GOP Very Excited To Be Handed An FCC Voting Majority By Joe Biden

from the own-goal dept

Consumer groups have grown all-too-politely annoyed at the Biden administration's failure to pick a third Democratic Commissioner and permanent FCC boss nearly eight months into his term. After the rushed Trump appointment of unqualified Trump ally Nathan Simington to the agency (as part of that dumb and now deceased plan to have the FCC regulate social media), the agency now sits gridlocked at 2-2 commissioners under interim FCC head Jessica Rosenworcel.

While the FCC can still putter along tackling its usual work on spectrum and device management, the gridlock means it can't do much of anything controversial, like reversing Trump-era attacks on basic telecom consumer protections, media consolidation rules, or the FCC's authority to hold telecom giants accountable for much of, well, anything. If you're a telecom giant like AT&T or Comcast, that's the gift that just keeps on giving.

More interesting perhaps is the fact that interim FCC boss Jessica Rosenworcel, whose term expires at the end of the year, hasn't had her term renewed either. That means there's an increasingly real chance the GOP enjoys a 2-1 voting majority at Biden's FCC in the new year:

"Biden’s delay is historic: No previous president has waited this long to name a chair of the five-member body. The closest parallels are Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon, who waited until mid-September to name their agency chiefs. But Biden has blown past that deadline, alarming Capitol Hill Democrats who have few legislative days remaining this year for confirming any nominees the president might offer."

By the time a permanent FCC boss is appointed and confirmed, it's likely a full year and a half of policy making time will have been wasted. That's a punch in the face to those who were looking for a Biden FCC to do popular things like restore net neutrality, meaningfully stand up to telecom mono/duopolies, or restore bipartisan media consolidation rules stripped away under Trump. It's also a weird contrast to the Biden administration's treatment of the FTC, which has been aggressively stocked with popular choices among folks looking for meaningful reform.

Politico, with some uncharacteristic nuance and accuracy, correctly does point out there's some hesitation about appointing current interim FCC boss Rosenworcel permanent boss because she's historically been an unreliable vote on major consumer advocacy issues. Like that time she killed an FCC attempt to bring competition to cable boxes because the cable industry (falsely) claimed it would kill copyright:

"Rosenworcel has alienated some Democrats in the past. During the Obama years, she proved a fickle deciding vote on the FCC’s Democratic majority, and progressives blamed her for spiking an attempted overhaul of the cable set-top box marketplace. Democratic Sens. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Ron Wyden of Oregon even briefly blocked her renomination in late 2016 over their ire."

Regardless, telecom giants and the GOP allies who love them are pleased as punch about the delay. Agency Republicans are quick to downplay the fact that the agency currently can't do anything even remotely controversial (read: all the stuff they don't like) without a functional voting majority:

"Republicans, meanwhile, see the status quo as an unexpected gift. They hope they can keep delaying partisan fights that would probably override their views, touting what they see as a productive bipartisan agenda under Rosenworcel’s 2-2 split."

I've spent months picking the brains of DC folks for a reasonable explanation of the delay, and there really aren't any. Some argue that it's just a matter of staffing and resources (which again, hasn't been a problem elsewhere like the FTC, nor is that historically ever much a problem for the GOP, which rushed to get Simington appointed in under 30 days). Some argue it's because the top picks might be unable to pass a vote in Congress because they're too consumer-centric (a case that you should probably be making to the public, not shying away from in fear).

My sense is the real culprit is two-fold. One, when the telecom industry saw antitrust buster Lina Khan appointed to the FTC and then quickly promoted to agency boss, they began pouring money and resources into trying to ensure the same thing didn't happen at the FCC. I'd also argue that the myopic focus on "big tech" continues to suck most of the policy oxygen out of the room (something also actively encouraged by telecom lobbyists), consistently shifting attention away from media and telecom policy issues that are every bit as important.

Filed Under: fcc, jessica rosenworcel, joe biden

Facebook's Nick Clegg Makes It Clear: If You're Looking To Undermine Section 230, That's EXACTLY What Facebook Wants

from the look-at-that-briar-patch dept

Facebook policy dude/failed UK politician Nick Clegg has written an op-ed for USA Today confirming what has been obvious to everyone who understands Section 230, but (for reasons I don't quite understand) seems obscured from basically every politician out there: >Facebook wants to destroy Section 230. And it's practically giddy that politicians are so eager to grant it its wish, while pretending that doing so will somehow hurt Facebook.

