Cable Lobbyists Try To Scuttle State Inquiries Into Shitty Broadband Service, Slow Speeds

from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

Whether it's rolling back already agreed upon merger conditions, killing net neutrality, or eliminating broadband privacy protections, giant ISP lobbyists are having a field day under the Trump administration, slowly but surely stripping away oversight of one of the least competitive -- and most anti-competitive -- sectors in American industry. We've noted repeatedly that as giant cable providers like Comcast nab an ever larger monopoly over next-gen broadband services, the end result of this myopic pursuit will be even higher rates -- and even worse customer service -- for everyone.

But there's a problem in this quest to create a new, golden era of telecom sector monopoly dysfunction: individual states.

In the wake of the attack on the FCC privacy rules, more than a dozen states have rushed to enact new privacy protections for consumers, requiring that ISPs are very clear about what data they're collecting and who they're selling it to. And in the wake of federal apathy to consumer complaints about some of the worst customer service in any industry, individual states have also started pushing back, as evidenced by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's lawsuit against Charter Communications for advertising speeds company execs knew they couldn't deliver.

Ironically, cable lobbyists (and the politicians, sock puppets, think tankers and policy wonks paid to love them) have quickly rushed to defend "states' rights!" when it comes to giant ISPs' ability to write protectionist state laws that hamper broadband competition. But now that several states are actually passing legislation that might help consumers, the broadband industry and current FCC have launched a concerted effort to keep states from meddling in their attempts to build utterly-unaccountable media, advertising, broadband and television conglomerates.

Case in point: the FCC is already making noise about their plans to somehow prevent states from passing consumer broadband privacy laws. And last week, cable industry lobbyists began petitioning the FCC in the hopes of making it much more difficult for states to investigate claims of substandard broadband service and speeds, allowing them to hide behind the "up to" marketing language most of us are familiar with:

"NCTA-The Internet & Television Association and USTelecom, lobby groups for the cable and telecom industries, last month petitioned the Federal Communications Commission for a declaratory ruling that would help ISPs defend themselves against state-level investigations. The FCC should declare that advertisements of speeds "up to" a certain level of megabits per second are consistent with federal law as long as ISPs meet their disclosure obligations under the net neutrality rules, the groups said. There should be a national standard enforced by the FCC instead of a state-by-state "patchwork of inconsistent requirements," they argue.

While there are valid concerns that individual state requirements could make life more complicated for large ISPs, ignored by the NCTA is the fact that their efforts to gut meaningful federal oversight of telecom providers is the primary reason that's happening in the first place. And a bipartisan filing by 34 state attorneys general (pdf) points out that this effort has nothing to do with wanting to avoid "inconsistent requirements," and everything to do with wanting to dodge accountability for poor service on both the state and federal level:

"[I]t appears that the petition is really seeking to alter disclosure obligations under state law, including state consumer protection laws’ prohibitions on false and misleading statements and material omissions in consumer-facing advertisements," they wrote. "Such a ruling would plainly exceed the scope of the Commission’s authority granted by Congress, and would be improper." There is also "no factual basis" to determine that ISPs' speed disclosures meet the FCC's "just and reasonable" standard, they argued. "The request is plainly seeking a factual finding, despite the complete lack of any factual record to support such a conclusion," they wrote."

It's worth reiterating: when states have come under fire for letting ISP lobbyists directly write horrible protectionist legislation that hamstrings local community rights and hinders broadband competition, cable lobbyists are quick to rush to the defense of state rights. When those states actually try to hold these same broadband providers accountable for substandard service courtesy of a lack of competition, it's suddenly all a bridge too far. Meanwhile, those that still believe that blindly deregulating the telecom market will somehow magically make Comcast behave, are in for a nasty surprise over the next decade.

