WebProNews

Tag: FCC

  • Etsy Applauds Obama’s FCC Request On Open Internet

    Etsy Applauds Obama’s FCC Request On Open Internet

    President Obama announced on Monday that he’s asking the FCC to reclassify the Internet under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, which would essentially render it a utility.

    “In plain English, I’m asking them to recognize that for most Americans, the Internet has become an essential part of everyday communication and everyday life,” he said, noting that the FCC is an independent agency, and that ultimately, it’s their decision.

    You can read his whole statement and view video of him talking about it here.

    Many people and companies are commenting on Obama’s move, and Etsy, which gives independent artists a means of selling their work, put out a blog post applauding the President’s “strong stance” on the issue of the open Internet. Etsy’s Althea Erickson writes:

    We applaud the President’s strong stance on this issue, and urge the FCC to take action this year to protect the Internet and the millions of micro-businesses who depend on it to reach consumers.

    This morning, the President said what the Etsy community has been saying for months: there should not be a two-tiered Internet, where big companies pay for fast lanes, leaving the rest of us in the slow lane. We want the Internet to continue to be a level playing field, where businesses succeed based on the value of their products, not the depths of their pockets.

    Etsy has been championing net neutrality since last spring, and has submitted formal comments, met with the FCC’s chairman, and participated in FCC roundtables. According to Erickson, over 30,000 members of the Etsy community contacted the FCC and Congress as part of the #InternetSlowDown campaign.

    There are even numerous items for sale that sellers have made, supporting an open Internet.

    CEO Chad Dickerson had this to say: “I’m thrilled to see President Obama stand with Etsy and our sellers in calling for strong net neutrality rules under Title II. The President has proved that he truly is a champion of the Internet. I urge Chairman Wheeler to follow suit.”

    Etsy is in the process of expanding its presence in the physical world, as it recently began giving its sellers free card-readers to help them expand their Etsy-based businesses.

    Image via Etsy

  • Should The Internet Be Reclassified As Obama Requests?

    Should The Internet Be Reclassified As Obama Requests?

    In an effort to protect an open Internet, President Obama announced that he’s asking the FCC to reclassify Internet service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act.

    “In plain English, I’m asking them to recognize that for most Americans, the Internet has become an essential part of everyday communication and everyday life,” he said, noting that the FCC is an independent agency, and that ultimately, it’s their decision.

    Do you agree with the President? Share your thoughts on the matter in the comments.

    “The public has already commented nearly four million times, asking the FCC to make sure that consumers – not the cable company – gets to decide which sites they use,” the President said.

    In the official statement, the President notes that this should all be extended to mobile broadband as this is increasingly how Americans are accessing the Internet.

    Earlier this year, the FCC said it was working on rules that could end up giving priority to big companies. As you may recall, most people on the Internet weren’t incredibly thrilled.

    More on Title II of the Telecommunications Act here.

    The President’s full statement is as follows:

    An open Internet is essential to the American economy, and increasingly to our very way of life. By lowering the cost of launching a new idea, igniting new political movements, and bringing communities closer together, it has been one of the most significant democratizing influences the world has ever known.

    “Net neutrality” has been built into the fabric of the Internet since its creation — but it is also a principle that we cannot take for granted. We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas. That is why today, I am asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to answer the call of almost 4 million public comments, and implement the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality.

    When I was a candidate for this office, I made clear my commitment to a free and open Internet, and my commitment remains as strong as ever. Four years ago, the FCC tried to implement rules that would protect net neutrality with little to no impact on the telecommunications companies that make important investments in our economy. After the rules were challenged, the court reviewing the rules agreed with the FCC that net neutrality was essential for preserving an environment that encourages new investment in the network, new online services and content, and everything else that makes up the Internet as we now know it. Unfortunately, the court ultimately struck down the rules — not because it disagreed with the need to protect net neutrality, but because it believed the FCC had taken the wrong legal approach.

    The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately this decision is theirs alone. I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online. The rules I am asking for are simple, common-sense steps that reflect the Internet you and I use every day, and that some ISPs already observe. These bright-line rules include:

    No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business.

    No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.

    Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.

    No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.

    If carefully designed, these rules should not create any undue burden for ISPs, and can have clear, monitored exceptions for reasonable network management and for specialized services such as dedicated, mission-critical networks serving a hospital. But combined, these rules mean everything for preserving the Internet’s openness.

    The rules also have to reflect the way people use the Internet today, which increasingly means on a mobile device. I believe the FCC should make these rules fully applicable to mobile broadband as well, while recognizing the special challenges that come with managing wireless networks.

    To be current, these rules must also build on the lessons of the past. For almost a century, our law has recognized that companies who connect you to the world have special obligations not to exploit the monopoly they enjoy over access in and out of your home or business. That is why a phone call from a customer of one phone company can reliably reach a customer of a different one, and why you will not be penalized solely for calling someone who is using another provider. It is common sense that the same philosophy should guide any service that is based on the transmission of information — whether a phone call, or a packet of data.

    So the time has come for the FCC to recognize that broadband service is of the same importance and must carry the same obligations as so many of the other vital services do. To do that, I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services. This is a basic acknowledgment of the services ISPs provide to American homes and businesses, and the straightforward obligations necessary to ensure the network works for everyone — not just one or two companies.

    Investment in wired and wireless networks has supported jobs and made America the center of a vibrant ecosystem of digital devices, apps, and platforms that fuel growth and expand opportunity. Importantly, network investment remained strong under the previous net neutrality regime, before it was struck down by the court; in fact, the court agreed that protecting net neutrality helps foster more investment and innovation. If the FCC appropriately forbears from the Title II regulations that are not needed to implement the principles above — principles that most ISPs have followed for years — it will help ensure new rules are consistent with incentives for further investment in the infrastructure of the Internet.

    The Internet has been one of the greatest gifts our economy — and our society — has ever known. The FCC was chartered to promote competition, innovation, and investment in our networks. In service of that mission, there is no higher calling than protecting an open, accessible, and free Internet. I thank the Commissioners for having served this cause with distinction and integrity, and I respectfully ask them to adopt the policies I have outlined here, to preserve this technology’s promise for today, and future generations to come.

    FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has issued a response.

    “The President’s statement is an important and welcome addition to the record of the Open Internet proceeding, ” he began. “Like the President, I beleve that the Internet must remain an open platform for free expression, innovation, and economic growth. We both oppose Internet fast lanes. The Internet must not advantage some to the detriment of others. We cannot allow broadband networks to cut special deals to prioritize Internet traffic and harm consumers, competition and innovation.”

    “The more deeply we examined the issues around the various legal options, the more it has become plain that there is more work to do,” he said later in the statement. “The reclassification and hybrid approaches before us raise substantive legal questions. We found we would need more time to examine these to ensure that whatever approach is taken, it can withstand any legal challenges it may face. For instance, whether in the context of a hybrid or reclassification approach, Title II brings with it policy issues that run the gamut from privacy to universal service to the ability of federal agencies to protect consumers, as well as legal issues ranging from the ability of Title II to cover mobile services to the concept of applying forbearance on services under Title II.”

