Colorado Voters Shoot Down Comcast's Shitty, Protectionist State Broadband Law

from the Comcast-knows-what's-best-for-you dept

For years we've noted how large ISPs like Comcast quite literally write and buy protectionist state laws preventing towns and cities from building their own broadband networks (or striking public/private partnerships). These ISPs don't want to spend money to improve or expand service into lower ROI areas, but they don't want towns and cities to either -- since many of these networks operate on an open access model encouraging a little something known as competition. As such it's much cheaper to buy a state law and a lawmaker who'll support it -- than to actually try and give a damn.

And while roughly twenty three states have passed such laws, Colorado's SB 152, co-crafted by Comcast and Centurylink in 2005, was notably unique in that it let local towns and cities hold local referendums on whether they'd like to ignore it. And over the last few years, an overwhelming number of Colorado towns and cities have voted to do so, preferring to decide local infrastructure issues for themselves instead of having lobbyists for Comcast dictate what they can or can't do in their own communities, with their own tax dollars.

Yet another vote on this front was held this week in Colorado Springs. Note that the vote only opened the door to letting city voters consider building such a network, yet Comcast and Centurylink broke local spending records in their attempts to scuttle the ballot initiative. That included numerous misleading videos trying to convince locals that if they voted yes on ignoring the protectionist state laws, the city would struggle to pave roads and develop affordable housing.

According to the Coloradoan, none of these efforts worked:

"Voters on Tuesday approved a city proposal that would permit the City Council to establish a telecommunications utility to provide broadband services. Unofficial, partial returns as of 12:42 a.m. showed the measure passing with 57.15 percent of the vote. Ballot Question 2B does not require the council to create the utility. It gives council flexibility in setting up a business model for providing high-speed internet, including entering into a partnership with a private company."

Again, this doesn't mean Fort Collins will build a network. But it should be obvious why large duopolies like Comcast (which is actually seeing a growing monopoly in more regions than ever) want to prevent towns from even discussing the idea. Actual competition would put an end to Comcast's long-standing ability to charge more and more money (including usage caps and overage fees) for what's quite literally the worst customer service in America. And as telcos in countless markets refuse to upgrade aging DSL lines, Comcast's power is only growing.

Like net neutrality, for years Comcast successfully framed municipal broadband as a partisan debate to sow discord and stall these efforts. But disdain for Comcast's abysmal service obliterates such partisan divides, and over time people have realized that more creative, government-involved approaches are necessary if we want to compensate for a broken market and improve the country's mediocre broadband. If Comcast doesn't like the idea of towns and cities getting into the broadband business, there remains an ingenious solution to the "problem": provide better, cheaper, and faster service.

Filed Under: colorado, competition, municipal broadband, states rights
Companies: comcast

Comcast Urges FCC To Ban States From Protecting Broadband Privacy, Net Neutrality

from the zero-accountability dept

If you're playing along at home, you might have noticed that the Trump administration has so far been little more than a glorified rubber stamp for the whims of major broadband mono/duopolies like Comcast. But while ISPs have had great luck convincing the federal government to weaken broadband deployment standards, protect uncompetitive business broadband monopolies, kill broadband privacy protections, defend price-gouging prison phone monopolies and axe net neutrality -- a growing number of states have proven less susceptible to Comcast lobbying charms.

When the government gutted broadband privacy rules earlier this year, more than thirty states rushed to create their own guidelines for privacy in the modern era. And while having disparate, disjointed state-by-state protections isn't always ideal, it wouldn't have occurred if ISP lobbyists hadn't successfully gutted modest federal protections. With federal lawmakers all but in their back pockets, ISPs like Verizon have shifted their focus to these uncooperative states. Like California, where ISP lobbyists scuttled a new EFF-supported broadband privacy law by claiming it would aid extremists, increase popups, and harm consumers.

But these major ISPs have since been lobbying the FCC, urging it to ban states from passing any consumer protections in the wake of the federal government's apathy-for-hire. Verizon has been telling the FCC that letting states impose their own consumer protections would be a disaster:

"Allowing every State and locality to chart its own course for regulating broadband is a recipe for disaster. It would impose localized and likely inconsistent burdens on an inherently interstate service, would drive up costs, and would frustrate federal efforts to encourage investment and deployment by restoring the free market that long characterized Internet access service."