Again, deregulation can help competitive markets thrive. But the telecom sector, as we've long illustrated, is neither competitive nor that simple. In fact, earlier efforts to blindly deregulate an uncompetitive, utterly-dysfunctional, taxpayer-subsidized broadband industry is the precise reason most of you are currently stuck on hold with Comcast in the first place. And the sooner we collectively realize that giving some of the least ethical companies in America carte blanche doesn't magically result in connectivity Utopia, the sooner the quest for cheaper, better, and more broadly-available broadband will be fulfilled.

Filed Under: broadband, cable, customer service, fcc, investigations, service, states, states rights
Companies: ncta

FCC Commissioner Wants To Ban States From Protecting Consumer Broadband Privacy

from the states-rights!-Or-not! dept

Despite a last-ditch effort by the EFF and other consumer and privacy groups, the GOP voted back in March to kill consumer broadband privacy protections. As we noted several times, the protections weren't particularly onerous -- simply requiring that ISPs are transparent about what data they're collecting, who they're selling it to, and that they provide working opt-out tools. But because many of these large ISPs are busy pushing into the media sector (AT&T's acquisition of Time Warner being just one example), large ISPs lobbied fiercely to eliminate anything that could dent these future potential revenues.

Shortly thereafter, at least eight states and a handful of cities rushed in to fill the void. The city of Seattle, for example, passed a new requirement that ISPs receive opt-in permission (the dirtiest phrase imaginable to the marketing industry) before collecting and selling subscriber data. Meanwhile in Maine, a new privacy proposal by State Senator Shenna Bellows is seeing support from Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike. Bellows cited Congress' decision to overturn the protections as a motivation for the move:

"With its reckless vote, Congress put Mainers’ privacy up for sale,” Bellows said. “Most people are rightfully appalled by the idea that their Internet service provider could be watching their every move online and selling their information to the highest bidder. We owe it to our constituents to protect their privacy."

This move by the states to do the job Congress wasn't willing to do has apparently riled the current FCC majority. Speaking at an event at the American Legislation Exchange Council (ALEC), FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly said he would be exploring taking some kind of action against states that move to pass new broadband privacy protections. O'Rielly's comments have previously been backed by current FCC boss Ajit Pai, who has also hinted at taking action against the states:

"It is both impractical and very harmful for each state to enact differing and conflicting privacy burdens on broadband providers, many of which serve multiple states, if not the entire country,” said Pai. “If necessary, the FCC should be willing to issue the requisite decision to clarify the jurisdictional aspects of this issue."

And to be clear, many of these state efforts may cause problems. ISPs have to adapt their business to multiple, discordant protections. In same states, you're likely to see overreach, as politicians try to craft legislation based on what's all-too-often a mud-puddle deep understanding of technology. And the patchwork rules also create confusion for consumers, who suddenly find their privacy is (or isn't) protected depending entirely on whether they're over the state line -- or just how loyal their state representatives are to the charms of large ISP and marketing industry lobbyists.

The problem with this complaint, of course, is we wouldn't be in this situation if Congress and the FCC majority hadn't mindlessly rushed to kill the FCC's basic privacy protections in the first place. It was their choice to ignore the will of the public and push policy solely because AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Charter thought it would be nice. The resulting fractured policy landscape is their responsibility.

There's also the fact that both Pai and O'Rielly have taken longstanding issue with the FCC's attempt to thwart ISP-written, state protectionist laws that hamstring local competition. Those laws, O'Rielly and Pai have long declared, are sacred and a matter of states' rights. Odd that when the states defend the anti-competitive fiefdoms enjoyed by giant ISPs, it's a matter of "states' rights," but when those same states move to buck the interests of those same providers and protect consumer privacy, it's suddenly a capital offense.