    You can read the whole thing at the link above.

    Verizon has released a statement in response to the President’s words: “Verizon supports the open Internet, and we continue to believe that the light-touch regulatory approach in place for the past two decades has been central to the Internet’s success. Reclassification under Title II, which for the first time would apply 1930s-era utility regulation to the Internet, would be a radical reversal of course that would in and of itself threaten great harm to an open Internet, competition and innovation. That course will likely also face strong legal challenges and would likely not stand up in court. Moreover, this approach would be gratuitous. As all major broadband providers and their trade groups have conceded, the FCC already has sufficient authority under Section 706 to adopt rules that address any practices that threaten harm to consumers or competition, including authority to prohibit ‘paid prioritization.’ For effective, enforceable, legally sustainable net neutrality rules, the Commission should look to Section 706.”

    AT&T said the White House’s announcement, if acted upon by the FCC, would be a “mistake that will do tremendous harm to the Internet and to the U.S. national interests.”

    Comcast said, “To attempt to impose a full-blown Title II regime now, when the classification of cable broadband has always been as an information service, would reverse nearly a decade of precedent, including findings by the Supreme Court that this classification was proper. This would be a radical reversal that would harm investment and innovation, as today’s immediate stock market reaction demonstrates. And such a radical reversal of consistent contrary precedent should be taken up by the Congress.”

    TechCrunch has longer statements from these providers. Then you have organizations like the ACLU and Internet Association weighing in.

    “Today, President Obama is a free speech champion,” the ACLU said. “He deserves an enormous amount of credit for unequivocally calling on the FCC to adopt rules that will finally allow the agency to protect the free and open internet. Preventing ‘fast lanes’ and discrimination against some content producers on the internet is one of the most important free speech issues of the digital age. Large broadband providers should not be allowed to slow or block content from their competitors or because the content may be controversial.”

    “The Internet Association applauds President Obama’s proposal for the adoption of meaningful net neutrality rules that apply to both mobile and fixed broadband,” said the Internet Association. “As we have previously said, the FCC must adopt strong, legally sustainable rules that prevent paid prioritization and protect an open Internet for users. Using Title II authority, along with the right set of enforceable rules, the President’s plan would establish the strong net neutrality protections Internet users require. We welcome the President’s leadership, and encourage the FCC to stand with the Internet’s vast community of users and move quickly to adopt strong net neutrality protections that ensure a free and open Internet.”

    Netflix, which just posted its monthly ISP speed rankings data, has also voiced support for the President.

    Well, you’ve heard a lot from both proponents and opponents of Obama’s request, as well as the FCC itself, which as the President says, ultimately has to make the decision. Where do you land on the debate? Let us know in the comments.

    Image via YouTube

  • FCC Says Marriott Jammed Guests’ Wi-Fi, Will Pay $600K Fine

    FCC Says Marriott Jammed Guests’ Wi-Fi, Will Pay $600K Fine

    The FCC and Marriott have come to an agreement on allegations that the hotel chain puprosefully jammed its customers’ Wi-Fi. The civil penalty will amount to $600,000 for the largest hotel company in the world.

    The whole thing started with a complaint, which the FCC received in March of 2013. The complainant, who had recently stayed at Marriott’s Gaylord Opryland hotel in Nashville, Tennessee, said that Marriott was “jamming mobile hotspots so that you can’t use them in the convention space.”

    Marriott admitted to (how’s this for clever wording) using “containment features of a Wi-Fi monitoring system”, which prevented many guests from using their own Wi-Fi networks – either through a personal hotspot or third-party device. Because of course they did.

    At the Gaylord Opryland hotel, Wi-Fi is included in your $18-per-night resort fee, but you can upgrade to “enhanced high speed” internet for just $6.99 a day. Because of course you can.

    And from GigaOm:

    Marriott also offers services like custom private networks for its business customers, which can cost anywhere from $250 to $1000 per wireless access point.

    Because of course they do. Shucks, sure would be a shame is something were to happen to your hotspot…oh damn, there it goes.

    Despite being a dick move, this is also illegal. From the FCC:

    “Section 333 of the Communications Act provides that ‘No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this Act or operated by the United States Government.’ The Bureau previously has indicated that the use of jammers to interfere with Wi-Fi transmissions violates Section 333.3.”

    Long story short, if you notice your hotspot isn’t working in a hotel, you might not want to chalk it up to coincidence. If you think that Marriott were the only ones doing this, well, I envy your optimism.

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • NFL Blackout Rule Nixed by FCC, but Games Could Still Go Dark

    NFL Blackout Rule Nixed by FCC, but Games Could Still Go Dark

    The Federal Communications Commission has made a huge move, eliminating the sports blackout rules that have been in place for nearly four decades. The rules, which prohibited cable and satellite providers from airing sports events which were blacked out in local broadcast markets due to lack of stadium sellouts, will no longer be enforced by the Commission.

    But that doesn’t necessarily mean your local NFL game can’t be blacked out.

    According to the FCC, the sports blackout rules are “no longer justified in light of the significant changes in the sports industry since these rules were first adopted.” The FCC argues that ticket sales used to be the primary source of revenue for the NFL, and sellouts were rare.

    Now it’s the blackouts that are rare (only two in the entirety of last season). Not only that, but the NFL’s television revenue was a reported $6 billion in 2013.

    So, the action will “remove Commission protection of the NFL’s current private blackout policy” – but could games still be blacked out?

    Yes, unfortunately for fans.

    The NFL currently has private blackout contracts with broadcast networks like CBS and FOX. These contracts, at least as of now, won’t expire until 2022.

    But according to the FCC, “the NFL will no longer be entitled to the protection of the Commission’s sports blackout rules – instead the NFL must rely on the same avenues available to other entities that wish to protect their distribution rights in the private marketplace.

    In other words, the FCC is no longer the NFL’s enforcer.

    As USA Today points out, cable and satellite operators are now, theoretically, allowed to show a local, blacked out game. This is something that broadcast networks feared could happen with a rule change.

    But once again, blackouts are extremely rare in today’s NFL.

    The NFL, for its part, had this to say:

    “NFL teams have made significant efforts in recent years to minimize blackouts. The NFL is the only sports league that televises every one of its games on free, over-the-air television. The FCC’s decision will not change that commitment for the foreseeable future.”

    Image via Parker Anderson, Flickr Creative Commons

  • Netflix to FCC: Say No to Comcast / Time Warner Cable Merger

    Netflix to FCC: Say No to Comcast / Time Warner Cable Merger

    Netflix, clearly unhappy with the proposed Comcast/Time Warner Cable merger from the outset, has finally made their concerns official with a petition to the Federal Communications Commission. In a just-filed Petition to Deny, Netflix argues that the entity formed by the merger would “have the incentive and ability – through access fees charged at interconnection points and by other means – to harm internet companies.”

