s merger with NBC Universal. A little fishy, right? Under her new position, she is barred from lobbying the FCC, but she can still use her connections in Congress in order to benefit Comcast’s cause.

    Should this action be acceptable? We’d love to hear your opinion.

    Joel Kelsey, who is a political advisor with nonprofit group Free Press, told us that these “revolving door” instances are happening so frequently that they have, essentially, turned into a “valet service.”

    “It’s got a lot of people scratching their head because it’s not the only example of a revolving door aspect of FCC staff leaving the Commission to go work for the companies they once regulated, but it certainly is the most blatant example,” he said.

    According to him, this is the type of ongoing behavior that has given the American people a bad impression of government. The regulators are supposed to protect the public even if the best interest isn’t in accordance with that of the shareholders and investors.

    Although Commissioner Baker claims she acted within the law, Free Press and others believe the ethical issues are much greater. Kelsey said the biggest ethical issue is how and when Comcast went about asking Baker to come on board.

    “There’s always the question of, ‘Do I want to go work for this company that offered me a job after I’m done with my time here at the Commission?’ And that is certain to have an affect on the decisions a commissioner makes,” he said.

    While Kelsey doesn’t think that Baker’s influence would protect Comcast entirely from regulators, he did say that she could be a “cushion” for them. He and Free Press are asking people to contact Congressman Darrell Issa, who is the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and request an investigation based on a conflict of interest for Baker.

    Kelsey also suggests that consumers contact their senators and ask Congress to enforce a pledge that would limit how quickly employees of government agencies could work for the companies that they once regulated.

    Do you think this type of pledge is necessary?

  • FCC Asked to Investigate Data Caps

    FCC Asked to Investigate Data Caps

    It is possible that the Osama Bin Laden media obsession has caused you to miss this little tidbit, but on Monday AT&T officially killed uncapped internet. The much talked-about data limitations officially went into effect without too much backlash hitting the interwebs.

    As a quick reminder, AT&T DSL customers will now be charged penalties for exceeding a 150 GB limit per month. For every 50 GB of additional data, users will be charged $10. UVerse users’ cap is set at 250 GB.

    These data restrictions have already been in place if you have Comcast, who limits broadband users to 250 GB per month. Although true that many users don’t come anywhere close to 250 GB per month, 150 Gb is a different story. Heavy users who, let’s say, watch a lot of streaming video through Netflix and download a lot of media could surpass this limit in a month’s time.

    The data cap implementation news has not been lost on two prominent policy groups, The New America Foundation and Public Knowledge. They have written a joint letter to the FCC asking that they investigate the motivations behind these caps.

    In light of the fact that 56% of American broadband subscribers’ connections are restricted by some sort of broadband cap,1 Public Knowledge and New America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative urge the Bureau to exercise its statutory authority to fully investigate the nature, purpose, impact of those caps upon consumers.2 The need to fully understand the nature of broadband caps is made all the more urgent by the recent decision by AT&T to break with past industry practice and convert its data cap into a revenue source.

    The letter continues to single out AT&T, mostly for the fact that their 150 GB data limit seems motivated simply by profit, as it is unlikely that it would be an issue of volume incapabilities.

    In the world of broadband data caps, the caps recently implemented by AT&T are particularly aggressive. Unlike competitors whose caps appear to be at least nominally linked to congestions during peak-use periods, AT&T seeks to convert caps into a profit center by charging additional fees to customers who exceed the cap. In addition to concerns raised by broadband caps generally, such a practice produces a perverse incentive for AT&T to avoid raising its cap even as its own capacity expands.

    Furthermore, it remains unclear why AT&T’s recently announced caps are, at best, equal to those imposed by Comcast over two years ago. The caps for residential DSL customers are a full 100GB lower than those Comcast saw fit to offer in mid-2008. The lower caps for DSL customers is especially worrying because one of the traditional selling points of DSL networks is that their dedicated circuit design helps to mitigate the impacts of heavy users on the rest of the network. Together, these caps suggest either that AT&T’s current network compares poorly to that of a major competitor circa 2008 or that there are non-network management motivations behind their creation.

