Data From Italy, China Suggests The US Internet Isn't Likely To Choke On COVID-19 Broadband Usage Spike

from the spiking-demand dept

As millions of Americans begin to work and learn from home in a bid to slow the spread of COVID-19, America's patchy and expensive broadband networks are likely to get a workout. To be clear, the shift will certainly highlight the broken US telecom market, at least in terms of patchy availability, limited competition, and high prices. But most experts say US networks should be able to shoulder the load without too much difficulty.

As of last week, giants like AT&T and Verizon say they hadn't seen a massive surge in internet usage yet, and insisted they'd be able to shoulder any load once usage ramps up further:

"Verizon, which runs both wired and wireless networks, said it had not seen a "measurable increase in data usage" since the outbreak but that it was prepared to handle potential increases. “Verizon operates its networks every day as though it’s a snow day," Kyle Malady, Verizon’s chief technology officer, said in a statement. "While it is not clear yet how having millions of additional people working from home will impact usage patterns, we are ready to address changes in demand, if needed."

Most ISPs have taken numerous measures to make sure users can remain online, such as waiving all late fees and promising not to kick people offline if they can't pay their bill due to Coronavirus-related difficulty. They've also indicated they're going to be eliminating all usage caps and overage fees, making it clear that such restrictions -- as countless experts had long argued -- didn't actually help them manage congestion, and were little more than a tax on captive broadband customers in uncompetitive markets.

So far, data from the US, China, and Italy would seemingly suggest that while overall speeds may slow slightly, the internet itself should be able to handle the load:

"Ookla analyzed internet performance data in China, Italy, and the US over the past several weeks. In Hubei, China, the population was locked down on Jan. 22-23, but internet speeds began to decline the week of Jan. 13. In Italy, lockdowns started on March 9, and Ookla saw notable speed declines in both the province of Lombardy and in Italy as a whole that week.

These are speed declines, though, not crashes. The networks are holding up, they're just under a bit of strain. That bodes well for US networks.

Granted, things could change substantially if supply chains and network engineer and support staffs become shorthanded. Satellite broadband (which is heavily capped and throttled) may be particularly susceptible to strain. But by and large by most indications the US internet should be able to handle the pandemic.

Filed Under: broadband, congestion, covid-19, networks

Insane: China Expels American Journalists In Ridiculous, Unhelpful Spat About Covid-19

from the stop-this-nonsense dept

There has been some absolutely ridiculous sniping between the Chinese government and the US government over "blame" for Covid-19. For idiotic reasons, President Trump and his sycophantic followers started referring to Covid-19 as "The Chinese Virus," a racist term that hints at putting blame on Chinese people for the virus or even implying that those of Chinese ancestry are more risky than others. The administration also stupidly limited the number of Chinese staffers allowed at the US bureaus of Chinese news organizations, partly in response to China expelling three Wall Street Journal reporters over a headline it didn't like.

The Chinese government responded in an even more idiotic manner, trying to blame Americans for the disease.

China’s state media have been equally involved in spreading skepticism of the virus’s origin. Official Communist Party publication Xinhua has published several articles questioning COVID-19’s provenance, and the state-run Global Times wrote, “As the U.S. COVID-19 situation becomes increasingly obscure, the Chinese public shares the suspicion raised by Zhao Lijian that the U.S. might be the source of the virus and that the U.S. is subject [to] questioning and is obliged to explain [its role to] the world.”

And the latest move is that China has now expelled American journalists working for the three big US newspapers: The NY Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. No matter what you think of the journalism done by any of these news organizations, and no matter what you think of the way either the US or Chinese governments have been handling the crisis, this is very, very bad.

We're at a point right now where it is more important than ever that there be open information and open communication about what is happening around the globe regarding Covid-19, and making sure that everyone has as accurate information as possible. Expelling journalists from either China or the US is extraordinarily short sighted and dangerous at this moment. The Chinese and American governments should set aside their petty spats for now. They can always pick it up back later when the world is not in so much peril (though, frankly, we'd be a lot better off if we stopped with all the pettiness between countries).