During his speech, O'Rielly repeatedly vilified support for privacy and net neutrality as the "whims of the misinformed" and "socialism":

"The members of ALEC can serve an important role as the new Commission seeks to restore free market principles to broadband offerings. Many of you know all too well of the pressure on us to buckle and acquiesce to the whims of the misinformed screaming for Net Neutrality. You likely face it at your respective statehouses as you debate the various matters before you. The ‘progressive agenda’ being pushed in so many settings is really an effort to use government as a means to redistribute hard earned assets from one group of people to favored interests. Do not let your voices go unheard as Net Neutrality advocates slowly, but surely, seek to drag the U.S. economy toward socialism."

As we've long noted, ISPs (and the politicians paid to love them) have had immense success portraying both privacy rights and net neutrality as partisan issues, therefore encouraging public bickering and stalling any real progress on policy. In reality, however, both concepts have broad, bipartisan support (only baseball and getting screwed repeatedly by Comcast tend to magically bridge this country's deep, partisan divide). Ultimately, I think we'll find that mindlessly trampling consumer broadband rights isn't quite the "red meat for the base" both Pai and O'Rielly believe it is in their own heads.

Filed Under: broadband, broadband privacy, competition, fcc, mike o'rielly, privacy, states
Companies: alec

Ted Cruz Pushing Bill Protecting Large ISPs From Competition

from the defenders-of-the-status-quo dept

We've long noted how ISPs have convinced (read: paid) more than twenty states to pass protectionist broadband laws that prohibit towns and cities from improving their own broadband infrastructure. The bills not only saddle community broadband with onerous restrictions to make them less viable, they often even block towns and cities from striking public/private partnerships with companies to improve broadband. Last year, the FCC voted to take aim at two such laws in Tennessee and North Carolina, arguing the laws do little but protect the status quo, hindering the development of alternative broadband delivery options.

Pressured by ISPs, both states quickly rushed to sue the FCC, saying that the agency was violating "states rights" (ignoring the rights violated by letting ISPs write awful state law). The FCC, in contrast, says its Congressional mandate to ensure "even and timely" broadband deployment under the Communications Act gives it full legal authority to take aim at such restrictions.

Enter Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz, who is now pushing amendments alongside Nebraska Senator Deb Fischer that would make a few changes to the FCC Process Reform Act. According to an early version of the proposal provided to industry trade magazines, the bill would tie the FCC's hands when it comes to trying to eliminate state broadband protectionism:

"FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler says those laws are pushed by incumbents to prevent price and service competition and the FCC has stepped in to preempt state laws in Tennessee and North Carolina. The FCC is currently in a court battle over that decision. The amendment, according to the amendment list obtained by Multichannel News/B&C, "Prohibits the FCC form preventing states from implementing laws relating to provision of broadband Internet access service by state and local governments."

This is far from the first effort of this kind. Tennessee Representative Marsha Blackburn pushed a similar measure last year. Usually, the measures try to sow partisan discord by claiming the FCC has just gone power mad, again hoping nobody notices giants like Comcast and AT&T performing state lawmaker puppetry in the periphery to the detriment of local communities.

Note these towns and cities aren't getting into the broadband industry because they think it's fun; they're exploring alternative options because the private sector has failed across huge swaths of the country. Unfortunately, large ISPs like Comcast, AT&T, and Time Warner Cable quite literally control most state legislatures, ensuring things stay that way. ISPs could prevent these kinds of efforts by providing better, cheaper broadband -- though obviously lobbying our compromised state legislative systems is notably less expensive than deploying new fiber -- or lowering prices to compete.

The problem for Cruz is that while ISPs have historically tried to frame municipal broadband as a partisan debate to sow discord, that has been less effective over time as public/private efforts from the likes of Google Fiber or Tucows have highlighted the need for some bigger picture thinking. The majority of such networks are now being built in more Conservative leaning areas, and the idea of municipal broadband tends to have broad, bipartisan support. Apparently, disdain for duopoly apathy and high prices is one of the few things most Americans can agree on.