    “The proposed merger puts at risk the end-to-end principle that has characterized the internet and been a key driver in the creation of the most important communications platform in history. Unsurprisingly, given their dominance in the cable television marketplace, the proposed merger would give Applicants the ability to turn a consumer’s internet experience into something that more closely resembles cable television. It would set up and ecosystem that calls into questions what we to date have taken for granted: that a consumer who pays for connectivity to the internet will be able to get the content she requests,” says Netflix in the petition.

    “The transaction would give Applicant control of a dominant share of the nations’s residential high-speed broadband customers at a time when those customers increasingly engage with more content-rich applications that require high-speed broadband to work properly, such as Internet-delivered video.”

    If the Comcast/Time Warner Cable deal is approved, the resulting entity would control over 60 percent of the country’s broadband households.

    We’ve seen Netflix make the net neutrality argument against this merger before. Upon release of their last quarterly earnings report, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings said,

    “Comcast is already dominant enough to be able to capture unprecedented fees from transit providers and services such as Netflix. The combined company would possess even more anti-competitive leverage to charge arbitrary interconnection tolls for access to their customers. For this reason, Netflix opposes this merger.”

    Now, that opposition is on governmental record.

    At the time, Comcast was quick to refute Hastings’ claims.

    “There has been no company that has had a stronger commitment to openness of the Internet than Comcast and we are the only ISP in the country that is currently legally bound by the FCC’s vacated Net Neutrality rules,” said SVP, Corporate and Digital Communications Jennifer Khoury. “In fact, one of the many benefits of our proposed transaction with Time Warner Cable will be the extension of Net Neutrality protections to millions of additional Americans.”

    Of course, all of this is taking place months after Netflix made a deal with Comcast to ensure high-quality streaming. There is a debate on whether those sort of deals, which Netflix is afraid are only going to increase with a Comcast/TWC merger, are even about net neutrality or simply business as usual – but it’s clear that Netflix wants to frame the potential merger as a strike to net neutrality.

    Image via Netflix

  • Comcast & Time Warner Cable Pass Time Awaiting Merger Approval by Helping Give Award to FCC Commissioner

    Comcast & Time Warner Cable Pass Time Awaiting Merger Approval by Helping Give Award to FCC Commissioner

    Do you pay a lot for cable and internet? Neat, me too. Check this out.

    You’ve probably never heard of it, but The Walter Kaitz Foundation is a decades-old non-profit organization with the stated mission of promoting diversity in the cable telecommunications industry.

    Every September, the Walter Kaitz Foundation holds a dinner in New York City called the Kaitz Dinner. It’s a pretty big social event for the cable industry. Each year, the foundation honors someone as a ‘Diversity Advocate’ – “an individual outside the cable industry who has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to diversity and has fostered an inclusive environment for the cable telecommunications industry.”

    This year, that individual is Mignon L. Clyburn – daughter of US Representative Jim Clyburn and current Commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission.

    As of right now, one of the biggest topics on the docket of the commission she chairs is the proposed merger of Comcast and Time Warner Cable. You know, that deal that nobody wants. If it goes through, the Comcast-TWC megabeast that emerged would control around 30 percent of the cable TV pool and closer to 40 percent of the high-speed internet market.

    As Delara Derakhshani of Consumers Union puts it, “Under this proposed deal, two huge companies would become a behemoth…it’s hard to understand how this kind of concentrated market power is going to benefit consumers.” But that’s just one side. Feel free to debate the merger’s benefits to customers in the comments.

    Anyway, back to this dinner. Turns out, it has some interesting sponsors. And by interesting, I mean completely expected and totally unsurprising. From Politico:

    Comcast will pay $110,000 to be a top-level “presenting sponsor” at the Walter Kaitz Foundation’s annual dinner in September, at which Clyburn is receiving the “diversity advocate” award, according to a foundation spokeswoman. Time Warner Cable paid $22,000 in May to the foundation for the same event, according to a Senate lobbying disclosure filed at the end of last month.

    TL;DR – Both Comcast and Time Warner Cable are paying to sponsor an event honoring the commissioner of the federal regulatory organization tasked with approving or disapproving their desired merger.

    Both Comcast and TWC say that they’ve been supporting the Walter Kaitz Foundation for many years (which is true) and it’s ludicrous to think their contributions have anything to do with “currying favor” (which is surely…something). A Comcast rep had this to say:

    “We absolutely dispute the notion that our contributions have anything to do with currying favor with Commissioner Clyburn or any honoree. Such claims are insulting and not supported by any evidence. They are purely fiction. We have supported the organization year in and year out regardless of who the dinner honorees have been.”

    Let’s play a game where I give Comcast the benefit of the doubt. This is my first time playing this game, so I’m not really sure how to do it. But I’ll try, and having done that, I gotta say, this whole thing still looks a bit…incestuous, don’t you think? Guys? Any concern about public image?

    So, there you go. That’s what’s going on right now. It’s not particularly surprising, and that fact in and of itself is what’s truly distressing.

    Image via FCC.gov

  • Web Goes Ballistic Over FCC Net Neutrality Rules

    Web Goes Ballistic Over FCC Net Neutrality Rules

    The FCC is set to propose new rules related to net neutrality, and they’re not exactly in favor of it. In fact, according to reports, these rules would enable broadband providers to give preferential treatment to content providers who pay for access to “fast lanes”.

    So, you know, pretty much the opposite of net neutrality.

    Can any good come from this? Let us know what you think in the comments.

    The FCC said it will propose rules that would let content providers like Netflix, Google,Skype, etc. pay ISPs like Comcast (which is in the process of merging with Time Warner Cable) for those fast lanes.

    Netflix has already been having a war of words with Comcast, publicly opposing the merger.

    Netflix said in a letter to shareholders Monday, “If the Comcast and Time Warner Cable merger is approved, the combined company’s footprint will pass over 60 percent of U.S. broadband households, after the proposed divestiture, with most of those homes having Comcast as the only option for truly high-speed broadband (>10Mbps). As DSL fades in favor of cable Internet, Comcast could control high-speed broadband to the majority of American homes. Comcast is already dominant enough to be able to capture unprecedented fees from transit providers and services such as Netflix. The combined company would possess even more anti-competitive leverage to charge arbitrary interconnection tolls for access to their customers. For this reason, Netflix opposes this merger.”

    Comcast fired back with its own statement, saying, Netflix’s opposition is based on “inaccurate claims and arguments.”

    “There has been no company that has had a stronger commitment to openness of the Internet than Comcast and we are the only ISP in the country that is currently legally bound by the FCC’s vacated Net Neutrality rules,” wrote SVP, Corporate and Digital Communications Jennifer Khoury. “In fact, one of the many benefits of our proposed transaction with Time Warner Cable will be the extension of Net Neutrality protections to millions of additional Americans.”