Filed Under: china, covid-19, expelled, journalists, us
Companies: ny times, wall street journal, washington post, wsj

Softbank-Owned Patent Troll Now Promises To Grant Royalty-Free License For Covid-19 Tests; Details Lacking

from the let's-see-the-details dept

Yesterday I wrote up a fairly insane story about how a Softbank-owned patent troll, Fortress Investment Group, through a shell company subsidiary, Labrador Diagnostics (which, despite its name, does not seem to do any diagnostics), using patents that it had bought up from the sham medical testing company Theranos during its fire sale, had sued BioFire Diagnostics/BioMerieux, one of the few companies making a Covid-19 diagnostics test, claiming patent infringement. The patent infringement claims were on all of its diagnostics created using BioFire's FilmArray 2.0, FilmArray EZ, and FilmArray Torch devices -- and the company's Covid-19 tests were based on that technology. Even worse, the company asked the court to issue an injunction, blocking BioFire from using the tests. As we pointed out, this was not just tone deaf, but destructive and dangerous.

This morning, hours after our article went viral, Labrador Diagnostics issued a press release claiming that once it became aware that BioFire was working on Covid-19 tests, it had offered the company a royalty-free license on those tests (and only those tests):

-Labrador Diagnostics LLC (“Labrador”) today announced that it will offer to grant royalty-free licenses to third parties to use its patented diagnostics technology for use in tests directed to COVID-19. Labrador fully supports efforts to assess and ultimately end this pandemic and hopes that more tests will be created, disseminated, and used to quickly and effectively protect our communities through its offer of a royalty-free license during the current crisis.

On March 9, 2020, Labrador, an entity owned by investment funds managed by Fortress Investment Group LLC, filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the District of Delaware to protect its intellectual property. Labrador wants to make clear that the lawsuit was not directed to testing for COVID-19. The lawsuit focuses on activities over the past six years that are not in any way related to COVID-19 testing.

Two days after the lawsuit was filed on March 11, 2020, the defendants issued a press release announcing that they were developing tests for COVID-19. Labrador had no prior knowledge of these activities by the defendants. When Labrador learned of this, it promptly wrote to the defendants offering to grant them a royalty-free license for such tests.

There are still many open questions regarding all of this. It is unclear when Labrador actually sent this letter or what it actually says in the details. It's notable that it says that it "will offer to grant royalty-free licenses, rather than just flat out waiving any rights it might hold for such tests. The latter would suggest good faith. The former makes you wonder if there are conditions associated with the "offer" (such as needing to license the patents for other uses, or a recognition of the patents as valid or some such). Labrador and its lawyers at Irell & Manella could clear up this confusion by releasing the letter -- including the time stamp when it was actually sent.

Even this bit of last minute ass covering doesn't change the overall sketchiness of the original lawsuit. Again, we're talking about questionable patents from Theranos, a firm that was shown to be a sham, with technology that never worked. The patents themselves seem excessively, perhaps ridiculously, broad. Look over the claims in patent 8,283,155 and explain to me how that adds anything new or novel to diagnostic testing machines. Here's the 1st claim:

1. A two-way communication system for detecting an analyte in a bodily fluid from a subject, comprising:

a) a reader assembly comprising a programmable processor that is operably linked to a communication assembly;
b) an external device configured to transmit a protocol to the communication assembly;
c) a test device configured to be inserted into the reader assembly, said test device comprising:

i) a sample collection unit configured for collecting a sample of bodily fluid suspected to contain an analyte;
ii) an assay assembly containing reactants that react with said sample of bodily fluid based on the protocol transmitted from said external device to yield a detectable signal indicative of the presence and/or concentration of said analyte; and
iii) an identifier that is configured to provide the identity of said test device and is also configured to trigger the transmission of said protocol that is selected based on said identifier;

wherein the programmable processor of the reader assembly is configured to receive said protocol from said external device, wherein said protocol in turn effects (1) a reaction in said assay assembly for generating said signal, and (2) selection of a detection method for detecting said signal, and wherein said reader further comprises a detection assembly for detecting said signal which is transmitted via said communication assembly to said external device.