    The two groups ask that the FCC monitors a few points, such as the relationship of enforcement to times of network congestion, when and how often penalties are paid and how AT&T arrived at their specific limits.

    “Broadband internet access is critical to the continued economic and cultural prosperity of our nation,” they say,

    Amen. Although for some, data caps are unforgivable in principle, if these caps start affecting more American internet users, I’m sure there will be more than policy organizations writing letters.

  • AT&T Files with FCC to Transfer T-Mobile Licenses

    AT&T Files with FCC to Transfer T-Mobile Licenses

    Today, AT&T began to make its case to the FCC regarding the proposed $39 acquisition of T-Mobile.  Along with the requests to transfer licenses from T-Mobile USA to AT&T, the nation’s largest mobile provider also filed a public interest statement suggesting the benefits that said merger would have for customers.

    According to AT&T’s public policy blog, the papers filed with the FCC say that the proposed deal would benefit everybody involved, especially the customer.  According to AT&T, both companies involved are facing capacity restraints, and combining the companies will allow them to address those constraints head on.  That would be improved service for all, faster data transfer, and fewer dropped and failed calls (for the love of all that is holy, please).

    From the policy blog:

    We’ve been working tirelessly to address this data explosion through a wide variety of means.  We have purchased additional spectrum on the secondary market; we have added thousands of cell sites and additional backhaul capacity to our network grid; we’ve deployed distributed antenna systems, we’ve built WiFi hot zones in heavy usage areas like Times Square and others, and we’ve set up more than 24,000 WiFi hotspots to off-load traffic from our mobile network.  Since 2008, AT&T has invested $21.1 billion in capital expenditures to upgrade its wireless network – $15 billion of it in the past two years alone.

    But it’s not enough.  AT&T faces severe spectrum and capacity constraints and cannot simply wait for the next major auction to address them.  T-Mobile USA also faces spectrum exhaust in certain markets.  If unaddressed, the network limitations and constraints confronting both of our companies would lead to more dropped and blocked calls, slower speeds, and access to fewer and less advanced technology platforms and applications.

    AT&T has been predicting vastly improved service for all since the announcement of the deal.  CEO Randall Stephenson touted an immediate 30% lift in capacity in NYC alone on the day the deal finalizes.

    Now, of course, one can’t just take AT&T’s word on these alleged benefits.  In the debate regarding the impact of this acquisition, most opponents fear that it will absolutely crush competition in the world of wireless.  The nation’s 3rd leading wireless provider Sprint has been quite vocal in its opposition of the deal, saying that it will create a duopoly that will leave no room for any competitors.

    AT&T says that the increased capacity will improve competition, and that T-Mobile’s absence from the marketplace will not really matter in terms of competition:

    Indeed, by alleviating capacity constraints and expanding output, the transaction will increase competition.  Among the many providers that will continue to compete vigorously are Verizon Wireless, Sprint, MetroPCS, Leap, U.S. Cellular, Cellular South, Cincinnati Bell Wireless, Cox Communications.  And let’s not forget Clearwire, and that LightSquared plans to deploy a 4G LTE network covering 100 million people by the end of 2012, and 260 million by the end of 2015.

    With all of this competition, the absence of T-Mobile USA from the marketplace will not have a significant competitive impact.  In fact, as an independent competitor, T-Mobile USA would face serious challenges.  It has been losing market share the last two years, is confronting spectrum exhaust in certain markets with no ready means to acquire significant additional spectrum in the near term, and lacks a clear path to LTE.

    Burn.

    Basically, this is AT&T’s argument in the case that the FCC must rule upon.  If the deal clears the FCC, it still has to clear the Department of Justice at a later date.