    On the FCC’s new proposal, the Wall Street Journal reports:

    Developed by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, the proposal is an effort to prevent broadband Internet providers such as Comcast Corp. CMCSA +0.75% , Verizon Communications Inc., VZ +0.46% and Time Warner Cable TWC +1.04% from blocking or slowing down individual websites served up to the consumer. The idea is that consumers should be able to access whatever content they choose, not the content chosen by the broadband provider.

    But it would also allow providers to give preferential treatment to traffic from some content providers, as long as such arrangements are available on “commercially reasonable” terms for all interested content companies. Whether the terms are commercially reasonable would be decided by the FCC on a case-by-case basis.

    The report says the FCC will circulate its proposal on Thursday, and there will be a vote on whether or not to move forward with it on May 15th.

    Ars Technica shares a statement from an FCC official:

    “The FCC will be seeking comment on adopting Open Internet rules that achieve the goals of the 2010 Open Internet Order in a manner consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Verizon v. FCC. The NPRM [notice of proposed rulemaking] will propose, consistent with the Court’s analysis, that broadband providers would be required to offer a baseline level of service to their subscribers, along with the ability to enter into individual negotiations with content providers. In all instances, broadband providers would need to act in a commercially reasonable manner subject to review on a case-by-case basis. Exactly what the baseline level of service would be, the construction of a ‘commercially reasonable’ standard, and the manner in which disputes would be resolved, are all among the topics on which the FCC will be seeking comment.”

    …

    “The NPRM proposes to reinstate the same ‘no blocking’ rule adopted in 2010, but using a stronger legal rationale.” Beyond that, “new legal standard of ‘commercial reasonableness’ would be separately applied to the broadband network conduct to protect Internet openness.”

    A lot of people are taking the news to mean that the FCC is killing net neutrality. Wheeler says: “There are reports that the FCC is gutting the Open Internet rule. They are flat out wrong. Tomorrow we will circulate to the Commission a new Open Internet proposal that will restore the concepts of net neutrality consistent with the court’s ruling in January. There is no ‘turnaround in policy.’ The same rules will apply to all Internet content. As with the original Open Internet rules, and consistent with the court’s decision, behavior that harms consumers or competition will not be permitted.”

    Still, most of the reaction we’re seeing is very negative, and isn’t buying what the FCC is selling.

    TechCrunch says the new rules will “brutalize the Internet.”

    GigaOm says, “When it comes to net neutrality, either the FCC thinks we’re idtios, or it just doesn’t care.”

    Longtime tech columnist MG Siegler says of the news, “Ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh. Bullshit.”

    It would seem that what advocates for an open Internet and net neutrality have always feared may come to fruition. Many believe small businesses are in jeopardy.

    More background here and here.

    UPDATE: Wheeler has written a blog post called “Setting the Record Straight on the FCC’s Open Internet Rules,” to address the “misinformation” circulating. Here it is in its entirety:

    There has been a great deal of misinformation that has recently surfaced regarding the draft Open Internet Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that we will today circulate to the Commission.

    The Notice proposes the reinstatement of the Open Internet concepts adopted by the Commission in 2010 and subsequently remanded by the D.C. Circuit. The Notice does not change the underlying goals of transparency, no blocking of lawful content, and no unreasonable discrimination among users established by the 2010 Rule. The Notice does follow the roadmap established by the Court as to how to enforce rules of the road that protect an Open Internet and asks for further comments on the approach.

    It is my intention to conclude this proceeding and have enforceable rules by the end of the year.

    To be very direct, the proposal would establish that behavior harmful to consumers or competition by limiting the openness of the Internet will not be permitted.

    Incorrect accounts have reported that the earlier policies of the Commission have been abandoned. Two points are relevant here:

    1. The Court of Appeals made it clear that the FCC could stop harmful conduct if it were found to not be “commercially reasonable.” Acting within the constraints of the Court’s decision, the Notice will propose rules that establish a high bar for what is “commercially reasonable.” In addition, the Notice will seek ideas on other approaches to achieve this important goal consistent with the Court’s decision. The Notice will also observe that the Commission believes it has the authority under Supreme Court precedent to identify behavior that is flatly illegal.

    2. It should be noted that even Title II regulation (which many have sought and which remains a clear alternative) only bans “unjust and unreasonable discrimination.”
    The allegation that it will result in anti-competitive price increases for consumers is also unfounded. That is exactly what the “commercially unreasonable” test will protect against: harm to competition and consumers stemming from abusive market activity.

    To be clear, this is what the Notice will propose:

    1. That all ISPs must transparently disclose to their subscribers and users all relevant information as to the policies that govern their network;

    2. That no legal content may be blocked; and

    3. That ISPs may not act in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the Internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity.

    Do you think the direction the FCC is going in is a threat to innovation and small business? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    Image via YouTube

  • FCC Announces Connect2Health Initiative

    FCC Announces Connect2Health Initiative

    For the past few years, the FCC has been trying to set up better Internet for schools and health care facilities. The Commission has already set up a fund to bring high speed Internet to schools, and now it’s going to focus on education.

    FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler announced this morning that the commission has a new task force called Connect2Health. The new task force will be led by Michele Ellison and will focus on accelerating “the adoption of health care technologies by leveraging broadband and other next-gen communications services.”

    “The Commission’s top priority must be to make networks work for everyone. Broadband itself is not the goal – it’s what broadband enables,” said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. “We must leverage all available technologies to ensure that advanced health care solutions are readily accessible to all Americans, from rural and remote areas to underserved inner cities. By identifying regulatory barriers and incentives and building stronger partnerships with stakeholders in the areas of tele-health, mobile applications, and tele-medicine, we can expedite this vital shift. Michele brings a wealth of experience to the effort. She is a gifted lawyer and dedicated public servant who has brought her keen leadership skills to bear as a forceful and effective Chief of the Enforcement Bureau. I am pleased that she now will use her formidable talents to address this critical challenge.”

    Before being named head of the new Connect2Health task force, Ellison was Chief of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau. While there, she oversaw more than $300 million in “proposed penalties and settlements.” in other words, she’s a fighter and will help the FCC reach its goals in making sure health care providers embrace 21st century technology.

    Alongside the new Connect2Health initiative, the FCC has also stated that it intends to rewrite its net neutrality rules after the Supreme Court ruled against it back in January. With education, health care and net neutrality all on its plate, the FCC is looking to have a busy year.

    Image via Thinkstock

  • FCC Wants Greater Control Of The News

    FCC Wants Greater Control Of The News

    The Federal Communications Commission is planning on conducting a study to determine how news outlets decide what topics to take up. It sounds simple and innocent enough, but many are critical about the move on speculations that it is the government’s way of elbowing itself into newsrooms.

    When questioned about government surveillance of the media, FCC chair Tom Wheeler stated that the agency does not intend to regulate what broadcasters or journalists have to say. The study the FCC wants to conduct, called the Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs, aims only to identify if there are potential barriers in the market, and if there are, whether those obstacles have the power to affect the diversity of media voices.

    What made the media so skeptical?