As such, rushing to defend giant telecom providers from competition doesn't seem like the brightest bet for somebody trying to win hearts and minds ahead of a national election.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, lobbying, muni broadband, states, ted cruz

Who Needs A No-Fly List When You Can Just Ground 91 Million Citizens?

from the you-know-what-a-valid-driver's-license-is-good-for?-DRIVING,-citizen. dept

Great news for people who think there's just too damn much freedom in this country: the government's "no-fly" list is about to get much, much longer.

The citizens of several US states may soon find that they can't use their drivers' licenses to get into federal facilities or even board planes.

Enforcement of a 2005 federal law that sets identification standards, known as "Real ID," has been long-delayed. But now Department of Homeland Security officials say enforcement is imminent. The "Real ID" law requires states to implement certain security features before they issue IDs and verify the legal residency of anyone to whom they issue an ID card.

For the residents of Alaska, California, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Carolina, Minnesota and Washington (along with American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands), this means their ID cards are perfectly legal within those states, but only as long as they stay in those states. (And, apparently, never need to enter a government building -- like, say, to acquire a new, compliant ID card).

States that have not complied with the REAL ID Act -- including Missouri and Minnesota, which both passed legislation telling the federal government to take a hike -- will not be granted extensions. Residents in those states will now unofficially join countless others on the government's "can't board a plane" list. On the bright side, they'll at least have some idea as to why they've been denied access, but will be similarly limited in their redress options. (Move to another state?)

The rationale behind the law -- which carries with it privacy-undermining data sharing requirements -- is, of course, terrorist-related.

The statute is in part a response to the suggestion of the 9/11 Commission, which noted that four of the 19 hijackers used state-issued ID cards to board planes.

Not that the new law would prevent the same thing from happening. It may make it slightly more difficult to do so, but it's not as though a halfway decent fake wouldn't fool our nation's crack team of under-qualified security guards, who seem much more interested in dumping out breast milk and feeling up people with medical conditions. For that matter, it's been proven more than once that having an approved government ID really isn't integral to the boarding process.

There are other options available for residents of these states, should the TSA move forward with enforcing the REAL ID law. (The DHS has suggested it won't be waiting around for the holdout states and territories.) But these options are mostly useless. The New York Times reports people will be allowed to present other government-issued ID, like passports -- something domestic travelers rarely carry with them.

The federal government is now forcing states into compliance with the law by using the sort of leverage it never should: its constituents. It's robbing law-abiding citizens of the ability to board airplanes or enter government buildings to force states to fall in line.

Filed Under: dhs, drivers' license, homeland security, identification, no fly list, privacy, real id, states

How States Are Fighting To Keep Towns From Offering Their Own Broadband

from the lobbying-dollars-at-work dept

Earlier this year, the Federal Communications Commission voted to ease the way for cities to become Internet service providers. So-called municipal broadband is already a reality in a few towns, often providing Internet access and faster service to rural communities that cable companies don't serve.

The cable and telecommunications industry have long lobbied against city-run broadband, arguing that taxpayer money should not fund potential competitors to private companies.

The telecom companies have what may seem like an unlikely ally: states. Roughly 20 states have restrictions against municipal broadband.

And the attorneys general in North Carolina and Tennessee have recently filed lawsuits in an attempt to overrule the FCC and block towns in these states from expanding publicly funded Internet service.

North Carolina's attorney general argued in a suit filed in May that the "FCC unlawfully inserted itself between the State and the State's political subdivisions." Tennessee's attorney general filed a similar suit in March.

Tennessee has hired one of the country's largest telecom lobbying and law firms, Wiley Rein, to represent the state in its suit. The firm, founded by a former FCC chairman, has represented AT&T, Verizon and Qwest, among others.

James Tierney, director of the National State Attorneys General Program at Columbia Law School, said it is not unusual for attorneys general to seek outside counsel for specialized cases that they view as a priority.