    All Things D quotes the non-profit group Free Press as saying today:

    “No matter how many high-priced lobbying firms AT&T hires, it won’t be able to fool Americans into thinking the reconstitution of the Ma Bell monopoly is a good thing.  Make no mistake, this deal is about eliminating a competitor and nothing more. AT&T has chosen the marketing slogan ‘Mobilize Everything’ to sell this competition-killing deal, but it’s clear their real goal is to ‘Monopolize Everything.’”

    It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

  • As Net Neutrality Battle Builds, Other Concerns Rise

    As Net Neutrality Battle Builds, Other Concerns Rise

    Although the issue of net neutrality has never been small, it has grown into a very large, complicated matter with more concerns rising frequently. It has actually developed into a political issue with outspoken parties on both sides.

    Do you think that net neutrality has gotten too political? Let us know why or why not.

    According to John Bergmayer, a staff attorney with Public Knowledge, net neutrality is “not supposed to be something for the Washington chattering classes to gossip about.” Instead, he stated, “It’s supposed to be a simple set of rules that allows innovators to innovate and creators to create.”

    To complicate matters even further, the U.S. House of Representatives recently voted to retract the net neutrality rules that the FCC adopted in December. However, in order for the rules to be completely reversed, the Senate and the President would have to be in favor of repealing the rules as well.

    There is also a lot of conflict around ISPs and the lack of options for consumers. Bergmayer explained that 80 percent of Americans that have access to broadband services only have, at most, 2 broadband options to choose from. Millions of other Americans only have 1 choice in a broadband provider.

    As a result, ISPs are not forced to compete in prices and services, which means that prices are often high and services are less than satisfactory. But, ISPs have their own concern since many of them also provide content services. They, in turn, fear the rise of services such as Netflix.

    In the end, the fight is about the future of the Internet, media, and communications. The big question is where the government fits in with determining these outcomes.

    Fortunately, consumers can share their opinion too. Because the FCC often takes comments on important issues, Bergmayer encourages people to participate. In addition, he suggests that individuals call their Congressmen and women to express their beliefs.

    “It’s not just about big companies like Google fighting big companies like Comcast. It’s really about the individual… out there throughout America,” he said.

    He further pointed out that Washington, DC listens to those who speak the loudest, especially on “political football” issues such as with net neutrality.

    Are you letting your voice be heard on these issues?

  • FCC To Require Mobile Roaming Agreements Between Carriers

    FCC To Require Mobile Roaming Agreements Between Carriers

    The Federal Communications Commission has approved measure that requires major wireless carriers such as AT&T and Verizon to enter into data- roaming agreements with smaller competitors.

    The FCC said consumers expect mobile services that will allow them to stay connected wherever they go and that a data roaming rule will help ensure services are not interrupted and that coverage is available on a competitive basis.
    FCC-Roaming
    The measure by the FCC is aimed at promoting investment in mobile broadband networks, increasing competition, and not limiting consumers choice in rural areas.

    “Americans in every corner of the land rely on their smartphones to stay connected through e-mail, social media and other applications—whether for business reasons or for communicating with family and friends,” said Commissioner Michael Copps.

    “What good is that smartphone if it can’t be used when a subscriber is roaming across the county or across the country? Our regulations must reflect today’s reality and not make artificial distinctions between voice and data telecommunications.”

  • What’s the Impact of the AT&T/T-Mobile Deal?

    What’s the Impact of the AT&T/T-Mobile Deal?

    Ever since AT&T announced its $39 billion acquisition of T-Mobile USA, consumers have been speculating about its potential impact. Some people have spoken out in favor of it, and others have strongly opposed it.

    Do you think the merger would help or hurt consumers? Let us know.

    If approved, the combined AT&T/T-Mobile would create the largest wireless provider in the US. Verizon would be the second largest provider, followed by Sprint. Does this limit competition, or is it simply a strategic business move on AT&T’s part?

    Those who oppose the deal believe that consumers would suffer since they would be given one less choice in a wireless provider. Those who support the merger, on the other hand, believe that consumers would benefit from better service from the combined companies.

