Ajit Pai Rushes To Weaken Media Ownership Cap To Aid Sinclair... While Under Investigation For Being Too Cozy With Sinclair

from the ill-communication dept

We've discussed for a while now how FCC boss Ajit Pai is busy gutting decades old media consolidation rules simply to help Sinclair Broadcast Group complete its $4 billion acquisition of Tribune. Many of these rules traditionally enjoy bipartisan support, since they protect local news organizations and free speech from being crushed by any one, major broadcaster. And Sinclair's merger, which would allow it to reach nearly 72% of the country with its facts-optional and monolithic programming (as that recent viral Deadspin video attests), has been routinely under fire by groups on both sides of the partisan aisle.

As Sinclair moved to acquire Tribune, it kept running into FCC rules. Rules Ajit Pai was more than happy to systematically remove at every step in perfect synchronicity with Sinclair's ambition. And while Pai's allies on the commission claim this timing is all just quirky happenstance, the allegations have resulted in the FCC's nonpartisan inspector general launching an investigation into possible corruption and coordination between the FCC and the broadcaster. Pai's fellow Commissioners like Jessica Rosenworcel have publicly stated the Trump FCC is little more than a rubber stamp for Sinclair:

To specifically help Sinclair's merger squeeze in under the media ownership cap, Pai's FCC restored an irrelevant bit of 1980's regulatory guidance known as the UHF Discount. Built in the 1980's as a mechanism to adjust for the lesser quality and reach of UHF stations, the rule was eliminated a few years ago for being the sort of outdated regulatory red tape Pai's FCC routinely pretends to be waging war against. But Pai's FCC suddenly and quickly restored the rule just a few weeks before Sinclair announced its merger, conveniently allowing Sinclair to under-state the company's real ownership reach.

That, in turn, has resulted in a looming legal challenge driven largely by consumer groups (but again enjoying bipartisan support from Conservatives like Newsmax CEO and Trump ally Chris Ruddy):

"A panel of appellate judges questioned why the FCC reinstated a rule that allows media companies to amass a greater number of stations and still fall within ownership limits...The three judges on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals panel raised some concerns about the rationale behind the FCC’s decision in April, 2017, to reinstate the UHF discount after abolishing it a year earlier...

Chris Ruddy, the CEO of Newsmax, who has been highly critical of the FCC’s action, as well as of the Sinclair-Tribune merger, said in a statement that “the judges on the DC Circuit reviewing the FCC’s UHF discount were left scratching their heads wondering why the rule was re-instated when everyone — Republicans and Democrats alike — agree that the discount is an analog relic and makes no sense in a digital world.

Undaunted by an ongoing corruption investigation, Pai is rushing forward with a July 12 vote to further erode a rule prohibiting any one broadcaster from reaching more than 39% of the national audience. The hope, clearly, is to formalize a higher overall ownership cap before the courts can challenge the FCC's previous rule changes. However, there's ample question as to whether the FCC has the authority to modify this cap (even some of Pai's allied Commissioners have acknowledged they may not), and such a ruling will absolutely be quickly appealed.

Sinclair, meanwhile, is busy trying to burrow over and under what media ownership rules remain, in part by promising to offload some stations to shell companies or companies that still have a relationship with Sinclair.

All told, it's just another example of how Trump's "populist" rhetoric is about as deep as a mud-puddle and authentic as a wild west movie set. Between efforts to hamstring competition, neuter regulatory oversight, and gut net neutrality and rubber stamp major media mergers (from Sinclair to the looming tie up between Sprint and T-Mobile), Ajit Pai's FCC is pursuing a very specific idea of what they want the future of the internet and media to look like, with healthy competition, consumers and small business welfare being a very, very distant afterthought.

Filed Under: ajit pai, fcc, investigations, media ownership
Companies: sinclair

Sprint, T-Mobile to FCC: Our Job Killing, Competition Eroding Megamerger Will Create Jobs & Competition

from the if-at-first-you-don't-succeed... dept

Americans tend to be oddly gullible when it comes to megamerger promises. Especially over in the telecom sector. Time after time we're told that the latest major deal will provide all manner of amazing synergies, jobs and added competition. And time after time we subsequently realize that the only people that usually benefit from these deals are investors and executives. Shortly after that, we realize that the slow consolidation and steady erosion in competition results in higher rates and even worse service, something AT&T, Comcast and Charter customers are intimately familiar with after decades of M&A mania.