It remains absolutely bizarre to me that many people still believe that getting rid of Section 230 (or even reforming it) is a way to "stop" or "hurt" Facebook. Section 230 is a protection for the users of the internet more than it is for the companies. By making it clear that companies are not liable for user speech, it makes more websites willing to host user speech, especially smaller ones which could easily be sued out of existence. Indeed, over the last couple of years, it's become clear that Facebook desperately wants to kill Section 230 because it knows that it alone has enough money to handle the liability, and removing Section 230 will really only burden the startups that threaten to take users away from Facebook.

A year and a half ago, Mark Zuckerberg made it clear that he was cool with getting rid of Section 230. Earlier this year, he suggested a "reform proposal" that was effectively gutting 230 in extremely anti-competitive ways. And for months now, Facebook has blanketed DC (and elsewhere, but mostly DC) with commercials and ads that don't say Section 230, but refer obliquely to "comprehensive internet regulations" passed in "1996." That's Section 230 that they're talking about.

This is why it's so ridiculous that the takeaway of some people to the Facebook whistleblower last week was that Section 230 needs to change. That's exactly what Facebook wants, because it will cement Facebook's dominant position and make it that much more difficult for competitors to emerge or succeed.

Here's what Clegg had to say:

Much has been said about Facebook recently, but there’s one thing we agree on: Congress should pass new internet regulations.

We’ve been advocating for new rules for several years. For too long, many important issues have been left to private companies to decide.

Please regulate us! Facebook has stocked up on former politicians (like Clegg) and political operatives (like Joel Klein). It's not at all worried about a new regulatory regime. It knows that it will run any new regulatory regime. Facebook is not scared of the government. What Facebook is so obviously afraid of is new competitors drawing away its user base. When looked through this lens, Facebook would love regulations. It knows it can control the process, while it would burden all the up and coming startups that are stripping away Facebook's userbase.

We’ve argued for creating a new digital regulatory agency to navigate competing trade-offs in the digital space – much like the Federal Communications Commission oversees telecoms and media.

This is the key quote that proves that Facebook wants to do away with Section 230, though it may only be obvious to those who really know the history of Section 230. When Ron Wyden and Chris Cox wrote Section 230, it was explicitly done to prevent other politicians from creating a Federal Computer Commission to oversee internet companies. Here is what Chris Cox said during the floor debate over Section 230 as compared to alternative approaches, like that of Senator Exon (whose "Communications Decency Act" was later merged with Section 230, only to be thrown out as completely unconstitutional soon after):

Some have suggested, Mr. Chairman, that we take the Federal Communications Commission and turn it into the Federal Computer Commission, that we hire even more bureaucrats and more regulators who will attempt, either civilly or criminally, to punish people by catching them in the act of putting something into cyberspace.

Frankly, there is just too much going on on the Internet for that to be effective. No matter how big the army of bureaucrats, it is not going to protect my kids because I do not think the Federal Government will get there in time. Certainly, criminal enforcement of our obscenity laws as an adjunct is a useful way of punishing the truly guilty.

Note that there was "just too much going on on the Internet" in 1995 when this was said. Section 230 was the alternative proposal so that the FCC or any new agency would not regulate the internet. And here's Facebook saying that we need exactly that kind of agency? It's asking for the effective repeal of Section 230.

The rest of Clegg's article is just "please, sir, regulate us so we know what to do," behind a smirk that is obviously knowing how that will lock in Facebook not just as the power behind the regulator, but as the only company who can still survive in the space.

It’s long past time for Congress to set clear and fair rules. That’s how we’ll make the internet safer, while also ensuring that creativity and competition continue to thrive online.

Translation: it's long past time for Congress to make it so that Facebook is firmly established controlling the mechanisms of internet regulations, such that the competitors who are already eating away at our base of users cannot continue to compete.

Filed Under: fcc, internet regulations, nick clegg, section 230
Companies: facebook

FCC's 'New' Robocall Plan Isn't Particularly New, Won't Seriously Reduce Robocalls

from the half-measures-and-good-intent dept

So for a long time the FCC has made "fighting robocalls" one of their top priorities. Though with Americans still receiving 132 million Robocalls every single day, you may have noticed that these efforts don't usually have the impact they claim. Headlines about "historic" or "record" FCC robocall fines usually overshadow the agency's pathetic failure to collect on those fines, or the fact that thanks to recent Supreme Court rulings, the agency is boxed in as to which kind of annoying calls and spam texts it can actually police.