Asked about the suit, the Tennessee attorney general's office told ProPublica, "This is a question of the state's sovereign ability to define the role of its local governmental units." North Carolina Attorney General's office said in a statement that the "legal defense of state laws by the Attorney General's office is a statutory requirement."

As the New York Times detailed last year, state attorneys general have become a major target of corporate lobbyists and contributors including AT&T, Comcast and T-Mobile.

North Carolina is no exception. The state's Attorney General Roy Cooper received roughly $35,000 from the telecommunications industry in his 2012 run for office. Only the state's retail industry gave more.

The donations are just a small part of contributions the industry has made in the states. In North Carolina's 2014 elections, the telecommunications industry gave a combined $870,000 to candidates in both parties, which made it one of the top industries to contribute that year. Candidates in Tennessee received nearly $921,000 from AT&T and other industry players in 2014.

The FCC's decision came after two towns – City of Wilson in North Carolina and Chattanooga in Tennessee – appealed to the agency to be able to expand their networks.

The vote has rattled some companies. In a government filing earlier this year, Comcast cited the FCC's decision as a risk to the company's business: "Any changes to the regulatory framework applicable to any of our services or businesses could have a negative impact on our businesses and results of operations."

If the court upholds the FCC's authority to preempt restrictions in North Carolina and Tennessee, it may embolden other cities to file petitions with the agency, according to lawyer Jim Baller, who represents Wilson and the Chattanooga Electric Power Board. "A victory by the FCC would be a very welcome result for many communities across America," said Baller.

For some residents in and outside of Chattanooga, clearing the way to city-run broadband would mean the sort of faster Internet access that others might take for granted.

For 12 years, Eva VanHook, 39, of Georgetown, Tennessee, lived with a satellite broadband connection so slow that she'd read a book while waiting for a web page to load. In order for her son to access online materials for his school assignments, she'd drive him 12 miles to their church parking lot, where he could access faster WiFi.

Charter, the local Internet service provider, declined several requests by her husband to build lines out to her home. Only last month did Charter connect her home to the Internet. "Even the possibility to jump on [the local utility's] gigabit network would blow our minds right now," VanHook said. "There is nothing faster than Chattanooga. Just through meeting them and hearing them speak and having them understand what's going on, that's the kind of place I want to do business."

Republished from ProPublica.

Related: Obama Wants You to Have Cheap, Fast Internet, But Many Cities Aren't Allowed to Provide It

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for their newsletter.

Filed Under: broadband, fcc, isps, lobbying, municipal broadband, north carolina, states, tennessee
Companies: at&t, verizon, wiley rein

Despite Losing Money Year After Year, States Still Wondering How They Can Hand Out BIGGER Subsidies To Hollywood

from the this-taxpayer-money-is-burning-a-hole-in-my-common-sense dept

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me annually and let me get my checkbook! Losses continue to mount, but some very resilient states are still willing to throw more taxpayer money at the film industry. Michigan -- a state that seems to be able to generate at least one fiscal horror story per year -- is one of the nation's most consistent losers. Two years ago, it bet the state pension fund on film-related subsidies… and lost. When the "investment" failed to generate a return, nearly $2 million was removed from the already-underfunded retirement pool. One small town pinned its hopes and dreams on a film project that promised 3,000 new jobs but instead fell apart, dragging the town towards insolvency.

Michigan has made some moves in the right direction after being burned so often by Hollywood and its fleeting, mercenary "interest" in its state. It paid out nearly $100 million in subsidies in 2011, but that number has dropped to $38 million for the coming year. Michigan House Minority leader Tim Greimel is pushing to bring that back up to $50 million, claiming that the program has been a great job creator -- an assertion that couldn't be farther from the truth.

The state has funnelled $500 million in public funds to its fledgling film industry since 2008, and has almost nothing to show for it. While some jobs were created—temporary production crews, mostly—those were offset by the losses to the sectors of the economy that had to finance the film subsidy (i.e. Economics 101).