And yet it's a historical lesson we refuse to learn much of anything from.

The latest megadeal du jour in the telecom space is Sprint and T-Mobile's latest attempt at a $23 billion super-union. The two companies filed their formal sales pitch with the FCC this week, and you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who thinks agency head Ajit Pai and friends won't rubber stamp the deal. The sales pitch is filled with all the usual promises, including the insistence that reducing the overall number of players in the wireless market from four to three will somehow, magically, improve wireless sector competition, a claim I've seen an awful lot of consumers actually buying into:

"New T-Mobile will have the scale and resources to take the Un-carrier movement to the next level and into new market segments. The combined company will have lower costs and the incentives to engage in aggressive pricing to expand its 4G LTE customer base as the industry continues its major transformation towards 5G. To date, T-Mobile and Sprint, individually, have not been able to materially erode Verizon and AT&T’s wireless market share or overcome their scale advantages. New T-Mobile, however, will be able to go toe-to-toe with the two larger rivals to the benefit of competition and consumers.

So the core justification for this deal is that the combined company will more easily be able to compete with AT&T and Verizon, reducing prices for everybody. But that's not how it works, especially in telecom. What really happens is when you reduce the overall number of competitors the incentive to engage in real price competition proportionally declines, resulting in less incentive to actually compete (go ask a Canadian wireless user). This reality is a major reason why both AT&T and Verizon have yet to oppose the deal. They still dominate cell tower backhaul and know this likely means less price competition at retail.

It's also why past regulators have moved to block this very deal and others like it (like AT&T's attempted acquisition of T-Mobile). And you'd be hard pressed to find a single major merger in telecom (be it by Comcast, Charter, AT&T, or CenturyLink) that hasn't made the already marginally-competitive sector worse. This mindless obsession with M&As is a major reason that this sector sees some of the worst customer satisfaction scores of any industry or agency in America (even the IRS). These companies spend so much time growing for growth's sake to please Wall Street, scaling up customer service always lags behind.

Sprint and T-Mobile are also trying to insist that the megadeal will somehow be a huge boon for job creation, another favorite claim of those lost in the throes of M&A mania:

"...the merger will create jobs on New T-Mobile’s first day and going forward. New T-Mobile will hire employees to build the new network; extend the Un-carrier customer care model to a wider subscriber base; and support customers in growing segments like in-home broadband, enterprise, and IoT. New T-Mobile’s increased investment and rapid growth—and resultant accelerated roll-out of 5G services—also will stimulate thousands of additional jobs throughout the U.S. economy.

Here too Sprint and T-Mobile ignore history and factual analysis. Megadeals almost always result in job loss, especially in telecom where countless support, retail, network operations and middle managers will quickly be found to be redundant. The claim also runs in stark contrast to predictions from Wall Street analysts, who believe the deal is likely to eliminate anywhere between 10,000 and 30,000 jobs:

"Merging the companies, said a report by Jonathan Chaplin of New Street Research, could eliminate “approximately 30,000 American jobs” — which is more than Sprint employs.

"We conservatively estimate that a total of 3,000 of Sprint and T-Mobile’s branded stores (or branded-equivalent stores) would eventually close,” (Wall Street analyst Craig Moffett said.

Each of those, he said, would mean the loss of five full time jobs, or 15,000 jobs in total. A merger also would threaten “overhead” jobs, the kind concentrated in headquarters such as Sprint’s and T-Mobile’s in the Seattle area.

And while some like to claim that Sprint will immediately collapse without such a deal (a stretch given it's owned by deep-pocketed Japanese giant SoftBank), there's a myriad of alternative options that would actually increase competition in the space. Comcast and Charter have shown repeated interest in jumping into the wireless space, and a Sprint partnership could prove to be a shortcut. Dish Networks has also routinely proclaimed interest in using its growing spectrum holdings to jump into wireless. Meanwhile, what's the point of "saving" Sprint if the end result is collectively bad for competitors and consumers alike?