Which brings us to last week, when the agency announced yet another major action, this time proposed rule updates that would make it harder on the "gateway" companies (which connected overseas callers to U.S. phone networks) and the smaller phone operators that are the origins of so much of the problem. While the FCC's plan made a lot of headlines, experts were quick to note that most of the improvements were still far from being implemented:

"The plan as-is consists of good ideas, but I don't think it's going to make a big difference in the next couple of years,” Brad Reaves, an Assistant Professor of Computer Science at NC State University told Motherboard.

The proposal is just a proposal for now, and “gateway providers” still aren’t covered by existing rules. Neither are smaller providers with less than 100,000 customers, who’ve been exempted from the rules until 2023. “These two types are the providers that most in the industry believe are serving the robocallers,” he said."

In short, the FCC's big plan for robocalls was really just a plan to consider doing something about robocalls, eventually. To be fair, the FCC is doing something relatively good: it's forcing wireless carriers of all sizes to implement SHAKEN/STIR call authentication tech, which helps combat robocall spoofing. It's also requiring companies that haven't implemented this caller verification tech to track their progress in an FCC Robocall Mitigation Database.

But there are two other reasons that the FCC's well-hyped "solution" to robocalls isn't much of one. For one, the agency is boxed in thanks to a recent Supreme Court Facebook ruling (Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid) that left it hamstrung when it comes to policing spam texts or live-person marketing and scam calls made with an autodialier:

"The rules were, until April 1st of this year, that our cellphones were protected not only from pre-recorded calls, but unwanted texts, and unwanted live calls made by an autodialer,” Saunders said, referring to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). But in April a Supreme Court ruling (Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid) effectively nullified the TCPA’s ban on autodialed calls and texts to cell phones without your consent. So while there are growing but sometimes inconsistent restrictions on pre-recorded robocalls, annoying spam texts and many live calls made with auto dialers remain perfectly legal."

The other major problem is that the existing U.S. rules about robocallers are heavily influenced by the lobbying of numerous industries and telemarketing interests. That has historically resulted in rules and enforcement that fixate exclusively on "scam" callers, while providing big loopholes for "legitimate" telemarketers, spammers, and debt collecting robocalls who can be every bit as unwanted, and who often use the same exact tactics:

"Saunders’ Congressional testimony has highlighted how scammers often comprise the minority of overall robocalls. Many are debt collectors working for banks or telecom providers, who relentlessly harass consumers they know can’t pay their bills. Efforts to rein in those types of calls have often taken a backseat thanks to lobbying pressure."

So yes, some of what the FCC is doing is helping. Authentication tech helped trigger an 8% reduction in overall robocalls in August, though with this kind of cat and mouse game it's not clear if that reduction will last. But the bigger problem remains that the FCC's authority has been boxed in by the Supreme Court, and lobbying has resulted in existing rules often being a little too friendly to equally obnoxious, "legitimate" telemarketers. The reality is that Americans receive 5.5 million robocalls every hour. That's an absolute tidal wave that's not slowing down without significant changes on multiple fronts.

Filed Under: fcc, robocalls, spam, telemarketing

FCC Finally Gets Off Its Ass To Combat SIM Hijacking

from the better-late-than-never dept

So for years we've talked about the growing threat of SIM hijacking, which involves an attacker covertly porting out your phone number from right underneath your nose (sometimes with the help of bribed or conned wireless carrier employees). Once they have your phone identity, they have access to most of your personal accounts secured by two-factor SMS authentication, opening the door to the theft of social media accounts or the draining of your cryptocurrency account. If you're really unlucky, the hackers will harrass the hell out of you in a bid to extort you even further.

It's a huge mess, and the both the criminal complaints -- and lawsuits against wireless carriers for not doing more to protect their users -- have been piling up for several years. For several years, Senators like Ron Wyden have been sending letters to the FCC asking the nation's top telecom regulator to, you know, do something. After years of inaction the agency appears to have gotten the message, announcing a new plan to at least consider some new rules to make SIM hijacking more difficult.

Most of the proposal involves nudging wireless carriers to do things they should have done long ago. Such as updating FCC Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) and Local Number Portability rules to require wireless carriers adopt secure methods of confirming the customer’s identity before porting out a customer’s phone number to a new device or carrier (duh). As well as requiring that wireless carriers immediately notify you when somebody tries to port out your phone number without your permission (double duh):

"The FCC’s proposal would also require that wireless providers immediately notify customers whenever a SIM change or port request is made on customers’ accounts. That this wasn’t yet industry standard practice—or covered by FCC rules—speaks to the sluggishness with which the government and industry have responded to the problem."