In fact, over the past 15 years, job creation has remained almost flat. According to the Bureau of Labor statistics, there were 1,537 in-state jobs in the film industry in 2001. As of 2013, there were 1,564. And in that particular year, the subsidized industry didn't create a single job.

This boondoggle currently costs Michigan taxpayers $50 million a year and even the state’s own economic development agency (MEDC) reported this costly subsidy failed in 2013 to create one permanent job,” said Tricia Kinley, senior director of tax and regulatory reform at the chamber, in an press release.

A study released in 2012 showed that for every Michigan dollar spent on subsidies, the film industry only generated $0.11 of in-state revenue. And yet, politicians like Greimel are still insisting the best way to make money is to spend money -- year after year after year.

The same issue is under discussion in Pennsylvania, another state suffering from budget overruns and the odd desire to throw away the better part of every subsidy dollar. Despite a $2.3 billion deficit, some legislators are thinking of increasing the state's film subsidies.

Senate Bill 218, introduced by state Sen. Wayne Fontana, D-Allegheny, would raise the cap to $125 million. It’s now $60 million a year.

Senate Bill 219, also by Fontana, would allow for “rollover” of tax credits approved for a project but not ultimately awarded.

To push for these bills in the face of some heightened resistance, Fontana is trotting out some very suspicious numbers. The Department of Community and Economic Development -- an entity that sounds neutral but in reality administrates the film subsidies -- claims this handout has generated thousands of jobs and billions in revenue.

Since the program’s inception, nearly $433.5 million in film production tax credits have been approved/awarded to film production companies under the program. These companies, in turn, have directly injected close to $1.8 billion into PA’s economy; generated an estimated $3.2 billion in total economic activity; and supported an estimated 21,700 jobs (based on 2014 IMPLAN multipliers).

There are big problems with the Department's fuzzy math, as Rachel Martin at Watchdog.org points out. For one, it grabs unfinished and pending projects and mixes them in with completed projects to up the totals for both the number of jobs and the amount of money generated. Looking at the state's financial statements reveals something completely different.

[F]rom fiscal 2007 to 2013, only $55 million in credits were awarded and 2,700 jobs were created.

A more sobering assessment put together by the state's Independent Fiscal Office takes a lot of the irrational exuberance out of the Department's fluffed numbers. There's no "anything's possible" math to be found here. The report takes a very long and detailed look at the fiscal performance of the state's film subsidies and finds that -- much like other states -- handing out money to Hollywood doesn't make it rain locally.

In terms of budgetary return, a 2013 report by the state Independent Fiscal Office, “Uncapping the Film Production Tax Credit: a Fiscal and Economic Analysis,” found the state got a return of 14 cents on the dollar for tax credits, from state taxes generated by the program.

This pitiable return rate remains completely unchanged from the conclusions drawn by the Tax Foundation in 2010. Pennsylvania's film subsidies hand out dollar bills to film producers and then follow along behind them to catch any change that might fall out of their pockets. It's easy to sell subsidies to legislators, who are often more interested in the reflected glory of Hollywood projects than in safeguarding the funds they've been entrusted with.

The report also debunks the notion that film subsidies are job creators, much less wealth generators.

Wages constitute more than 60 percent of production expenses receiving credit under the FPTC, and the economic effects of the FPTC depend heavily on the amount of credit-eligible earnings that leave the state. Nonresidents spend only a small share of their earnings in the state while working on a production, thus limiting the impact on the state economy… According to data analyzed by the IFO, approximately 70 percent of production-related wages were paid to nonresidents.

The bottom line, according to the IFO?

The net, fully phased-in fiscal impact for the additional credits authorized in FY 2013-14 is estimated to be -$46.5 million at the lower end… and -$93.1 million at the higher end of the range.

Of course, if Pennsylvania decides to limit or dump its subsidies, it will soon discover that all the money it spent in the past has purchased nothing in the way of loyalty.