It basically seems to describe a mobile testing unit that can collect data from a sample, and send what it finds over a network to a computer system to analyze. I'm certainly not an expert in the field, but it seems to me that if you were to ask basically any one with any knowledge of how these things work "how would you build a mobile medical diagnostics tool" they'd more or less describe exactly this system. This is not some big breakthrough. This seems to be a broad an obvious idea that never should have received a patent in the first place.

So, sure, it's great that after Irell & Manella started getting lots of shit for this kind of gross pandemic profiteering, it suddenly got the shell company to issue a press release "offering" (not promising) royalty-free licenses, but that doesn't clear up what appears to be a fairly gross effort at patent trolling off of a sham company's questionable patents -- and doing so in the midst of a pandemic. While the company claims it didn't now that BioFire was working on a Covid-19 test, that's laughable. Pretty much everyone in the space seemed to expect BioFire to be among the diagnostics firms creating a test. Indeed, even the Wall Street Journal wrote about BioFire working on this a full week before the lawsuit was filed. On top of that, this lawsuit was filed when it was already blatantly clear that we were in the midst of a pandemic, where BioFire's diagnostics would be useful.

So, yes, it's great that after the terribleness of this decision became clear, the company made it public that it wouldn't seek to stop Covid-19 testing, but that doesn't excuse all of the other awful behavior at play here -- and, again, the company still has not revealed the details and conditions of its "offer."

Filed Under: covid-19, diagnostics, license, patent troll, patents, testing
Companies: biofire, biomerieux, fortress investment group, irell & manella, labrador diagnostics, softbank

As Politicians Are Still Looking To Destroy The Internet, Covid-19 Reminds Us Why Social Media Is Not Just Good, But Saving Lives

from the killing-it-might-kill-more-people dept

For all the fears and freak-outs over "disinformation" on social media, over the past few weeks Twitter, especially, has been an amazing source for getting accurate, thoughtful information regarding the Covid-19 pandemic and how to deal with it. It's a pretty stark contrast, in fact, between people who seemed to be paying attention to credible voices on social media, and who began "social distancing" sooner, and those who were getting their information from politicians and television (especially cable news) who seemed to wave off the dangers for way too long. That's not to say there hasn't been disinformation about Covid-19 online -- including some spread by politicians and crackpots. However, on the whole, social media has done what it does best: allowed credible, knowledgeable voices to rise to the top for many.

As Elizabeth Nolan Brown at Reason notes, COVID-19 Reminds Us: Social Media Is Good, Actually:

Social media have also been providing news from early outbreak zones across the globe, as users widely disseminate stories from foreign news outlets, statements from foreign leaders, and first-hand accounts from residents of affected areas abroad.

These snaphots helped give Americans a better sense of the scope of the threat posed by COVID-19 at a time when the messages coming from official channels were conflicting and confusing. They also illustrated the ways in which various social responses could play out—giving credence to calls here for "social distancing" and spurring measures to make room in medical facilities.

Around the U.S., communities still seem to be experiencing widely different reactions to the pandemic, with some areas seeing runs on grocery stores and empty streets while in others things look pretty normal. This will likely change rapidly, as more businesses close their doors voluntarily—and as more governments order them to close whether they want to or not. But for now, one thing that's been noticeable is how quickly the mood on Twitter, Reddit, etc. embraced voluntary social distancing, especially in comparison to the mood in the "real world."

The NY Times had a similar article, though with a bit more snarky a title, When Facebook Is More Trustworthy Than the President. Of course, Facebook is often more trustworthy than our current President, so that's not unique. But it is notable that during such a crisis, people are able to get much more reliable information via social media.

All through February and early March, the voices of doctors and nurses on social media provided a vital antidote to those of confused and complacent political leaders embodied by President Trump. Their voices carried credibility and urgency in a way the always-on crisis of cable news can’t. They fed and were fed by credible journalism. And they helped force the United States to reckon with the crisis.

After four years in which social media has been viewed as an antisocial force, the crisis is revealing something surprising, and a bit retro: Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and others can actually deliver on their old promise to democratize information and organize communities, and on their newer promise to drain the toxic information swamp.

Elsewhere, it's been noted that the first person to really spot the threat of Covid-19 was a blogger in Florida who tracks flu outbreaks (and, no, don't ask me why the Washington Post put this story in their "Lifestyle" section):

The news seemed so intriguing — and so potentially alarming — that Sharon Sanders stayed up almost until dawn on Dec. 31 to keep track of it.