    Jim Lakely, the Co-Director of the Center for Digital Economy at The Heartland Institute, supports the deal and said, “There’s actually a lot more competition in the market than most people realize.”

    He went on to say that, although most people are drawn to the big 3 or 4 providers, smaller providers, such as Leap Wireless and US Cellular, should also be considered as competitors in the marketplace.

    Price has been another point of dispute between supporters and opponents of the merger. Understandably, many consumers are concerned that their wireless rates would increase as a result of the deal. However, supporters argue that services would better through the joint companies.

    For example, T-Mobile customers would have access to the iPhone. Also, advocates say that 4G has more of an opportunity to advance and become available to more people through the combined effort.

    Lakely further pointed out that price wouldn’t be an issue, since the wireless market is so customer-sensitive. If AT&T/T-Mobile were to increase their prices, their customers would simply move to another provider.

    He actually believes that the FCC could be more harmful to consumers than the AT&T/T-Mobile deal. In a statement, he said, “The FCC itself poses a bigger danger to consumers than any merger.”

    According to him, the anti-trust division of the Department of Justice is the proper place that should review mergers and acquisitions. He further stated that the FCC did not have enough experience in the wireless space to be involved.

    “What it really needs to do is get out of the way and let things develop naturally,” he added.

    Lakely, along with other supporters of the deal, believe that this merger is a “natural” business acquisition. Just as in any other industry, companies unite in order to create efficiencies in the marketplace and better meet customer needs. If you remember, Verizon acquired Alltel for these very reasons.

    Even though Lakely is convinced that the FCC will put many conditions on the deal, he believes it will pass regulatory approval. Because the Department of Justice stated last year that the wireless sector was competitive and healthy, he doesn’t think it could overturn that stance. Do you agree that it will be approved?

    Note: WPN reached out to Om Malik for his perspective but did receive a response.

  • FCC: AT&T, Verizon Must Offer Roaming Deals to Competitors

    FCC: AT&T, Verizon Must Offer Roaming Deals to Competitors

    As AT&T’s acquisition of T-Mobile looms, the mobile giant was hit with a new regulation, along with other wireless leader Verizon. Today, the Federal Communications Commission ruled that AT&T and Verizon must make data roaming deals that allow smaller carriers to piggyback off their networks.

    The network-sharing agreements are already mandatory for voice calls, but until today any agreements made in terms of data roaming were strictly voluntary. The vote to give smaller companies access the the larger companies’ networks was a partisan vote, with three Democrats defeating two Republicans.

    Roaming for actual voice calls has been available for quite some time, but the need for data roaming is a newer phenomenon. With more and more mobile users using their smartphones for much more than phone calls, the need to address the issue was paramount.

    “Roaming deals are simply not being widely offered, and the requirement will spur investment and promote competition,” said Julius Genachowski, FCC Chairman according to Bloomberg. Dissenting Republicans questioned the FCC’s legal authority to implement the mandate.

    Obviously, AT&T and Verizon aren’t happy with the ruling. They said that data roaming agreements are already being offered in abundance, and a mandate isn’t necessary. In an e-mail to Bloomberg, AT&T chief privacy offer Robert Quinn said:

    “A data-roaming mandate is unwarranted and will discourage investment. Proponents of a roaming mandate were seeking government intervention, not to obtain agreements — which are plentiful — but rather to regulate rates downward.”

    Verizon also released a statement on the ruling to their website, saying:

    “Today’s action represents a new level of unwarranted government intervention in the wireless marketplace. By forcing carriers that have invested in wireless infrastructure to make those networks available to competitors that avoid this investment, at a price ultimately determined by the FCC, today’s order discourages network investment in less profitable areas. That is directly contrary to the interests of rural America and the development of facilities-based competition and potential job creation. Therefore, it is a defeat for both consumers and the innovation fostered by true competition.

    We are also concerned that the FCC is taking this action even though it does not have the statutory authority to do so. Consumers benefit from the deployment of wireless networks that have more capacity to offer new services, and Verizon is committed to working with policymakers to accomplish that goal.”