Again, this lack of action until now was fairly reflective of the Ajit Pai school of thought on telecom policy, which basically involved coddling major telecom companies in the misguided belief that this regulatory apathy somehow results in free market utopia. But as we've established for years, while deregulation can help improve functional, competitive, healthy markets, that's not what U.S. telecom is. It's a bunch of government-coddled regional monopolies and duopolies, that, thanks to increased consolidation, face increasingly less meaningful competition. When you remove both competition (and pro-competitive policies) and regulatory oversight, you don't get a miraculous free market, you usually get... a bigger, fatter Comcast.

Note these aren't actual rules yet, it's just the beginning of new rules. The Rosenworcel FCC is basically doing the bare minimum here to start the ball rolling, launching a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to begin discussing the path forward. That this wasn't even contemplated until now speaks volumes as to the state of U.S. telecom regulatory oversight. Folks have been having vast fortunes stolen from under their noses for several years (seriously read this story) because wireless carriers failed to secure their own services, and the response from the U.S. government until now had been a giant, collective yawn.

Filed Under: fcc, sim hijacking

ISPs Already Fighting FCC Plan To End Anti-Competitive Landlord Broadband Deals

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

Earlier this month we noted how the FCC announced it would be taking a closer look at the dodgy deals big ISPs make with landlords to hamstring broadband competition. While the FCC passed rules in 2008 outlawing strict exclusivity agreements, big ISPs have, for years, tap-danced around the loose wording of the restrictions, often by simply calling what they're doing... something else. ISPs also still do stuff like charging door fees just to access the building (making it tougher on less wealthy, small ISPs), or striking deals that ban any competitors from even advertising in the building.

Obviously the broadband industry loves these sorts of deals, as they effectively give them a building-by-building monopoly over broadband access. As such they're already trying to apply pressure on the FCC while claiming such arrangements are secretly a really good thing:

"Comcast, Charter, Cox, and NCTA–The Internet & Television Association (the cable industry's primary lobbying group) met with FCC staff to discuss the topic on September 2, according to an ex parte filing submitted last week by NCTA. During the meeting, NCTA "described the benefits of continuing to allow providers to enter into exclusive wiring agreements with MTE owners. Exclusive wiring agreements do not deny new entrants access to MTEs. Rather, exclusive wiring agreements are pro-competitive and help ensure that state-of-the-art wiring will be deployed in MTEs to the benefit of consumers," the filing said."

Granted this is the same industry that has a severe allergy to acknowledging that the U.S. broadband market has any flaws whatsoever, so of course Comcast's policy and lobbying arm thinks anti-competitive building deals are covertly a great thing. While the FCC's original rules tried to open up competitor access to in-building ISP wiring (often the property of a cable giant like Comcast), ISPs simply tap-danced around the restrictions by deeding ownership of those wires to a landlord in exchange for exclusive access to the wires. Because they're no longer technically owned by the ISP, exclusivity deals no longer violate the FCC rules.

It's all a very stupid affair, and highlights not only the lengths ISPs are willing to go to to hamstring competition, but the perpetual failure of U.S. telecom regulators to maintain baseline levels of competency. Not only were the original rules terribly written and constructed, ISPs have been exploiting that initial failure for more than a decade with absolutely no meaningful penalty. And while FCC does occasionally admit there's a problem here, the net result is usually little more than a few meetings.

This time the FCC is opening up the public commenting system for input from the public and ISPs that are harmed by these practices. But again, there's no guarantee the process actually survives ISP lobbying and ends with meaningful improvements to the rules. And because the Biden camp still hasn't appointed a permanent boss, the agency still lacks the voting majority necessary to implement actual reform anytime soon anyway.

Filed Under: apartment buildings, broadband, competition, fcc, isps, landlords
Companies: charter, comcast, cox, ncta

FCC's Carr Still Pushing A Dumb Telecom Tax On 'Big Tech'

from the misdirection-ahoy dept

A few months back we noted how FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr had taken to Newsweek to dust off a fifteen year old AT&T talking point. Namely that "big tech" companies get a "free ride" on telecom networks, and, as a result, should throw billions of dollars at "big telecom" for no real reason. You'll recall it was this exact argument that launched the net neutrality debate, when former AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre proclaimed that Google wouldn't be allowed to "ride his pipes for free." Basically, telecom giants have long wanted somebody else to fund network builds they routinely leave half finished despite billions in subsidies.