From her home in Winter Haven, Fla., Sanders began compiling reports of public comments by health officials in China’s Hubei Province. The officials, Sanders reported on her blog, FluTrackers, had announced an outbreak of an unusual cluster of pneumonia cases, caused by a mysterious virus.

The disease apparently had spread among merchants in a seafood market in Wuhan, a city of 11 million people. “A number of people from hospitals in Wuhan said that the current cause is not clear,” read one of FluTrackers’ first, uncertain posts about the outbreak.

As you may or may not recall, this was the original promise of the internet. It would enable anyone to get their voices out there, and that could allow more viewpoints and perspectives. Of course, that also includes ill-informed people or those with malicious or chaotic intent to get their voices out there as well. And over the last few years it's felt that we've over-corrected on worrying about those people. But one key point that I think has become quite clear in the past few weeks is that for much of the public, the ability to parse through and determine who is credible and who is trustworthy, is a useful skill that still applies online, and has allowed many more people to inform themselves, rather than to mis-inform themselves.

Indeed, it appears that you'd receive a lot more misinformation just by watching the mainstream news acting as a stenographer for a President who is more concerned about how the crisis makes him look, than how it actually impacts the lives of everyone. Social media has always been a tool for getting voices heard -- and part of that means that we, the users of social media, are taking on some responsibility to sort out the good from the bad.

But, most importantly, the events of the last few weeks show the importance of enabling platforms where people can connect and share knowledge, and we shouldn't toss all of that in the gutter, as some in Congress are trying to do, just because there remain a small group of people pushing misinformation.

Filed Under: covid-19, disinformation, internet, news, section 230, social media

US ISPs Drop Usage Caps, Pledge To Avoid Kicking Users Offline During Coronavirus

from the every-bit-helps dept

While it required some nudging, several of the nation's biggest ISPs this week announced they would be suspending their usage caps and overage fees as millions of Americans prepare to hunker down to slow the spread of COVID-19. Comcast, AT&T, and Centurylink all stopped imposing such limits for at least the next 90 days. Critics (and even leaked Comcast memos) have long made it clear such restrictions (particularly on fixed line networks) aren't technically useful in managing congestion as the industry once claimed, and are little more than glorified price hikes on captive customers.

The speed at which such restrictions were dispatched (during a time when overall bandwidth consumption is up, no less) supports industry executive claims that such limits are arbitrary, confusing, and unnecessary.

That said, numerous ISPs say they're taking additional steps to ensure users can stay online during the outbreak. For example, a coalition of several dozen ISPs struck a voluntary "Keep Americans Connected Pledge" that they wouldn't kick users offline during the outbreak for lack of payment due to Coronavirus, and wouldn't impose late fees either. From the FCC announcement:

"Given the coronavirus pandemic and its impact on American society, [[Company Name]] pledges for the next 60 days to:

(1) not terminate service to any residential or small business customers because of their inability to pay their bills due to the disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic;

(2) waive any late fees that any residential or small business customers incur because of their economic circumstances related to the coronavirus pandemic; and

(3) open its Wi-Fi hotspots to any American who needs them.

To be clear, this is a good thing. Those struggling during the obvious economic difficulties to come should not be kicked offline during a pandemic. That said, this is all voluntary and there's no genuine legal mandate for ISPs to do follow up. Given this FCC's tendency toward giving industry a pass for pretty much anything, it's unlikely it would penalize any ISP for non-compliance barring the most obvious instances of attention-grabbing misbehavior. At lobbyist behest, the FCC has stripped away much of its industry oversight as it applies to everything from sneaky fees to transparent billing, making this sort of thing notably more difficult to actually police.

Again, that's not to say that much of these efforts won't be a good thing in the weeks or months to come. Comcast and Spectrum in particular lay claim to tens of thousands of hot spots across the United States, and opening them up to the general public should prove greatly beneficial. Especially if the nation's libraries -- often the first place lower income Americans go to connect to the internet -- are forced to close their doors. Other ISPs, like T-Mobile, have announced they're effectively getting rid of caps and will be giving all of the company's customers unlimited data:

Starting now - ALL current T-Mobile and Metro by T-Mobile customers who have plans with data will have unlimited smartphone data for the next 60 days (excluding roaming).