    FCC commissioner Ajit Pai stated that the questions posted by the study will not be easy for broadcasters to ignore, even if participation is on a voluntary basis. Pai states that through the FCC study, the administration will force newsrooms to conform to what the study demands, or else probably be denied an FCC license.

    Critics also believe that the FCC presence in newsrooms could also be the government’s vehicle in telling news outlets what to write about. Plus, considering the recent NSA surveillance leak and the IRS controversy, it’s understandable why the media is thinking they’re next.

    Mike Cavender of the Radio Television Digital News Association thinks the study must be completely scrapped, because just the concept of having a study like that is abhorrent to those who pride themselves on their “journalistic independence.”

    What critics are saying is simply this: the government has no place in the newsroom, and the study is bound to impede with media practitioners’ First Amendment rights.

    The American Center for Law and Justice is urging the media and concerned citizens to sign its petition opposing the study. The study’s parameters have not been finalized, however, and Wheeler has said that the commission is open to comments.

    Image via FCC.gov

  • Will The FCC’s New Net Neutrality Rules Protect Consumers And Small Businesses?

    Will The FCC’s New Net Neutrality Rules Protect Consumers And Small Businesses?

    In January, the open Web took a major hit when a court sided with Verizon over the FCC’s net neutrality rules. The defeat meant that Verizon or any other ISP could throttle certain types of traffic in favor of others. While the FCC could appeal the ruling, the Commission is apparently not going that route.

    Reuters is reporting that the FCC will not be appealing the Verizon case instead opting to rewrite the rules. In last month’s ruling, the court said the FCC had the authority to regulate broadband access. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler will reportedly be using this authority as a jumping point to bring back the non-discrimination rules found in the original net neutrality rules.

    Do you think the FCC is right to not appeal? Should new rules be written? Let us know in the comments.

    Wheeler issued a statement Wednesday detailing how he intends to rewrite these rules. In his statement, he says the court upholding the Commission’s authority to regulate broadband access will be used to accomplish three goals – enforce and enhance the transparency rule, fulfill the “no blocking” goal, and fulfill the goals of the non-discrimination rule. While the court had no problem with the transparency rule, it did smack down the latter two. Wheeler says he will work within the confines of the court’s ruling to ensure that ISPs can not block or discriminate against Internet traffic.

    By looking to the FCC’s current authority, Wheeler could be trying to avoid a potential fight over an easier solution to the net neutrality problem – reclassifying ISPs as common carriers. The FCC only classifies phone service operators as such and has immense authority over them. The court ruled that anything other than common carriers are subject to far less authority and regulation. While the FCC certainly has the authority to reclassify ISPs as common carriers, it may want to avoid the fight that would inevitably ensue.

    As you might expect, not everybody on the FCC is terribly fond of the idea. Commissioner Ajit Pai issued a statement as well saying that net neutrality rules are burdensome regulations that get in the way of process:

    When Congress told us to encourage broadband deployment by removing barriers to infrastructure investment, it also established the policy of the United States to “preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet . . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation.” Whatever the Commission does as it moves forward, it must take that statutory command to heart.

    The Internet was free and open before the FCC adopted net neutrality rules. It remains
    free and open today. Net neutrality has always been a solution in search of a problem.

    What Pai doesn’t take into account is that net neutrality wasn’t much of a concern 10 years ago. As more and more services moved online, however, it became apparent that net neutrality would be a necessity moving forward. With nothing standing between an ISP speeding up its own services while throttling competitors, they aren’t going to support a free and open Web for long.

    While such scenarios have yet to materialize, we got a preview of what it may be like earlier this month when it was revealed that Netflix’ performance on Verizon was degrading. Netflix claims that Verizon was not intentionally throttling its speeds, but the poor performance Verizon users have been experiencing would become the norm if net neutrality rules are not reinstated.

    Not to mention, the proposed merger of Comcast and Time Warner Cable brings net neutrality concerns to the forefront. While Comcast has agreed to adhere to the FCC’s net neutrality rules for the next few years, nothing will stop them from throttling competitors like Netflix in favor of its own services once its agreement with the Commission expires.

    The examples thus far have all focused on Netflix as its generally seen as the standard in video delivery innovation. Not only did it pioneer the idea of streaming television over the Internet, but it’s also producing quality original content like House of Cards and Orange is the New Black.

    It’s hard to remember a time when Netflix was just a small startup, but there are hundreds, if not thousands, of potential startups and small businesses out there that could have the same kind of impact that Netflix has had. Without net neutrality rules to protect them, these small businesses would be at the mercy of the major Internet providers that would throttle their services unless they were willing to pay for the fast lane. Throttling innovation will lead to a stagnant market that can’t compete in an ever growing global economy.

    Net neutrality is more than just a philosophy. It’s a means to protect the consumer and small business from an industry that sometimes seems a little too monopolistic for its own good. While some will call for the FCC to reclassify broadband providers thus subjecting them to more regulation, the FCC seems to be going for a balance that satisfies the need for net neutrality without introducing more regulation than needed.

    Do you have faith in the FCC to protect consumers and small businesses with its new net neutrality rules? Or will be it one-sided in favor of Internet providers? Let us know in the comments.

    Image via Cable Center/YouTube

  • Bill That Would Ban In-Flight Calls Approved By House Committee

    Bill That Would Ban In-Flight Calls Approved By House Committee

    The FAA made a lot of fliers happier last year when it relaxed its ban on using electronic devices during take-off and landing. The ban on in-flight calls was still in effect though, but it looked like the FCC was going to strike that one down too. Well, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee doesn’t really like that idea.

    The Hill reports that the Committee, headed up by Chairman Bill Shuster, has just passed a bill that would ban in-flight cell phone calls. It’s not that Shuster thinks a cell phone call will suddenly tear a plane from the sky though. He just doesn’t want to hear you talking to your boyfriend at 30,000 feet.

    “In our day-to-day lives, when we find someone’s cell phone call to be too loud, too close, or too personal, we can just walk away,” Shuster said. “But at 30,000 feet, there’s nowhere else for an airline passenger to go. Under this bill, passengers will be able to use their mobile devices to stay connected, through getting online, emailing, texting, and more. During flights, it is common sense and common courtesy to continue keeping cell phone calls on the ground.”

    It would appear that the House Committee is not alone on this matter. A companion bill has already been introduced in the Senate by Sen. Lamar Alexander. The aviation and travel industries also backed the legislation. The U.S. Travel Association notes that polls have found that frequent fliers would prefer that in-flight calls remain banned because nobody wants to hear you blabber on like an idiot on an already stressful flight.

    It’s nothing personal, mind you. We’re all obnoxious when talking on a cell phone. Just stick to texting and we’ll all be happy. Well, as happy as 100 humans cramped in a flying tin can can be.