Carr, who has been trying to seed this idea in the press and policy circles for months, was back at it again last week, pointing to a new Oracle-funded study that suggests funding broadband expansion via a tax on advertising revenue:

As usual with Carr, there are a few problems here.

The study in question took a look at the FCC's USF system, which helps subsidize broadband expansion and provides some small broadband, wireless, or phone discounts (a paltry $9.25 per month, to be specific) to low income Americans. At no point does the study actually suggest companies like Google get a "free ride" on the internet. Nor does it suggest "big tech" alone is responsible for funding the program. It does recommend that taxing bloated adtech revenues in general might be a good way to shore up lagging USF contributions.

But the study also recommends several other things, like helping ensure broadband subsidies are useful by raising the FCC's current pathetic definition of broadband (25 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up) to something modern and useful, something Carr has actively opposed. Why has he opposed it? Because the telecom industry opposes it. Why does the telecom industry oppose it? Because a higher standard would reveal market failure, a lack of competition, and how that results in substandard and expensive service. It's a story as old as time at this point.

There are a few things that are true. One, the USF does need more funding. As the report notes, the flatlining level of broadband subscriber growth (because of a saturated market) means that just levying USF fees on broadband and phone lines doesn't scale with funding needs. It's not unreasonable to consider expanding the contribution base to the profit-rich adtech sector in general, but again that's just one idea of several. And Carr distorts it in strange ways that signal he's not really approaching any of this in good faith.

One, the idea that Google gets a "free ride" on the internet is a bullshit, antiquated talking point telecom giants have been pushing for years. A company like Google spends billions of dollars on their own transit, cloud, and broadband infrastructure. Hell, Google even owns its own residential ISP (Google Fiber). And as the freshly unredacted version of Epic's antitrust lawsuit against Google shows, Google has (stupidly, frankly) been paying wireless carriers billions of dollars since 2009 simply to not compete with its app store. There's no free ride with U.S. telecom. Ever. Claims to the contrary are just nonsense.

If you're familiar with telecom problems and serious about fixing them (and again, Carr is not), your first impulse should not be "make Netflix and Google throw money at it." Your first topic of discussion should be the endless tax breaks, subsidies, and regulatory favors (see: killing net neutrality) we throw at telecom giants for little to nothing.

Time after time after time entrenched telecom giants promise they'll cover the world in cheap, next-generation broadband and amazing jobs if only they get "X," be that merger approval, more subsidies, deregulation, whatever. And time after time after time those promises prove absolutely hollow. Hell, Carr and Trump's FCC majority is fresh off a scandal in which it doled out more than $9 billion dollars to companies that were gaming the entire FCC process, nabbing huge sums of money by making promises that made no coherent sense.

Carr not only doesn't bring any of that up here, he never brings it up. He always actively ignores all of telecom's warts, including the indisputable fact that U.S. broadband is heavily regionally monopolized, resulting in high prices that harm everybody, particularly low income Americans. Like Trump FCC boss Ajit Pai, he's literally incapable of acknowledging the telecom sector has any such flaws, which should set off alarm bells. If you're a telecom regulator who can't admit the telecom sector has major flaws, yet is always incessantly fixated on the flaws of companies telecom has a beef with and you don't regulate (Pai had this very same mysterious habit), I'd say that's a pretty solid warning sign you may not be operating consistently and objectively as a policymaker.

Again, I think the telecom and media (Rupert) industries have been working hard in DC for several years to exploit the recent (and usually very valid) animosity against big tech to push several agendas. One is to saddle companies whose ad revenues they covet with additional layers of obligation and regulation, while removing oversight of their own sectors (see: the elimination of media consolidation and net neutrality rules by Carr and Pai). The other is, which is a 20 year old ploy at this point, to push the idea that other companies and industries should be giving them billions in additional dollars for networks that mysteriously always wind up only half deployed.

Filed Under: advertising, big tech, brendan carr, fcc, free ride, net neutrality, tax, universal service fund
Companies: facebook, google, oracle

FCC Will Take A Closer Look At ISP/Landlord Broadband Monopolies

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

One of the tricks dominant broadband providers use to limit competition is exclusive broadband arrangements with landlords. Often an ISP will strike an exclusive deal with the owner of a building, apartment complex, or development that effectively locks in a block by block monopoly. And while the FCC passed rules in 2007 to purportedly stop this from happening, they contained too many loopholes to be of use. Susan Crawford wrote an excellent story at Wired about this a few years back, noting that the rules are so terrible ISPs and landlords can tap dance around them by simply calling what they're doing... something else:

"...The Commission has been completely out-maneuvered by the incumbents. Sure, a landlord can’t enter into an exclusive agreement granting just one ISP the right to provide Internet access service to an MDU, but a landlord can refuse to sign agreements with anyone other than Big Company X, in exchange for payments labeled in any one of a zillion ways. Exclusivity by any other name still feels just as abusive."