Providing T-Mobile and Metro by T-Mobile customers an additional 20GB of mobile hotspot / tethering service for the next 60 days – coming soon.

In the weeks and months to come, Americans will face notable financial hardships as the country struggles with business closures as the country attempts to "flatten the curve." At the very least, they won't have to worry about usage restrictions and consumption fees that shouldn't have existed in the first place.

Filed Under: broadband, broadband caps, coronavirus, covid-19, usage caps
Companies: at&t, centurylink, comcast, t-mobile, verizon

SoftBank Owned Patent Troll, Using Monkey Selfie Law Firm, Sues To Block Covid-19 Testing, Using Theranos Patents

from the and-that's-not-even-all-the-insane-parts dept

Honestly, I wasn't sure how to begin this story or how to fit all the insanity into the title. It's a story involving patents, patent trolling, Covid-19, Theranos, and even the company that brought us all WeWork: SoftBank. Oh, and also Irell & Manella, the same law firm that once claimed it could represent a monkey in a copyright infringement dispute. You see, Irell & Manella has now filed one of the most utterly bullshit patent infringement lawsuits you'll ever see. They are representing "Labrador Diagnostics LLC" a patent troll which does not seem to exist other than to file this lawsuit, and which claims to hold the rights to two patents (US Patents 8,283,155 and 10,533,994) which, you'll note, were originally granted to Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos -- the firm that shut down in scandal over medical testing equipment that appears to have been oversold and never actually worked. Holmes is still facing federal charges of wire fraud over the whole Theranos debacle.

However, back in 2018, the remains of Theranos sold its patents to Fortress Investment Group. Fortress Investment Group is a SoftBank-funded massive patent troll. You may remember the name from the time last fall when Apple and Intel sued the firm, laying out how Fortress is a sort of uber-patent troll, gathering up a bunch of patents and then shaking down basically everyone. Lovely, right?

So, this SoftBank-owned patent troll, Fortress, bought up Theranos patents, and then set up this shell company, "Labrador Diagnostics," which decided that right in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic it was going to sue one of the companies making Covid-19 tests, saying that its test violates those Theranos patents, and literally demanding that the court bar the firm from making those Covid-19 tests.

A bit more background here: the company they're suing, BioFire, recently launched three Covid-19 tests built off of the company's FilmArray technology. And that's what "Labrador" (read: SoftBank) is now suing over. From the lawsuit:

The Accused Products embody at least claim 1 of the '155 Patent, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, as set forth below. The further descriptions below, which are based on publicly available information, are preliminary examples and are non-limiting. On information and belief, the FilmArray 2.0, FilmArray EZ, and FilmArray Torch devices operate, together with the FilmArray pouches and software, similarly as pertinent to the non-limiting examples set forth below. On information and belief, the FilmArray EZ operates in substantially the same manner as the FilmArray 2.0, and as such is not separately addressed below. For the purposes of infringement, Plaintiff Labrador's non-limiting examples relating to the FilmArray 2.0 are equally applicable to the FilmArray EZ, albeit with use of at least the RP EZ Panel designed for use with the FilmArray EZ. See BioFire Diagnostics Website, https://www.biofiredx.com/products/the-filmarraypanels/ filmarray-respiratory-panel-ez/.

So, let's summarize: The firm that basically created the mess that is WeWork by dumping billions of dollars into the company, also owns a patent troll that bought up the patents from the sham medical testing firm Theranos, and is now using those patents to sue one of the few diagnostics companies that is actually making a Covid-19 test... in the middle of a pandemic. And, demanding the use of those tests be blocked:

That Defendants be enjoined from infringing the Asserted Patents, or if their infringement is not enjoined, that Defendants be ordered to pay ongoing royalties to Labrador for any post-judgment infringement of the Asserted Patents;