    This ruling is sure to thrill smaller carriers from Sprint all the way down to rural providers. We know how Sprint feels about the current competitive climate, as they publicly bashed the upcoming AT&T / T-Mobile deal.

    Is this FCC ruling good or bad for the wireless customer? Should the FCC be able to implement such a mandate? Tell us what you think.

  • FCC Launches Redesigned Website

    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has launched a redesigned website, the first major update in ten years, that features more social media tools.

    Visitors to the new beta site can now easily connect with the FCC’s Facebook page, Twitter account and YouTube channel.

    FCC-beta

    “This FCC is empowering consumers and businesses to get the most out of technology,” said FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

    “The launch of the new FCC.gov keeps us at the forefront of innovation, and delivers on our promise to move at the speed of high-tech change.”

    The FCC’s new website was shaped by public feedback and through ongoing conversation with users over the past several months.

    FCC Managing Director Steven VanRoekel oversaw the technical development and strategies for the new FCC.gov. His vision for the new site drove the deployment of the site’s cloud-hosted architecture, open source development, and embrace of design techniques drawn from consumer sites.

    “Online innovators have built destinations that deliver outstanding experiences, high-quality products and great customer service,” said VanRoekel.

    “That’s what consumers and businesses expect online, and it’s what makes the web great. Traditionally, dot-govs have struggled to keep up with rapidly changing technology. The Reimagined FCC.gov is proof that with the right tools and creative thinking, dot-govs can look, feel, and run like dot-coms.”

  • More Than Half Of U.S. Internet Connections Below FCC Standards

    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has released two new reports on Internet access and telephone subscribership in the U.S.

    The reports are based on data submitted by carriers to the FCC every six months. They track changes at the state and national level in the number of subscribers to Internet service in 72 combinations of speed, and the number of wireline, mobile and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) telephones subscribers.
    FCC-Internet

    The report found 60 percent of Internet connections were slower than 4 megabits per second (Mbps) a download speed identified by the FCC as the minimum bandwidth generally required for high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video.

    Growth of fixed broadband service was flat at 1 percent in the first half of 2010, to 82 million connections.

    Highlights from the telephone subscribership report include:

    *Interconnected VoIP grew by 21% between June 2009 and June 2010.

    *Conventional switched access lines (i.e., traditional wireline telephone lines) decreased by 8% between June 2009 and June 2010.

    *28% of all residential wireline connections were interconnected VoIP as of June 2010.

    *An estimated 77% of interconnected VoIP subscribers received service through a cable provider.

    *The number of subscriptions to wireless phone service grew by 5% in the year.

  • National Broadband Map Launches

    National Broadband Map Launches

    The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has introduced a searchable nationwide map of broadband Internet availability along with the results of a new survey on broadband adoption.

    Update: The National Broadband Map is having technical issues.

     

    Map-Error
    Original Article

    The National Broadband Map is a searchable database of information on high-speed Internet access. NTIA created the National Broadband Map in collaboration with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), using data that each state, territory and the District of Columbia collected from broadband providers or other data sources.

     

     

    National-Broadband-Map

     

    The website includes more than 25 million searchable records showing where broadband Internet service is available, the technology used to provide the service, the maximum advertised speeds of the service, and the names of the service providers.

    Users can search by address to find the broadband providers and services available in the corresponding census block or road segment, view the data on a map, or use other interactive tools to compare broadband across various geographies, such as states, counties or congressional districts.

    The map shows that between 5 – 10 percent of Americans lack access to broadband at speeds that support a basic set of applications, including downloading Web pages, photos and video, and using simple video conferencing. The FCC last July set a benchmark of 4 Mbps actual speed downstream and 1 Mbps upstream to support these applications.

    “The National Broadband Map shows there are still too many people and community institutions lacking the level of broadband service needed to fully participate in the Internet economy,” said Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling.

    “We are pleased to see the increase in broadband adoption last year, particularly in light of the difficult economic environment, but a digital divide remains.”