She was also quick to note that while the FCC rules technically prohibited exclusive building broadband deals (which they again failed to actually do), ISPs also took to striking deals with landlords banning any other ISP from being able to advertise in the building:

"Here’s another colorful workaround exploited by the incumbents. Even though exclusive agreements are a no-no, marketing exclusivity is apparently permitted. So AT&T and Comcast and others will sign deals with buildings that require that only their flyers are displayed in the leasing office. No one else is allowed to distribute any competing material — and no events (think wine and cheese party for tenants) can be held by any competing provider on the premises."

I bring it up because Axios, this week, reported that the FCC would finally be taking another serious look at this problem. More specifically, they'll be seeking public comment from consumers and landlords about the impact this problem has on them, as part of the Biden camp's broader bid to tackle monopolization. Of course "looking into" the problem and fielding comments is not synonymous with actually fixing the problem, which has been going on for decades thanks to bipartisan regulatory apathy.

This is where Biden's failure to appoint a permanent FCC boss and third Democratic Commissioner enters the picture. Without a voting majority the agency can't pass any reform that's even remotely controversial, and the telecom industry will lobby hard to, as usual, keep this broken status quo intact. Interim boss Jessica Rosenworcel's term ends at the end of this year, and if the Biden foot dragging on this front continues, the FCC could see a 2-1 GOP majority in the new year. And guys like Commissioner Brendan Carr pretty rarely can be bothered to stand up to dominant broadband monopolies on any substance of note.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, fcc, landlords, monopolies

Biden 'Competition Council' Urges Biden FCC To Do Things It Can't Do Because Biden Hasn't Fully Staffed It Yet

from the circular-dysfunction dept

Back in July, the Biden administration signed an executive order creating a new "competition council" tasked with taking a closer look at competition and monopoly issues in various business sectors. One of those sectors was telecom, which remains dominated by a handful of politically powerful regional monopolies, resulting in decades of spotty broadband service, high prices, and terrible customer service.

Back in July, the council offered several bits of advice as to how this could be fixed, including forcing ISPs to provide more clear pricing data to government (allowing policymakers to clearly illustrate the harms of regional monopolies), forcing ISPs to be more transparent with consumers about sneaky fees and pricing, and the restoration of the FCC's consumer protection authority stripped away during the Trump-era net neutrality repeal:

"(i) adopting through appropriate rulemaking 'Net Neutrality' rules similar to those previously adopted under title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (Public Law 73-416, 48 Stat. 1064, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, in "Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet," 80 Fed. Reg. 19738 (Apr. 13, 2015);"

Last week the council held its inaugural meeting, including eight cabinet members and the leaders of seven independent agencies, including the FCC and acting chair Jessica Rosenworcel. As it was designed to do, the meeting focused on ways the administration can lower prices, shore up competition, and break down monopolistic logjams across business sectors:

"In the Council’s inaugural meeting, NEC Director Brian Deese (Council Chair) emphasized that the President’s competition agenda is core to the Administration’s plan to Build Back Better and critical to keeping prices low for American consumers, spurring innovation, and allowing small businesses to compete on a level playing field."

But for risk of beating a dead horse, the FCC still can't actually do any of the things the counsel asks of it because the Biden team still hasn't picked permanent agency bosses for either the FCC or NTIA.

Without a permanent boss and 3-2 voting majority, the FCC can't really do much of anything controversial to shore up telecom competition issues, much to the relief of sector giants like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon. Mired in partisan gridlock (quite intentionally by the Trump administration and the speedy appointment of Nathan Simington at the end of his term), it can't do much else of any controversy either, whether that involves media consolidation or disaster preparedness. Worse, Rosenworcel's tenure ends at the end of the year, so if this apathy continues there's a chance the agency could see a 2-1 GOP majority in the new year, leaving it even further incapable of any real reform.