Honestly, I'm used to all sorts of awfulness, but this one piles awfulness upon awfulness, and takes it to a level of pure evil. The lawyers filing this lawsuit on behalf of "Labrador" should remember what they've done -- filing a bullshit patent trolling lawsuit, on behalf of a shell company for a notorious giant patent troll, using patents from a sham company, and using them to try to block the use of Covid-19 diagnostic tests in the middle of a pandemic. I wonder how they sleep at night. For the record, there are two law firms behind this filing. Irell & Manella is the big one, and they list out 7 different lawyers on this complaint: Morgan Chu, Alan Heinrich, Keith Orso, Adina Stohl, Dennis Courtney, Brian Weissenberg and Chaplin Carmichael. Their local firm is Farnan LLP, and the lawyers there are Brian and Michael Farnan. Morgan Chu is the big shot at Irell and runs its litigation group. He should take on much of the responsibility for this awful, awful lawsuit. Farnan LLP was formed by a former federal district court judge, Joseph Farnan, and I'll just note that 4 out of its 6 attorneys, including the two on this case have the same last name.

I understand the need for zealous representation of a client in court, but this seems even more despicable than your every day patent trolling, and people should associate these lawyers names with the truly despicable behavior on display here. Similarly, it should be a reminder of why its a good thing that the Supreme Court decided a decade and a half ago that injunctions are often inappropriate in patent cases. I know that there's an effort underway to have Congress change the law to overrule the Supreme Court decision on that point, but imagine how that would play out in this scenario, in which necessary diagnostic testing might get blocked due to some patent troll with deep pockets.

Filed Under: coronavirus, covid-19, diagnostics, elizabeth holmes, filmarray, injunctions, patent trolling, patents
Companies: biofire, biomerieux, farnan llp, fortress investment group, irell & manella, labrador diagnostics, softbank

Techdirt In The Time Of Covid-19

from the stay-home-people dept

First off, I hope that everyone reading this, and their friends, families, loved ones, etc, are staying safe -- and I urge you to stay safe as well, which means staying home as much as possible. I did want to at least put up a post noting that these are unique and unprecedented times, and I honestly have no idea what this will mean for Techdirt over the next few weeks or months. We may very well be posting less. I don't know if our posting focus will change. I have some posts on the way that touch on the pandemic situation, and plenty that don't, and while I want to continue covering other things, it feels like we're in a moment where pretty much the only thing that is going to matter for the near future is how we deal with the pandemic.

We will try to continue on in the same way we always have done, but I don't know what that will actually look like.

While the team here is already effectively remote, and you might think that means we should be able to carry on as usual (or even moreso, since we're all pretty much limited in going out and about), I think that's an impossible request as well. Many people are now also dealing with watching children or parents or other relatives, all the time, and that obviously takes time, attention and energy. At the same time, all of us are watching the news and are concerned about what this means for our own health, the health of our loved ones, and the health of everyone else around the globe. It's a frightening and uncertain time -- and that, by itself, makes less than ideal working conditions for anyone. These are not times when I expect anyone, myself included, to be as productive as normal.

So, I at least wanted to put up a note that says, more or less, I have no idea what will be happening at Techdirt over the next few weeks and months. We have a new project that we were excited to launch before the end of the month -- and that may still happen, or we may put it off. I don't know how many posts we'll have or what topics they'll be on. I don't know if anyone will feel like recording podcasts, or if I'll feel like recording podcasts. I just don't know.

I know that lots of people are now concerned about their own jobs and their own financial position, and I hope that everything works out okay for everyone. I will note, also, that we've already heard from some of our own sponsors and backers, who have put off decisions on sponsorship. Also, a decent part of our revenue last year, and in our planning for this year, was for live events, all of which have now been put on indefinite hiatus -- meaning that if you're not in dire financial straits due to everything else, and are in a position to do so, we'd truly appreciate the support to make sure that we can keep going through these trying times. If you want the most direct way of supporting us, it's to do direct donations via this page, but the general support page lists many different ways to support us, some of which get you nice things in response, beyond the warm feeling of helping Techdirt continue.

But, the most important point of all: please, everyone, stay safe out there.

Filed Under: covid-19, techdirt

Coronavirus Telecommuting To Further Highlight Shoddy US Telecom Market

from the completely-unprepared dept

To be clear, there are going to be layers of life and death dysfunction that the Coronavirus shines a bright spotlight on, most notable being a shaky US healthcare system and incompetent government leadership. But the outbreak and response is also going to shine a bright light on the broken US telecom market, and the millions of Americans that won't be able to effectively telecommute in a crisis.