     

  • Consumer Groups Call On FCC To Investigate MetroPCS

    A number of public interest groups have filed a letter with the Federal Communications Commission requesting the agency investigate claims that new plans being offered by mobile provider MetroPCS block Internet content, applications and websites.

    The public interest groups who sent the letter to the FCC include Free Press, the Center for Media Justice, Media Access Project, New America Foundation Open Technology Institute and Presente.org .

    Last week, MetroPCS, the nation’s fifth-largest wireless provider, announced a new plan under which MetroPCS — not its customers — will decide which Internet sites and services are important. MetroPCS is advertising unlimited talk, text, “Web browsing” and YouTube at a base price of $40 per month — with all other uses only available on higher tiers at a higher cost.

    Chris-Riley The plans would effectively create a “walled garden” that excludes Skype, Netflix and other popular consumer Internet services, putting those service providers at a competitive disadvantage and restricting consumer choice and innovation.

    “MetroPCS’s practices are particularly problematic because, as the company itself recognizes, it disproportionately serves lower-income subscribers, the same audience that is increasingly relying on mobile access to the Web, said Chris Riley, Free Press counsel.

    “A walled garden in mobile broadband leaves a large number of Internet users on the wrong side of the digital divide.”

  • FCC Launches App Challenge For Internet Openness

    The Federal Communications Commission has announced a challenge for software developers to create apps that help people monitor Internet openness.

    The FCC says its Open Internet Challenge is about the development of apps that provide users with information about  the extent to which their fixed or mobile broadband Internet services are consistent with the open Internet. These software tools could, for example, detect whether a broadband provider is interfering with DNS responses, application packet headers, or content.

    FCC-App-Challenge “This challenge is about using the open Internet to protect the open Internet,” said FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

    “Our goal is to foster user-developed applications that shine light on any practice that might be inconsistent with the free and open Internet.  Empowering consumers with information about their own connections will promote a vibrant, innovative, world-leading broadband ecosystem.”

    The winners of the Open Internet Challenge will be invited to FCC headquarters in Washington, D.C., to present their work to the Commission and be honored with an FCC Chairman’s reception.  Winners will have their apps and research featured on the FCC’s website and social media outlets.  Winners will be reimbursed for authorized travel expenses.

    The submission deadline for the challenge is June 1, 2011, and a public voting period will run from June 15, 2011 through July 15, 2011. Winners will be announced in August 2011.
     

  • FCC Adopts Net Neutrality Rules For Better or Worse

    FCC Adopts Net Neutrality Rules For Better or Worse

    Today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted Net Neutrality rules that have drawn very mixed reviews all across the political landscape. 

    Rather than sugarcoat it or spin it in anyway, I’ll simply embed the statement from FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski (Via Brian Stelter), and you can make your own decision about whether it goes too far or doesn’t go far enough:
    Net neutrality statement by Julius Genachowski, the FCC chair, on Dec. 21, 2010  

    If you look at a Twitter search on #FCC, you’ll see a pretty good mix of commentary. Politico has a pretty good article outlining the political struggle on this issue. 

    We thought there would be more from Genachowski on the FCC’s Open Internet blog, but the blog appears to be down. 

    "The open Internet is a crucial American marketplace, and I believe that it is appropriate for the FCC to safeguard it by adopting an Order that will establish clear rules to protect consumers’ access," said FCC Commissioner Mignon L. Clyburn ahead of today’s meeting. "The Commission has worked tirelessly to offer a set of guidelines that, while not as strong as they could be, will nonetheless protect consumers as they explore, learn, and innovate online."

    What do you think of the FCC’s adoption? Share your thoughts in the comments. 

  • US Making Little Progress On Broadband Speeds

     Nearly half (49%) of the people in the U.S. do not meet the FCC’s minimum broadband standard of 4 megabits per second (mbps) download and 1 mbps upload, according to a new report by the Communications Workers of America (CWA).

    CWA’s annual Speed Matters report on Internet speeds in the United States indicates little progress has been made since the report was first issued in 2007.