    Image via Thinkstock

  • FCC: Any New Net Neutrality Rules Must Be ‘Dynamic’

    FCC: Any New Net Neutrality Rules Must Be ‘Dynamic’

    Earlier this month, the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals struck down the FCC’s net neutrality rules. In short, the court said that FCC didn’t have the authority to regulate ISPs in the same way they regulate common carriers (i.e. phone service providers). Now everybody wants to know where the FCC will go from here, but the Commission is still being rather ambiguous.

    The Hill reports that FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said on Tuesday that the Commission would be taking a “dynamic” approach to net neutrality. What that means remained unexplained as Wheeler wouldn’t say if the FCC would be introducing new net neutrality laws to replace those that were struck down.

    Despite some ambiguity, Wheeler did say that any new approach to net neutrality would have to take the ever evolving Internet into account. His concern seems to be that any Internet regulations wouldn’t be able to keep up with the lightning fast pace at which the Internet develops. He said just as much by stating that the FCC doesn’t want “to say that somehow we’re smarter than the net.”

    So, where does the FCC go from here? It has two options – it can either reclassify ISPs as common carriers or it can take the wait and see approach. ISPs obviously want it to take the latter as they keep on saying the American public and regulators can trust them not to abuse their newfound freedom. Wheeler feels that way as well, but he isn’t exactly trusting. On the day of the ruling, he said that the FCC will bring down the regulatory hammer “if something appears to go wrong in a material, not a trivial, way.”

    As for those who rely on an open Web to operate, they weren’t particularly pleased with the ruling. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings in particular said that the ruling opened up the possibility for domestic ISPs to “legally impede the video streams that members request from Netflix.” Hastings later threatened to rally the full brunt force of an angry Internet if ISPs try to degrade his service in favor of their own.

    In a perfect world, net neutrality would be a thing that goes unquestioned. Unfortunately, nothing is ever perfect. As we explore this post-net neutrality Internet, ISPs are going to start experimenting with ways to make more money off an already near pure-profit business. If you want an early preview, just take a look at AT&T’s Sponsored Data. If the FCC doesn’t act on any of this, we might just have to go the Netflix route and start a good ol’ fashioned Internet riot.

    Image via Cable Center/YouTube

  • Obama Administration Still Supports Net Neutrality

    Obama Administration Still Supports Net Neutrality

    Open Internet advocates all over the nation today were saddened to learn that D.C. District Court of Appeals sided with Verizon in its fight with the FCC over the Commission’s net neutrality rules. While the FCC can still appeal to the Supreme Court, many are concerned that the Commission won’t even bother. The Obama administration is now strongly hinting that won’t be the case.

    The White House issued a statement today in regards to the appeals court ruling that struck down the net neutrality rules. While the administration would not comment on an appeal, it said that the President “remains committed to an open Internet.”

    Here’s the full statement:

    “President Obama remains committed to an open internet, where consumers are free to choose the websites they want to visit and the online services they want to use, and where online innovators are allowed to compete on a level playing field based on the quality of their products. As we continue to review the ruling, we remain committed to working with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Congress, and the private sector to preserve a free and open Internet.”

    Interestingly enough, the Obama administration may have found itself an ally in the most unlikely of companies – Time Warner Cable. It’s kind of ironic that the second most hated ISP in America is fully supportive of an open Internet, or at leas that’s what the company claims in a statement released today:

    “Since pioneering the development of high-speed broadband service in the late 1990s, Time Warner Cable has been committed to providing its customers the best service possible, including unfettered access to the web content and services of their choice. This commitment, which long precedes the FCC rules, will not be affected by today’s court decision.”

    While that may be true, a little bit of wordplay could lead us to a future where Time Warner Cable institutes something like AT&T’s sponsored data. It technically doesn’t run afoul of the FCC’s original net neutrality rules and it would allow them to claim to still support an open Internet. Unfortunately, it would also allow TWC or any other ISP to institute data caps while letting content providers pay to deliver data to consumers without contributing to the cap.

    In short, the open Internet might not be threatened by a lack of net neutrality rules. It’s just going to be exploited until there’s nothing left.

    [h/t: The Hill]
    Image via The White House/flickr

  • Appeals Court Strikes Down FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules

    Appeals Court Strikes Down FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules

    For the past few years, Verizon has been in a bitter battle with the FCC over the Commission’s enforcement of net neutrality rules. The case made its way all the way to the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals where both sides argued for whether or not the Commission could enforce the rules.

    The Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its anticipated ruling today in Verizon v. FCC with Verizon being named the victor in a 2-1 decision. The decision guts the FCC’s Open Internet Order – a set of rules that intended to prevent ISPs from discriminating against certain types of traffic. For example, Verizon wouldn’t be able to give preference to Redbox over Netflix under the FCC’s rules. With those rules gutted, Verizon and other ISPs now have free reign to either slow down transfer speeds for competitors or make those competitors pay for speedy access to customers.

    Wow, that sounds pretty horrible. Why did the appeals court rule in favor of something that seems so anti-consumer? Well, it’s kind of the FCC’s fault. While the ruling holds that the FCC has general authority over how ISPs treat Internet traffic, the courts say that the Commission didn’t provide a compelling enough reason to justify its authority over specific instances.

    Here’s the relevant bit of the decision:

    As we explain in this opinion, the Commission has established that section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 vests it with affirmative authority to enact measures encouraging the deployment of broadband infrastructure. The Commission, we further hold, has reasonably interpreted section 706 to empower it to promulgate rules governing broadband providers’ treatment of Internet traffic, and its justification for the specific rules at issue here—that they will preserve and facilitate the “virtuous circle” of innovation that has driven the explosive growth of the Internet—is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. That said, even though the Commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates. Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such. Because the Commission has failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order.

    So, where does this leave us – the Internet consumers that will be most affected by this? Well, there are two ways this can now go. Either the FCC can appeal to the Supreme Court, or they can just let this fight go. For the former, the Supreme Court would likely either refuse to hear it or rule in favor of Verizon again considering the current makeup of the court.

    As for the latter, it’s not like the rules were stopping ISPs from introducing programs that violates the net neutrality philosophy. During CES last week, AT&T announced Sponsored Data – a new plan that allows content providers to pay for their customers’ data. In essence, AT&T is letting the big guys pay to win while small businesses will be forced to compete at a major disadvantage.

    With the FCC’s net neutrality rules being gutted like this, it’s really only a matter of time before all of the major ISPs introduce something similar to sponsored data. For you to reliably enjoy Netflix on Time Warner Cable, Netflix will now have to pay Time Warner for faster access to your home. This will in turn force Netflix to raise its prices. It would also negatively impact small businesses and startups that rely on streaming to deliver content as they wouldn’t be able to afford the fees. This would negatively impact innovation and competition as only the established players could afford the gatekeeper fees.

    In the end, all of the above is merely speculation until we know how the FCC is going to progress from here. The net neutrality rules were put into place by former FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. His successor, Tom Wheeler, was a former lobbyist for the telecom industry so the chances of him appealing the decision are slim to none. Still, miracles can happen as Wheeler supported and helped set up an agreement that lets Americans unlock their phones after their contract has expired.