We've noted time and time again how a lack of competition in the US broadband market means consumers pay some of the highest prices in the developed world for broadband that usually ranks somewhere in the middle of the pack. While we talk a lot about this problem, few actually do much about it. Similarly, few really have noticed how as US telcos effectively give up on upgrading antiquated DSL lines, they're giving cable giants like Comcast even bigger monopolies across vast swaths of America. In turn, those cable giants are facing less incentive than ever to improve customer service, upgrade rural networks, or compete on price.

With little competition and federal regulators that are little more than a rubber stamp to their every monopolistic whim, these companies have also been given a green light to gouge US consumers with usage caps and overage fees. Worse, a recent report suggested that 40 million Americans can't get broadband at all, nearly double FCC estimates. The Trump administration and FCC's response to this problem so far has been to blow sweet kisses at the nation's biggest telecom providers in the form of regulatory favors, massive tax breaks for doing nothing, and a lot of overheated rhetoric.

This has always been a problem, but as FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel notes, it's going to become a more obvious problem as millions of Americans are suddenly asked to work (and learn) from home to avoid spreading the virus further and faster:

While the overlaid teleconferencing technology has come a long way in recent years, millions of Americans will need to rely on expensive, slow, capped broadband that comes with what is statistically some of the worst customer service and satisfaction rates of any industry in America. Assuming these Americans have the luxury of working from home at all, many will be forced to rely on throttled, capped, and otherwise restricted cellular and satellite connections, since incumbents have effectively frozen expansion into rural markets, and fought tooth and nail against communities building their own, better networks.

While (as usual) this won't be as big of a problem for the white and affluent (many of whom have long insisted this isn't a big deal), it's going to be a particular problem for the minority, tribal, and low income communities that have been overlooked for decades. Especially as a growing number of colleges and schools try to shift the entirety of their workload online. It's a problem America has historically found relatively easy to ignore. And while broadband is likely to be the least of our issues over the next few months, recommending that millions of Americans work and learn from home will make ignoring that problem exponentially more difficult.

Filed Under: broadband, coronavirus, covid-19, fcc, working from home

Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible; Naughty Kids In Wuhan Edition

from the masnick's-impossibility-theorem dept

I keep trying to point out that content moderation at scale is impossible to do well for a whole variety of reasons, including the fact that sooner or later some people -- or some large groups of people -- may try to game the system in totally unexpected ways. Witness this amusing example from the London Review of Books, reporting on the situation in Wuhan, China, which was ground zero for the Covid-19 coronavirus outbreak. With everything shut down in and around Wuhan, schools have moved to online learning -- and some naughty kids seem to have worked out a way to try to get out of having to do schoolwork: getting the app the schools rely on pulled from the app store via fake negative ratings.

Schools are suspended until further notice. With many workplaces also shut, notoriously absent Chinese fathers have been forced to stay home and entertain their children. Video clips of life under quarantine are trending on TikTok. Children were presumably glad to be off school – until, that is, an app called DingTalk was introduced. Students are meant to sign in and join their class for online lessons; teachers use the app to set homework. Somehow the little brats worked out that if enough users gave the app a one-star review it would get booted off the App Store. Tens of thousands of reviews flooded in, and DingTalk’s rating plummeted overnight from 4.9 to 1.4. The app has had to beg for mercy on social media: ‘I’m only five years old myself, please don’t kill me.’

Must tip my cap to the cleverness here, but on the content moderation side it shows, yet again, just how difficult it is to handle content moderation. No one running an app store or other platform prepares for a situation like this. In this case, at least, it seems likely that with so many negative reviews -- and now press attention -- the platform might take notice and discount the most recent thousands of reviews, but imagine having to keep track of every case where this is happening, often on a much smaller, less obvious, scale?

What seems easy about content moderation almost never is. Everyone seems to think it's easy until they're actually running a platform.

Filed Under: content moderation, content moderation at scale, coronavirus, covid-19, dingtalk, ios, remote learning, students, wuhan
Companies: apple