    This year’s Speed Matters report shows that between 2009 and 2010, the median download Internet speed in the United States has increased by only 0.5 megabits per second (mbps) from 2.5 mbps in 2009 to 3.0 mbps this year, while the median upload speed has barely increased from 487 kbps to 595 kbps.

     

    US-Internet-Speeds

     

    At this rate, it will take the United States 60 years to catch up with current Internet speeds in South Korea, the country with the fastest Internet connections. The number of years to reach South Korea’s current standards has quadrupled from last year, as improvements are being made at a rapid rate there and progress in the United States has been fairly stagnant.

    Northeastern states topped the chart again this year, with many western and southern states staying on the bottom. The five fastest states according to the study are: Delaware (13.4 mbps), Massachusetts (9.3 mbps), New Jersey (8.6 mbps), Maryland (7.6 mbps) and New York (7.5 mbps). Among the slowest states were: Montana (1.2 mbps), Wyoming (1.5 mbps), Arkansas (2.3 mbps) and Mississippi (2.4 mbps).

    “Speed Matters on the Internet, enabling innovations in telemedicine, education, economic development, energy conservation, and job creation,” said FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

    “Today’s results highlight the need for investment in higher speed broadband networks to support America’s critical applications. That’s why moving forward on the National Broadband Plan is our top priority at the FCC.”

    Lack of access to high-speed Internet reflects a persistent digital divide among Americans. Geography and income too often indicate whether someone has access to high-speed Internet.

    In urban and suburban areas, 70 percent of households subscribe to broadband, with only 50 percent of rural households subscribing to the service. For Americans who make more than $75,000 a year, 87 percent get broadband while only 45 percent of Americans that earn less than $30,000 subscribe.

     

     

  • FCC Acknowledges Google Street View Investigation

    Google’s winning streak with respect to the Street View privacy breach might be coming to an end.  Although the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office and the Federal Trade Commission let the company off the hook, the Federal Communications Commission confirmed this week that it’s started looking into the matter.

    Not much else is known about the new probe at this point.  We can suppose Google’s admission that it collected "entire emails and URLs . . . as passwords" is what set the government agency off, considering nothing else has happened recently.

    Also, the tone and wording of a statement Michele Ellison, the chief of the FCC’s enforcement bureau, gave to Amy Schatz and Amir Efrati indicates that the FCC believes Google committed a serious error, and perhaps needs to pay for it in some way.

    GoogleStill, Ellison just said, "As the agency charged with overseeing the public airwaves, we are committed to ensuring that the consumers affected by this breach of privacy receive a full and fair accounting."

    We’ll of course be sure to continue to relay any other information the FCC releases, along with any significant points Google decides to make.

  • HP Settles E-Rate Fraud Charges For $16 Million

    Hewlett-Packard has agreed to pay the government $16.25 million to settle e-rate fraud charges.

    The E-rate program, which funds Internet connections in schools and libraries, has brought Internet connectivity to virtually every classroom in the country.

    The Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission, acting on tips from whistleblowers, said contractors working with HP and other companies lavished gifts on Dallas Independent School District and Houston Independent School District officials in order to get contracts that included $17 million in HP equipment.

    Meals and entertainment — including trips on a yacht and tickets to the 2004 Super Bowl — were provided by the contractors to get inside information and win contracts that were supposed to be awarded through a competitive bidding process.
    Julius-Genachowski-FCC
    “Broadband is key to our children’s 21st century education,” said FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

    “That’s why one of the FCC’s top priorities is making sure E-rate works to benefit students and libraries. Today’s settlement shows the extensive efforts of the FCC and DOJ to protect the E-rate program from waste, fraud, and abuse, and to deter misconduct in the future.”

    As part of the settlement, HP has agreed to pay the government $16.25 million, most of which will be returned to the E-rate program. In addition, the FCC has negotiated and will oversee a compliance agreement with HP that will ensure that the company plays by the rules in the future.
    (more…)

  • Verizon To Pay $25 Million For ‘Mystery Fees’

    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has reached a record settlement of  $25 million with Verizon Wireless over what it calls “mystery fees” the carrier charged its customers over the last several years.