    UPDATE: FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has issued the following statement in regards to today’s ruling:

    “The D.C. Circuit has correctly held that ‘Section 706 . . . vests [the Commission] with affirmative authority to enact measures encouraging the deployment of broadband infrastructure’ and therefore may ‘promulgate rules governing broadband providers’ treatment of Internet traffic.’ I am committed to maintaining our networks as engines for economic growth, test beds for innovative services and products, and channels for all forms of speech protected by the First Amendment. We will consider all available options, including those for appeal, to ensure that these networks on which the Internet depends continue to provide a free and open platform for innovation and expression, and operate in the interest of all Americans.”

    [h/t: Ars Technica]
    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • FCC Watching AT&T’s Sponsored Data Closely

    FCC Watching AT&T’s Sponsored Data Closely

    Early this week AT&T announced its new plan to allow “Sponsored Data” over its network. The plan would see content providers paying AT&T for the data usage costs incurred by AT&T mobile subscribers. The scheme would allow those content providers able to pay the ability to better promote their streaming videos, marketplaces, or other apps to data-conscious AT&T customers.

    The plan immediately came under fire from net neutrality advocates, who see the plan as the beginning of the very thing they had sought to stop from happening. AT&T’s sponsored data also drew criticism from Silicon Valley’s Congresswoman, who stated that the plan could threaten the open internet. Now the plan has drawn the attention of the group AT&T least wants to address its Sponsored Data ambitions – the FCC.

    The Wall Street Journal today reported that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is aware of the program and watching it closely. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is quoted as saying the FCC will be taking a wait-and-see approach to Sponsored Data. The commission will wait for the program to roll out before making a decision on it, though Wheeler made it clear the FCC is “ready to intervene” if Sponsored Data is anticompetitive or interferes with customers’ internet access.

    Though AT&T claims that Sponsored Data will be consumer-friendly for those customers who often use content from sponsors, critics are envisioning a scenario in which AT&T and content companies stifle competition by curating a selection of popular content that can be accessed without fear of data overages. AT&T made it clear that sponsored content would not get network priority, but low data caps from mobile providers could leave customers with little choice as mobile content begins to take more bandwidth.

  • FCC May Greenlight Mid-Flight Cell Calls

    FCC May Greenlight Mid-Flight Cell Calls

    Could you soon be permitted to call your loved ones while flying the friendly skies?

    According to a report from the Wall Street Journal, the Federal Communications Commission is set to suggest new rules that would allow passengers to use their cellphones at cruising altitude.

    From The Wall Street Journal:

    The Federal Communications Commission will propose allowing passengers to use their cellphones on airplanes, people familiar with the matter said.

    While phone use would still be restricted during takeoff and landing, the proposal would lift an FCC ban on airborne calls and cellular data use by passengers once a flight reaches 10,000 feet, an FCC official said.

    That’s the dream, right?

    Of course, the FCC isn’t the only group with a say in this.

    Even if the FCC decided to change their rules, any changes would have to be considered by the Federal Aviation Administration and gain approval over there as well, and individual airlines would have the final say on whether or not they allow you to jabber away during flights. Not only have flight staff expressed concerns about any possible lifting of the cellphone ban in the past (they say it would be a nuisance), but you can probably imagine how some passengers would feel about their row-mates airing their laundry for the entire plane to hear – for a four-hour flight. Ugh.

    As of right now…

    “Federal Communications Commission rules prohibit the use of cellular phones using the 800 MHz frequency and other wireless devices on airborne aircraft. The ban was put in place because of potential interference to wireless networks on the ground.”

    Almost a decade ago, the FCC first explored lifting the cellphone ban – but the proceeding was ended in 2007 when they “determined that the technical information provided by interested parties in response to the proposal was insufficient to determine whether in-flight use of wireless devices on aircraft could cause harmful interference to wireless networks on the ground.”

    Also, as stated before, some people weren’t happy about the notion.

    It is the digital age, however, and things have been trending toward a general relaxing of in-flight electronics rules lately. Just last month, the FAA decided to expand passenger use of portable electronic devices during all phases of flight. That means you no longer have to power down your cellphones, tablets, and e-readers during landing and takeoff – or at least that will be the case as soon as all the airlines get on board. The FAA says that they hope this will be the case by the end of the year.

    Image via Thinkstock

  • Google’s White Spaces Database Gets Certification From FCC

    Google’s White Spaces Database Gets Certification From FCC

    Google just announced that its White Spaces database has received its final certification from the FCC.

    Google has been running a trial in South Africa, and in March announced that it reached a milestone in getting a public trial with the FCC. Here we are a few months later, and it appears to be good to go.

    “This is an exciting step forward,” Google Access Principal Alan Norman writes in a blog post. “With FCC certification, we can do more to help make spectrum available. We are ready to work with leaders in the wireless industry—those developing certified devices that can talk to a database—to help them gain access to TV White spaces spectrum to help bring new technologies and services to market.”

    “Our database has already helped to show that there is available spectrum out there–if you know where to look,” adds Norman. “For example, we used the database to help visualize available spectrum in Cape Town, South Africa and Dakar, Senegal. And, with spectrum sharing enabled by a database, multiple users can share spectrum, accessing what they they need when they need it, and allowing others to use it when they don’t.”

    Meanwhile, Google is looking to expand Internet access around the world by sending a ring of balloons into the sky around the world.

  • FCC Chairman Nominee Supports Cell Phone Unlocking

    FCC Chairman Nominee Supports Cell Phone Unlocking

    Tom Wheeler, the man President Obama has nominated to be the next FCC chairman, has something in common with a lot of Americans. He believes that they have the right to unlock their cell phones after a two-year contract is fulfilled.

    During a nomination hearing with the Senate Commerce Committee earlier this week, Wheeler said he fully supports the ability of Americans to unlock their smartphones:

    “I am a strong supporter of intellectual property rights. At the same point in time, I believe that when I as a consumer or you as a consumer, or anyone have fulfilled our commitment and we’ve paid off our contract, that we ought to have the right to use that device and move it across carriers as we see fit. I look forward to working on this issue and resolving this issue to give consumers flexibility.”

    In the above statement, Wheeler is referring to how the legality of cell phone unlocking is decided by the Librarian of Congress as per the rules set by the DMCA. The law states that the Librarian of Congress shall name exemptions to the anti-circumvention clause. The original intent was to keep consumers from cracking DRM in the name of piracy, but it has been used to prevent consumers from doing as they wish with purchased hardware.

    Many proponents of cell phone unlocking have called for an amended DMCA, but some industry players obviously wouldn’t want that. As for Wheeler, he seems to be keeping all options on the table. Here’s what he said in a statement to Ars Technica:

    “I don’t know whether it [should be] a permanent exemption [to the DMCA], whether it is a rewrite of the Copyright Act, or what the appropriate solution is, but I do believe there needs to be a solution and consumers should have the right to unlock their phones after they’ve lived up to their side of the agreement.”