Verizon lobbyists forget to mention that this is a problem they created when they took aim at popular federal protections. Verizon also forgets to mention that the only reason the FCC crafted privacy rules in the first place is because Verizon has repeatedly shown it couldn't self regulate, having been busted covertly modifying user packets to track users around the internet -- without informing anybody or providing working opt out tools. Verizon also really tap dances around its real goal here: zero oversight whatsoever for what historically has been one of the most anti-competitive companies in American industry.

But it's not just states passing new privacy rules ISP lobbyists and executives are worried about. They're also worried that as the federal government rubber stamps their request to kill net neutrality, that states will pass individualized net neutrality protections as well. As a result, FCC filings indicate that Comcast has also been meeting with the FCC (pdf) urging it to ban states from protecting consumers:

"(Comcast) emphasized that the Commission’s order in this proceeding should include a clear, affirmative ruling that expressly confirms the primacy of federal law with respect to BIAS as an interstate information service, and that preempts state and local efforts to regulate BIAS either directly or indirectly."

ISPs have repeatedly insisted that any attempts to stop states from passing ISP-written protectionist state laws is an assault on "states rights." When those same states actually try to do something that aids consumers, said rights don't receive a moment's consideration. Again, the surface narrative here is that all regulation of telecom duopolies is always uniformly bad, but the end goal here truly is to ensure little to no oversight of some of the least competitive, least liked companies in America (which is frankly truly saying something). Anybody that has witnessed Comcast's behavior and thinks zero regulatory oversight is good idea simply hasn't been paying attention.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, fcc, net neutrality, states rights
Companies: comcast

Verizon Lobbies FCC To Block States From Protecting Broadband Privacy, Net Neutrality

from the states-rights...when-convenient dept

Earlier this year, the Trump administration and GOP handed a giant gift to the nation's telecom duopolies when they dismantled FCC broadband privacy protections. While ISPs whined incessantly about the rules, the protections were relatively modest -- simply requiring that large ISPs be transparent about what personal data is being collected and sold, who it's being sold to, and that working opt out tools be provided to consumers. The FCC's rules were only created after Verizon was caught modifying packets to covertly track users around the internet and AT&T tried to make consumer privacy a luxury add on.

But in the wake of the GOP's myopic dismantling of the rules, more than 30 states began considering their own disparate privacy protections for consumers. The EFF threw its support behind one such bill in California, arguing that it could provide a good template for other states to follow in order to gain some uniformity. But Google, Comcast, AT&T and Verizon collectively lobbied to scuttle that law last month, leaked documents showing how they lied to California lawmakers by claiming the rules would have emboldened extremists, boosted annoying popups, and somehow harmed consumers.

On the heels of that victory, Verizon is now lobbying the FCC to ban states from trying to protect consumer privacy. FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly had already hinted at this path in recent speeches to industry-backed think tanks, but what this effort would look like isn't yet clear. In a recent letter and white paper submitted to the FCC (pdf), Verizon urges the FCC to use its authority to block these state laws, and warned of the perils of states trying to actually protect consumers from unchecked broadband duopolists:

"Allowing every State and locality to chart its own course for regulating broadband is a recipe for disaster. It would impose localized and likely inconsistent burdens on an inherently interstate service, would drive up costs, and would frustrate federal efforts to encourage investment and deployment by restoring the free market that long characterized Internet access service."

There's a few things Verizon's ignoring. One, states wouldn't be rushing to create a patchwork quilt of consumer protections if Verizon lobbyists hadn't successfully convinced former Verizon lawyer turned FCC boss Ajit Pai to kill existing, modest federal protections. This is entirely a problem of ISP lobbyists' making.

It's also worth noting that ISPs like Verizon have spent decades writing and buying protectionist, competition-killing state laws in order to protect their regional broadband mono/duopolies. When folks have pointed out that maybe giant ISPs shouldn't be writing shitty state law, ISPs (and the lawmakers paid to love them) have cried about the trampling of "states rights." Yet when those same states actually try to do something good for the end user, trampling those same rights appears to be a non-issue. That's an obvious double standard by any measure.

Further on in the white paper Verizon makes it clear that it's also worried that states will rush to protect net neutrality after the FCC votes to kill existing net neutrality rules later this year:

"States and localities have given strong indications that they are prepared to take a similar approach to net neutrality laws if they are dissatisfied with the result of the Restoring Internet Freedom proceeding. Notably, the New York State Attorney General claims that “the role of the states in protecting consumers and competition on the Internet remains critical and necessary.”