I've spent months talking to folks around DC asking why team Biden hasn't staffed its telecom regulators eight months into his first term, and nobody has a reasonable explanation. While there's clearly a lot going on, the administration wasn't too busy to give top Comcast lobbyist David Cohen a cushy job as the U.S. Canadian Ambassador. At this rate, by the time a permanent FCC boss is seated, a full year of policy time will have been wasted, which doesn't exactly scream "urgency" when it comes to telecom monopoly, media consolidation, or other reform.

The apathy on telecom and FCC staffing is an odd clash with the selection of antitrust-buster Lina Khan at the FTC. But it kind of fits the current DC obsession with fixating exclusively on "big tech," while "big telecom" engages in much of the same (or sometimes worse) behavior. At some point you have to wonder if the apathy on telecom and media reform isn't a screw up but an active policy choice.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, fcc, joe biden, ntia, white house

Amazon, Space X Throw Hissy Fits As They Bicker Over Government Contracts, Subsidies

from the nobody-wins dept

We've noted a few times that the Space X, Starlink satellite broadband service isn't going to be quite as disruptive to telecom as many people might think.

For one, capacity constraints mean that the company will only be able to serve somewhere between 500,000 and 800,000 subscribers in the first few years. That's a drop in the bucket when you consider 42 million Americans don't have broadband, and 83 million live under a monopoly (usually Comcast). Once Musk fanboys flock to limited subscriber slots to outfit their boats and RVs, there likely may not be many left for those that genuinely need access. And at $100 per month (plus a $500 equipment cost) the service doesn't really help with the primary reason for low broadband adoption: high costs.

Starlink, like a lot of what Musk does, is really about other things. One, to help drive up company value via press excitement (like that recent dancing robot vaporware). Two, to help subsidize Space X's other space ventures (Starlink recently courted controversy for nabbing nearly $900 million in FCC funds to serve a few parking lots and traffic medians). Other companies have the same idea as they try to hoover up government subsidies and nab lucrative contracts, which is why we've been seeing a significant boost in hissy fits between companies like Space X, Amazon, and ViaSat.

ViaSat has been trying to derail Space X by (accurately if not self-servingly) pointing out the company's low-orbit satellites may pose environmental and light pollution threats. Amazon has also been ramping up its verbal assault on Space X and Starlink, claiming the company's plan to launch updated low-orbit satellites violates FCC rules. In filings this week with the FCC, Amazon lamented the fact that when it comes to Starlink and Space X, rules often just don't apply:

"Whether it is launching satellites with unlicensed antennas, launching rockets without approval, building an unapproved launch tower, or re-opening a factory in violation of a shelter-in-place order, the conduct of SpaceX and other Musk-led companies makes their view plain: rules are for other people, and those who insist upon or even simply request compliance are deserving of derision and ad hominem attacks.

While Amazon, like ViaSat, is absolutely engaged in self-serving behavior here (it doesn't want competition, wants government subsidies and contracts for itself, isn't much of a fan of regulatory authority, etc.), that doesn't mean it's not true. The Trump administration for example twisted itself into pretzels to throw hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies at Starlink for broadband coverage promises that made no coherent sense. But when it comes to the light pollution both Starlink and soon Amazon are creating (something researchers say can't be fully mitigated), U.S. regulators are just completely asleep at the wheel.

Amazon's specific complaints in their latest filings focus on claims that Space X is violating FCC rules governing inconsistent and incomplete applications, and has redesigned several antenna arrays "clandestinely." The company then whined to the FCC that when you point out the company's tendency to play fast and loose with government rules, Space X acts like a brat:

"Try to hold a Musk-led company to flight rules? You’re “fundamentally broken.” Try to hold a Musk-led company to health and safety rules? You’re “unelected & ignorant." Try to hold a Musk-led company to U.S. securities laws? You’ll be called many names, some too crude to repeat. In the words of the Wall Street Journal, Elon Musk wages a “War on Regulators,” the public servants charged with uniformly applying the same rules to all. As the Journal reported, “Federal agencies say [Musk is] breaking the rules and endangering people . . . . Rather than engaging in a give-and-take with government authorities, Mr. Musk’s default response includes making public, sometimes crude, remarks via Twitter disparaging them."

Of course Amazon's sudden concern about regulatory authority is highly performative as a company that routinely enjoys tap dancing around regulatory obligations and rules when it suits it (like say its union busting). But again, that doesn't mean it's wrong that Space X is also terrible in this particular arena. Because Space X doesn't deem it necessary to have a functioning PR department, the best you get in response to Amazon's allegations is often just... more Musk tweeting:

Starlink is currently in beta and will likely launch next year. Amazon's comparable low-orbit satellite broadband service isn't expected to go live until 2023. While both services will provide users with an additional option for broadband access, limited capacity and physics means it will be some time before either has the impact their billionaire owners promised, assuming both projects can remain financially viable that long (the low-orbit satellite market is a historical highway of failures). Honestly, at least in terms of broadband access, it remains utterly uncertain if any of this endless drama is going to actually be worth it.