    The payment is the largest in FCC history and the settlement ends the agency’s ten month investigation into the overcharges. In addition to Verizon Wireless’s payment, the company will refund a minimum of $52.8 million to some 15 million customers.

    FCC-Verizon “Mystery solved: today’s settlement with Verizon Wireless is about making things right and putting
    consumers back in the driver’s seat,” said Michele Ellison, Chief of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau.

    “Today’s settlement requires Verizon Wireless to make meaningful business reforms, prevent future overcharges, and provide consumers clear, easy-to-understand information about their choices. I am gratified by the cooperation of the Verizon Wireless team in the face of these issues, and pleased they are taking the high road.”

    The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau began investigating Verizon Wireless in January 2010 after large numbers of
    consumer complaints and press reports about unexplained data charges. The investigation focused on
    “pay-as-you-go” data fees — charges of $1.99 per megabyte that apply to Verizon Wireless customers
    who do not subscribe to a data package or plan.

    “These inadvertent charges affect those customers who do not have data plans and choose to pay for data usage on a per megabyte basis,” Verizon said in a statement.

    “We are notifying eligible current and former customers that we are applying credits to their accounts or sending refunds in October and November. Current customers will be notified in upcoming bills; former customers will receive a letter and refund check in the mail. In most cases, these credits and refunds are in the $2 to $6 range; some will receive larger amounts. The rest of our customers, 77 million or roughly five out of six, are unaffected. We have taken steps to ensure this does not happen in the future.”

  • Verizon Wireless Readies Refunds for Wireless Customers

    Verizon Wireless reportedly intends to pay millions of dollars in customer refunds to customers who were charged for unintended web access and/or data usage. Amounts vary by source. The Wall Street Journal pegs the total at about $50 million. Some have the total as high as $90 million.

    Verizon says the charges occurred as a result of software on some phones, but apparently only decided to issue the refunds after the FCC started poking around. Matthew Lasar at Ars Technica quotes a statement from FCC Enforcement Bureau Chief Michele Ellison:

    "We can confirm reports of an FCC investigation into mystery fees that appeared on Verizon Wireless bills costing over 15 million Americans tens of millions of dollars…Questions remain as to why it took Verizon two years to reimburse its customers and why greater disclosure and other corrective actions did not come much, much sooner."

    We are addressing billing error. Affected customers will get average of $2 to $6 refund on their Oct. or Nov. bill. http://bit.ly/bkmKHuMon Oct 04 11:01:04 via webVerizon Wireless
    VerizonWireless

    The company will notify affected customers of the charges and the forthcoming refunds over the next couple months, and they’ll receive $2 – $6 credits on their phone bills. Here’s Verizon’s official statement from Mary Coyne, General Counsel:

    In October and November, we are notifying about 15 million customers, through their regular bill messages, that we are applying credits to their accounts due to mistaken past data charges. We will mail former customers refund checks. In most cases, these credits are in the $2 to $6 range; some will receive larger credits or refunds.

    As we reviewed customer accounts, we discovered that over the past several years approximately 15 million customers who did not have data plans were billed for data sessions on their phones that they did not initiate. These customers would normally have been billed at the standard rate of $1.99 per megabyte for any data they chose to access from their phones. The majority of the data sessions involved minor data exchanges caused by software built into their phones; others included accessing certain web links, which should not have incurred charges. We have addressed these issues to avoid unintended data charges in the future.

    Verizon Wireless issues credits to customers from time to time based on regular review and monitoring. When we identify errors, we remedy them as quickly as possible. Our goal is to maintain our customers’ trust and ensure they receive the best experience possible.

    The story seems to indicate that it pays to complain. It certainly looks as if the FCC’s investigation (sparked by numerous customer complaints) is what got the ball rolling on these refunds.