As an example of the mobility and fickleness of the industry, consider the show “Banshee.” It filmed its first three seasons in North Carolina, but packed up after that state eliminated its tax credit program and replaced it with a much smaller grant program.

The show will now film in Pittsburgh, which has a built-in irony, given that the show’s setting has always been the fictional Banshee, Pennsylvania.

Given the deficit the state is facing, you'd think legislators would be more than happy to drop the subsidy, if only to prevent the leakage of another $50-90 million. But the glamour of show business -- even if only admired from afar -- is tough to resist. It's easy to mistake the busy milling around of temp workers and nonresident stars for created jobs and positive economic impact. Throwing away 9/10ths of every dollar simply doesn't make sense, especially in a state already severely overdrawn. But nothing involving both Hollywood and accounting ever adds up.

The math is so severely screwed up that the original home of the stars is upping its subsidy ante in hopes of luring Hollywood back to Hollywood.

Between 2004 and 2012, the California entertainment industry lost 16,137 film production jobs. During that same period the state of New York increased its entertainment employment by 25 percent. The Milken Institute attributes this shift in employment to the billions of dollars in robust incentives from competitive states like New York, New Mexico, Texas, and Louisiana.

If you can keep all of the money in one place, a state might turn a profit. But with productions scattered all over the US, California will just be another state throwing money at fickle, mostly uninterested productions. A short-term "bribe" never buys loyalty, especially not in the Land of 1,000 Backstabbings. The film industry is still very cutthroat and California's decades-long slide into legislative absurdity has made movie-making within its heavily-taxed confines very unattractive. (And then there's the labor stranglehold, but we'll let that go. For now...) The solution? More taxes! But this time mostly from the little people!

The legislation will increase the annual allocation of state tax credits to $330 million per year, more than triple the current amount, starting with fiscal year 2015-16 and lasting for five years. [...]The legislation also provides extra incentives — beyond the current 20% — for visual effects and music scoring, as well as to producers who shoot in parts of the state outside of the Los Angeles region.

The industry is -- and has been for years at this point -- pay-to-play. Unfortunately, it's the states' long-term residents who are paying the most, and reaping none of the benefits.

Filed Under: california, hollywood, michigan, movies, pennsylvania, states, subsidies, tax payer funds

Microsoft Enlisting Clueless States Attorneys General To Shake Down Foreign Companies For 'Piracy'

from the not-this-again dept

Almost exactly three years ago, we wrote about an effort by Microsoft to try to get various states to pass laws that would make it illegal to buy from a foreign company that uses unauthorized software. The goal was, basically, an incredibly cynical way for Microsoft to abuse overeager, grandstanding Attorneys General who want to pretend they're "helping local businesses" by blocking every other company from doing business with whoever might be the best supplier... unless they suddenly became licensed Microsoft customers. There were all sorts of problems with that idea, but over the past three years, Microsoft has apparently continued to push forward with variations on that concept -- and are now successfully getting states Attorneys' General (who have no authority over copyright issues) to shake down foreign companies with claims that they're "pirates."

In short, states Attorneys General are suing foreign companies, claiming that they're using infringing software, and claiming that this unfairly "harms" local competitors. Often, the "local" competitors have absolutely no clue this is being done in their name, or that they've even been "harmed" by a competitor they've never heard of:

The Oklahoma suit, filed in a state district court, alleges that Neway Valve Co. and affiliates, based in China, where they make valves and other equipment for oil companies, illegally obtained "copyrighted software that is crucial to the production and sale of their products," gaining an advantage over Oklahoma-based rivals.

[....]

Valve manufacturer Balon Corp., of Oklahoma City, was named by the attorney general as an injured party. That came as news to Phil Scaramucci, co-president of Balon, who said that he didn't know much about Neway and wasn't aware of the suit until he read about it in the newspaper.