    Wheeler may not be sure on how to progress yet, but a few lawmakers in Congress have tossed up a few ideas. The first proposal, which is from Sen. Patrick Leahy, calls for cell phone unlocking to be added to the Librarian of Congress’ exemption list. It doesn’t actually fix any problems though. The fact that it doesn’t fix anything may be why the wireless industry is 100 percent behind it. They can be seen as pro-consumer in the short term, but still have the authority to enforce locked cell phones if the Librarian of Congress chooses to remove it from the exemption list in 2016.

    The second, and far more preferable, is Rep. Zoe Lofgren’s Unlocking Technology Act of 2013. The proposed law would “permanently guarantee consumers can unlock their cell phones, tablets, and other mobile communications devices in order to switch carriers.” The bill goes even further by legalizing the sharing of tools necessary to unlock mobile devices.

    Unfortunately, it seems that most of the support in Washington is in favor of Leahy’s band aid for a bullet wound solution. Wheeler will undoubtedly support it as well considering his close ties to the wireless industry.

    [Image: The Cable Center]

  • New Nexus 7 Makes A Stop At The FCC

    New Nexus 7 Makes A Stop At The FCC

    Google confirmed before its annual developer conference that no new hardware would be shown, but it was still disappointing to see the company not introduce the oft-rumored new Nexus 7. It’s fine now, however, as the FCC has pretty much revealed the new tablet for us.

    A new 7-inch tablet from Asus bearing the Nexus moniker has recently made its way through the FCC. The filing reveals pretty much everything about the new tablet and it’s looking good so far.

    The new Nexus 7, according to the FCC, has been outfitted with a Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Pro, rear camera, a 3,950mAh battery and LTE. The processor confirms previous rumors that Google and Asus have ditched Nvidia in favor of Qualcomm’s Snapdragon series while the inclusion of LTE will undoubtedly elicit a few “About time” reactions from consumers.

    Here’s the full breakdown courtesy of the FCC:

    New Nexus 7 Stops By The FCC

    The FCC is great at revealing the tech specs of new hardware, but it doesn’t gives us a date or price. We might have an idea thanks to rumors and speculations though. Droid Life says that the Nexus 7 might launch on July 30. Knowing Google, the company will either announce the new Nexus 7 on that very same day, or only a few days prior.

    As for the price, you can probably expect Google to stick close to the price of the current Nexus 7. The addition of LTE may jack up the price for some of the models, but I suspect Google will be releasing a Wi-Fi only model at the same $199 price that the 16GB Nexus 7 retails for now.

  • Wireless Carriers Back Worthless Cellphone Unlocking Bill

    Wireless Carriers Back Worthless Cellphone Unlocking Bill

    Should you be able to unlock your cellphone? Wireless carriers used to not think so, but now the industry’s lobbying group seems to be fine with it as long as the bill is worthless.

    The Hill reports that the wireless industry group CTIA has indicated that it will support a cellphone unlocking bill during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the matter. Now, the group isn’t supporting broad unlocking rules, but rather the very limited, and kind of worthless H.R. 1123, or the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act.

    If you’re just joining us. H.R. 1123 is a House bill introduced by Rep. Bod Goodlatte. The bill would reverse the Librarian of Congress’ decision earlier this year to put cellphone unlocking back on the list of practices that violate the DMCA. Previously, it was exempt under the copyright law thus allowing customers to unlock their devices.

    At the time, the reasoning for putting it back on the list was because the Librarian thought that wireless carriers were doing a good enough job of letting customers unlock their phones. Leaving it up to the carriers, however, leads to some being able to unlock their devices and some can’t. Even those that can have to sometimes jump through a lot of hurdles just to move a phone to a different carrier.

    So, why do wireless carriers like Goodlatte’s legislation when they make it as hard as possible for customers to move phones? They like it because it does absolutely nothing to change the status quo. As the CTIA puts it, the bill provides “a reasonable balance that protects consumers and carriers alike.”

    Unfortunately, Goodlatte’s bill does nothing to protect consumers. It just alleviates their suffering under the DMCA for three years. It does nothing to fix the actual problem.

    In a perfect world, Congress and wireless carriers would be listening to FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai. In an op-ed for The New York Times, he argues that cellphone unlocking should be removed from the DMCA altogether.

    To restore a free market that benefits consumers, we should amend the 1998 act to allow consumers to take their mobile devices from one carrier to another without fear of criminal prosecution or civil fines. We should also make clear that those who help consumers unlock their phones and tablets won’t be prosecuted either. And we should reiterate that contracts remain valid and enforceable. These fixes should be permanent, so that consumers, developers and wireless carriers don’t have to worry about the law shifting on a whim.

    The entire op-ed is well worth reading, but the above is the central argument. Let people do whatever the hell they want with their phone after the contract is up. Cellphone unlocking should not be a crime, and it shouldn’t have even been a copyright issue in the first place. As Pai says – “No one seriously believes that unlocking a cellphone to switch carriers is equivalent to piracy.”

    Unfortunately, the carriers do, and they will fight to keep cellphone unlocking under the DMCA. Goodlatte’s bill does just that while pretending to care about consumer choice. Here’s hoping that the House heeds Pai’s words instead of the carriers’ during today’s hearing.

  • FCC To Vote On Whether Wireless Carriers Can Sell Your Private Information

    FCC To Vote On Whether Wireless Carriers Can Sell Your Private Information

    Did you know that pretty much everything you do on your smartphone, feature phone or cellphone is logged at your carrier? Did you also know that this information is routinely sold to advertisers without your consent? Well, the FCC is saying enough is enough.

    The Hill reports that the FCC plans to hold a vote in late June on wireless carrier regulations that would require said carriers to protect customer privacy. What would those protections entail? Simply put, wireless carriers would not be able to share your information with third parties unless you give them your permission to do so.

    Acting FCC Chairwoman Mignon Clyburn says the vote is all about protecting private mobile data from advertisers and their ilk:

    “Millions of wireless consumers must have confidence that personal information about calls will remain secure even if that information is stored on a mobile device. This ruling makes clear that wireless carriers who direct or cause information to be stored in this way have a responsibility to provide safeguards, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this effort.”

    As you can imagine, wireless carriers don’t like the idea of mandatory regulations. They argue that the FCC should just present voluntary guidelines, and then stay out of their business. They even go so far as to say that mandatory regulations “would actually harm consumers by hamstringing providers in their ability to improve service quality, especially in these times of wireless spectrum capacity constraints.”

    In their defense, there is some truth in that statement. The software carriers use to collect all your personal information is also used to collect data on network performance. It does play a rather significant role in maintaining network coverage in times of heavy congestion.

    Still, rules are better than no rules. Besides, the proposed FCC regulations fall in line with what some carriers already do. Verizon asks for its customers’ permission to sell their mobile data to advertisers in exchange for coupons. Some may not think that’s a fair deal, but that’s what the FCC hopes to make a standard practice. It just wants to require all carriers to simply ask permission first. Is that a hard thing to do?