Filed Under: competition, elon musk, fcc, jeff bezos, low earth orbit, satellite broadband, spectrum, starlink
Companies: amazon, spacex, starlink, viasat

Biden Has Wasted A Year Failing To Fill Top Telecom Oversight Spots

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

Consumer groups have grown increasingly annoyed at the Biden administration's failure to pick a third Democratic Commissioner and permanent FCC boss nearly eight months into his term. After the rushed Trump appointment of unqualified Trump BFF Nathan Simington to the agency (as part of that dumb and now deceased plan to have the FCC regulate social media), the agency now sits gridlocked at 2-2 commissioners under interim FCC head Jessica Rosenworcel.

While the FCC can still putter along tackling its usual work on spectrum and device management, the gridlock means it can't do much of anything controversial, like reversing Trump-era attacks on basic telecom consumer protections, media consolidation rules, or the FCC's authority to hold telecom giants accountable for much of, well, anything. If you're a telecom giant like AT&T or Comcast, that's the gift that just keeps on giving.

As the Washington Post notes, the Biden camp hasn't appointed anybody to lead the other top telecom regulatory agency, the NTIA. The inaction on both the NTIA and FCC appointments are setting records:

"Nearly eight months into his presidency, Biden has yet to pick permanent leaders for the Federal Communications Commission and the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which together oversee and set policy for the broadcast and Internet service industries. For the FCC, that’s slower than any president since Jimmy Carter in 1977 — just by a few days — and for NTIA, it’s the longest ever since the agency’s founding in 1978.

Adding some complexity to this mess is the fact that interim FCC boss Jessica Rosenworcel's term is up at the end of the year. So if this trend of telecom policy apathy continues, there's the possibility that the GOP could enjoy a 2-1 Commissioner majority at the Biden FCC. Which, you know, isn't great if you care about doing absolutely anything to hold regional telecom monopolies accountable. During a pandemic. In which broadband has been shown to be essential infrastructure. And during a climate crisis. When companies are showing their networks still aren't resilient enough. It's bad, is what I'm saying. Even if your primary goal isn't restoring net neutrality and FCC authority.

While the Biden administration certainly inherited a lot to deal with, there's really no excuse for the delay. It's not as if the administration is being asked to build a nuclear reactor out of string cheese and lint -- it's just some regulatory appointments and hearings. At this rate, by the time the FCC appoints somebody, it will take most of the rest of the year to get them seated. So whereas the Trump GOP set about dismantling telecom consumer protection with a brutal efficiency, the Biden team will have wasted an entire year. Consumer groups are being polite about it, but it's a big screw up:

"We've had a lost year in policymaking because of the slowness of the Biden administration to name a full FCC,” said Christopher Lewis, president and CEO of consumer group Public Knowledge, which backs reinstating the Obama-era net neutrality rules. “It's probably the biggest missed opportunity we have had in communications policy this year."

The Ajit Pai Donald Trump GOP assault on the FCC's consumer protection authority was relentless, ruthless, and incredibly efficient. Nathan Simington, generally viewed as unqualified for the role given his lack of telecom experience, got his FCC spot with a 31 day rushed appointment. The Democrats had an opportunity to be equally efficient and ruthless in appointing their picks and restoring FCC authority, and instead they've chosen to trip over their own asses. Nobody I've spoken to anywhere in DC can provide a functional reason why telecom oversight has simply been forgotten.

Though it is worth reminding folks that the myopic DC internet policy focus on "big tech" is something telecom and media giants (from AT&T to Rupert Murdoch) have actively and repeatedly encouraged. They want the focus exclusively on the large tech giants whose ad empires they covet and not on their own monopolization, privacy, or other problems. It's also worth reminding folks that there was no such delay, controversy, or consternation when it came time to give Comcast lobbyist David Cohen (a top Biden fundraiser) a kushy job as Canadian Ambassador.

At some point you have to assume that whoever has Biden's ear likes having an FCC whose consumer protection authority has been largely lobotomized courtesy of one of the most scandal prone and unpopular policy proceedings in internet policy history.

Filed Under: fcc, joe biden, net neutrality, ntia, regulation, telcos