In other words, this has absolutely nothing to do with protecting those local companies. They're being named in lawsuits that they don't even know about it and don't feel harmed by competitors they've never even heard of. This is all about Microsoft, yet again, abusing the legal system for its own benefit. It makes you wonder how much taxpayer money is being used to support these lawsuits.

Filed Under: copyright, infringement, states, states attorneys general
Companies: microsoft

More States Looking To Neutralize The NSA Through Local Legislation

from the a-widening-split-between-the-federal-government-and-its-constituents dept

The NSA's new data center in Utah has provided the flashpoint for legislation targeted at "nullifying" the agency by cutting off its access to public utilities and/or leveraging the powers granted to states to combat federal government overreach. An activist group known as The Tenth Amendment Center proposed a state law that would cut off the new data center's much needed water supply, along with any other public utility or service, like sanitation and road repair, in hopes of (at minimum) forcing the NSA to reconsider its collection tactics, or failing that, to find a new home.

Now, more states are joining the push-back against the agency, again using legislation crafted at the state level to curtail the NSA's overreach, as The New American reports.

Arizona

In Arizona, SB1156, which has 14 Republican sponsors, was introduced by state Sen. Kelli Ward. It would bar the state from providing material support to the agency’s activities and ban any data collected without a warrant from being used in court.

Ward announced her intentions in December to introduce a bill that would keep Arizona from supporting the NSA.

New Hampshire

HB 1533 is a bipartisan bill sponsored by two GOP lawmakers and one Democrat. The measure requires law enforcement to obtain “a warrant to search information in a portable electronic device.”

Section IV of the bill mandates that “A government entity that purposely violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.”

New Hampshire's government is also considering another bill (HB 1619), which restores the expectation of privacy to information given to third parties, something the NSA, FBI and others have relied on for years to acquire data without warrants.

An individual shall have an expectation of privacy in personal information, including personal identifiers, content, and usage, given or available to third-party providers of information and services, including telephone; electric, water and other utility services; internet service providers; social media providers; banks and financial institutions; insurance companies; and credit card companies.

As The New American notes, this restoration goes even further than just protecting American citizens. The wording specifically notes this applies to "individuals" rather than just "citizens," extending the protection to non-citizen US residents and visitors.

Tennessee

The Tennessee Fourth Amendment Protection Act was introduced by State Sen. Stacey Campfield (R-Knoxville) late Tuesday evening. Rep. Andy Holt (R-Dresden) will file the companion bill in the House.

Based on model legislation drafted by the OffNow coalition, SB1849 would prohibit the state of Tennessee from “providing material support to…any federal agency claiming the power to authorize the collection of electronic data or metadata of any person pursuant to any action not based on a warrant” as required by the Fourth Amendment.

The entity mentioned in the legislation, OffNow, is a creation of the Tenth Amendment Center, and its legislative activity seeks to nullify the agency through the power of states and their public utilities. With enough support, many states could make themselves inhospitable hosts for the NSA by tying utility access to stipulations like the above. At the very least, state governments who pass laws like these will be "on the record" as not being complicit in the NSA's questionable collection activities. It also indicates they're willing to combat government overreach, which in the age of Real ID, nationalized health care and domestic surveillance, is a good stance to be taking.

The real test of legislation like those above will be when the NSA offers to set up shop in these locations. Turning down the agency means turning down a whole lot of federal money and additional employment, something that may not sit well with many constituents, and even less so with certain politicians.

New Hampshire's and Arizona's bills will face additional challenges as neither limits the wording to only the NSA's collections/"searches." (New Hampshire's bill only says "federal agency.") Arizona's in particular will affect local law enforcement as well, and if they've become used to a certain level of warrantless access, they won't be too thrilled to give that up. The heaviest push-back there may be from local PDs and sheriffs departments, although the arguments against the bills will be very familiar -- swapping only "crime" (or "drugs") for "terrorism."

Filed Under: nsa, privacy, state laws, states, surveillance