Yes, the absolute unbridled horror of states protecting consumers and small businesses after the federal government has become a glorified rubber stamp for broadband duopolies! Again -- if Verizon doesn't want states creating broadband-focused consumer protections, it should stop trying to dismantle every federal consumer protection in existence. That includes the extremely popular (and again, relatively modest by international standards) net neutrality protections currently on the books.

Verizon believes it should be completely free of anything even vaguely resembling oversight as it shifts its focus, rather clumsily, toward being a Millennial advertising engine. But while Verizon has argued for years it can self-regulate without adequate oversight, the lack of competition in most Verizon markets highlights how that's simply not practical. From the company's covert tracking of users using "zombie cookies," to its ongoing efforts to sell your personal data without informing you or letting you opt out, Verizon continues to make it perfectly clear that privacy and transparency are a distant afterthought, a problem they won't be fixing voluntarily.

That leaves us with two choices: improving market competition to increase organic pressure until Verizon behaves, or leaning on some fairly basic regulatory oversight to ensure consumer privacy is protected by some basic rules of the road. Verizon would obviously prefer it if the country did neither, and so far we seem more than happy to accommodate.

Filed Under: ajit pai, broadband, fcc, privacy, states rights
Companies: verizon

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

Sorry Ron Paul, You Don't Get To Abuse Trademark Law To Unveil Anonymous Internet Users

from the how-very-unlibertarian-of-you dept

Back in January, we wrote about the bizarre decision by Ron Paul to file a lawsuit to unmask some anonymous internet users, who had created a controversial anti-John Huntsman video. At the end of the video, the anonymous videomakers had endorsed Paul, but some conspiracy-minded folks insisted that they were really working for Huntsman and staging an elaborate ruse to put up a video that looked bad about Huntsman to have that backfire on Ron Paul. For a variety of reasons that's either improbable or just downright stupid. But even if we assume the worst case scenario, Ron Paul's lawsuit not only made absolutely no legal sense, but it also seemed to go against nearly everything he believed in concerning internet freedom and the overreaching power of the government.

Either way, a judge has rejected Paul's attempt to unmask the videomakers on the narrow grounds that he failed to state a legitimate claim, since the video was not commercial in nature (necessary for a trademark violation). The judge did not go so far as to get into the First Amendment issues, but made clear that if Paul comes back with an amended suit with an actual claim, then the First Amendment considerations will be covered. Kudos to Paul Levy at Public Citizen for filing a pair of amicus briefs in the case to make sure the judge was aware of what was happening -- and hitting back at Paul's camp for its initial filing that completely ignored the relevant law and legal standards for unmasking anonymous internet users.

There are a number of especially troubling items in terms of how Paul and his camp went about this. First, just trying to unmask anonymous internet speech seems extremely problematic. Second, however, is the way in which he tried to twist trademark law to do so. As Eric Goldman explains, Paul's attempts to route around the clear requirements of trademark law were especially mockable:

To try to salvage the situation, Paul tries two mockable arguments. First, he argues that YouTube and Twitter are commercial sites, and that gives the dispute enough commerciality. The court rightly points out that the inquiry is about the defendant's conduct, not the websites where it took place, and notes the argument's illogic would mean non-commercial activity on any commercial website would be governed by the Lanham Act. In a footnote, the court adds that "using another company’s commercial website to post a comment or video is just far 'too attenuated' to result in an individual’s own conduct automatically meeting the Lanham Act’s commercial use requirement."

Second, Paul argues that "the video was intended to frustrate Plaintiff’s fundraising efforts and increase the amount of money contributed to Presidential nominees other than Ron Paul." The court says the Lanham Act is predicated on the defendant trying to improve its competitive status, and these defendants had no competing services; and the video on its face didn't try to solicit any donations.

Anonymous speech is protected under the First Amendment, and abusing trademark law to try to unmask anonymous speakers, whose speech was not commercial, is clearly an abuse of the law to try to "out" people online. As some have noted, it appeared to go against Ron Paul's own key principles -- and whether you agree with him or not, Paul certainly has the reputation for standing up for his principles. Yet here, suddenly, all of that went out the window:

What continues to amaze me, though, is how Paul is getting a free pass for this assault on free speech. Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum haven't filed lawsuits over identical videos that use their names in attacking Huntsman; why is Ron Paul the only candidate who filed such a suit? Indeed, so far as I have been able to discover, he is the only serious candidate for President in the past few decades who has ever filed a libel suit, and there are certainly Presidential candidates who have suffered far worse attacks. (I am not thinking of candidates who sued longer ago, but fifty years takes us back to the beginning of First Amendment protection against libel litigation brought by public figures). Why aren't the reporters who follow him around on the campaign trail not asking him how he can justify his use of litigation to oppress his critics and how it is consistent with the principles of liberty for which he claims to stand? How is this consistent with his First-Amendment based assault on campaign finance regulation such as McCain-Feingold? Does he just want to substitute the courts and privately financed litigation for the FEC?

Also surprising to me, is that even Paul's very vocal online supporters seem to refuse to recognize the issue here. I was amazed on our original post how many commenters came to Paul's defense here because they think that the videos were designed to make Paul look bad, and therefore the people "must" be revealed. That's not how the law works and that's not standing up for the basic principles of free speech, internet freedom and liberty that they supposedly stand for.

The sign of a truly principled person is when you're willing to retain those principles in the face of a situation where standing firm hurts you. Instead, Ron Paul folded and suddenly relied on big federal government regulations and abuse of the law to try to take away individuals' free speech rights.

Filed Under: campaign advertising, campaigns, defamation, john huntsman, lawsuits, ron paul, states rights, trademark

What Is Ron Paul Thinking? Sues To Unmask Anonymous Internet Users

from the perhaps-he-doesn't-get-the-internet-so-much... dept

One of the key points behind Ron Paul's success in this Presidential campaign (as well as in 2008) was his reputation for actually "getting the internet" and making good use of it to promote his message and motivate and activate his supporters. But it appears that perhaps he doesn't quite get the internet that well. That's all I can think after reading the details of a dreadfully short-sighted lawsuit that he filed to try to unmask some anonymous internet users. Basically, some random internet users created a pretty dumb, racist and offensive anti-John Huntsman attack video, essentially questioning his "values" because he speaks Chinese. However, it was posted by a user under the name NHLiberty4Paul. And, at the end it briefly says "Vote Ron Paul." Still, there's absolutely nothing to indicate this was created by the Paul campaign. The video has received some attention on the campaign trail, with both Paul and Huntsman speaking out against the video. Huntsman said he doesn't mind people making fun of him for speaking Chinese, but was upset about bringing his family into it with some pictures and videos of his adopted daughters. Paul disavowed the video and the creators of the video, saying: "Nobody who actually supports Dr. Paul’s principles would put together something like that." Separately, they called it disgusting.

And really, that should be it. However, for whatever reason, the Paul campaign has now filed a lawsuit in the federal courts, in the Northern California district, seeking to identify whoever created and uploaded the video -- alleging trademark infringement and defamation. Even more ridiculous is that he's filed for expedited discovery to try to unmask those uploaders quickly. This is all sorts of bizarre and not particularly smart. It also seems to go against a bunch of Paul's main points -- including his belief in state's rights over federal (he's suing in federal court, not state court, using some questionable theories) and his support of the First Amendment -- which, many courts have pointed out, includes the right to speak anonymously.

Even more specifically, on the actual details of the lawsuit it's difficult to see how this is a trademark claim in any way, since it's questionable how this is a "use in commerce" (necessary for trademark law). Second, the defamation claim is just bizarre. As a public figure, the bar for defamation is crazy high -- and he'd likely have to prove that the video was made maliciously to make him look bad. That seems like a massively high hurdle, since it's just as likely that some clueless/ignorant people made the video thinking it would help him. But, on top of that, is just putting his name on a dumb and offensive video -- without ever suggesting he was directly associated with it -- even defamation in the first place? Hell, if anyone has a defamation claim here (and I don't think anyone does) it would be Huntsman.

Finally, what good does filing this lawsuit do? I can't figure out any conceivable argument under which filing the lawsuit makes sense. Not only is it on questionable legal theories and contrary to his core statements on Constitutional support, but it also simply calls more attention to the offensive video and brings the story back into the news cycle, after he's been trying to distance himself from it. No doubt, the video is stupid, but this lawsuit may be even dumber.

Filed Under: campaign advertising, campaigns, defamation, john huntsman, lawsuits, ron paul, states rights, trademark