It's not entirely clear why America loves to play Charlie Brown and Lucy style football when it comes to megamerger promises. Time and time again we're promised the world, and time and time again we give companies the benefit of the doubt as they promise an ocean of synergies, jobs and competition that never actually materialize. By every indication the millennials that have bought into T-Mobile's consumer friendly (except for opposing that whole net neutrality thing) branding schtick are about to learn their first real lesson on this front the hard way.

Filed Under: competition, fcc, jobs, megamerger, mergers
Companies: sprint, t-mobile

Net Neutrality And The Broken Windows Fallacy

from the ajit-pai,-read-your-bastiat dept

I've mentioned the idea of the broken windows fallacy -- not to be confused with the long debunked broken windows theory of policing -- twice in the past in reference to net neutrality, including in my recent post about what Ajit Pai should have said about repealing net neutrality. But both times I talked about it, it was kind of buried in much longer articles, and the more I think about it, the more important I think it is in understanding why Pai and his supporters are so far off in their thinking and understanding on net neutrality. What I find most perplexing about this is that people who often position themselves as doing away with overly burdensome regulations -- which is a stance that Pai has staked out pretty clearly -- are usually the kind of folks who talk frequently about the broken windows fallacy. And yet, here, those same folks seem to be missing it.

As background, the broken windows fallacy comes from Frederic Bastiat, the French economist often associated with free market and libertarian thought, and it's his clever and highly evocative way of explaining why destructive behavior -- while it may generate economic activity, is not good for the economy, because it misses all of the other (often hidden) costs, including the opportunity cost of investing that money in more productive activity. Bastiat's version went as follows:

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation – "It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"

Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade – that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs – I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented

Let us take a view of industry in general, as affected by this circumstance. The window being broken, the glazier's trade is encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is seen. If the window had not been broken, the shoemaker's trade (or some other) would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is not seen.

And if that which is not seen is taken into consideration, because it is a negative fact, as well as that which is seen, because it is a positive fact, it will be understood that neither industry in general, nor the sum total of national labour, is affected, whether windows are broken or not.

Now let us consider James B. himself. In the former supposition, that of the window being broken, he spends six francs, and has neither more nor less than he had before, the enjoyment of a window.

In the second, where we suppose the window not to have been broken, he would have spent six francs on shoes, and would have had at the same time the enjoyment of a pair of shoes and of a window.

Now, as James B. forms a part of society, we must come to the conclusion, that, taking it altogether, and making an estimate of its enjoyments and its labours, it has lost the value of the broken window.

When we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: "Society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed;" and we must assent to a maxim which will make the hair of protectionists stand on end — To break, to spoil, to waste, is not to encourage national labour; or, more briefly, "destruction is not profit."

In short, breaking windows may generate economic activity for the glazier, but that doesn't count the economic cost to whoever had his window broken, or the opportunity costs of how the money spent on fixing the window could have been fixed.

So how does this apply to net neutrality? Well, Ajit Pai and nearly all of the rather vocal supporters of taking away net neutrality rules continually go back to the claim that the rules harmed broadband infrastructure investment. We'll leave aside the (rather important point) that this claim is not even remotely close to true -- but even assuming it is, it's still a broken windows fallacy.

That's because broadband infrastructure investment is not the entire market, and focusing just on that is the same as just focusing on the economic activity for the glazier created by a broken window. To take this to the extreme case: if we want to stimulate broadband infrastructure investment, just rip up the current internet -- and then we'd need to spend a ton on rebuilding the internet. Yes, that would be the best way to "stimulate" a massive internet infrastructure investment, but the costs to everyone else would be dire.

In the same way, when the FCC focuses just on broadband infrastructure, it is ignoring the costs on everyone else who use the internet. Or, as per Bastiat's story, the FCC is ignoring the costs to the guy whose window is broken as well as all of the opportunity costs from the money he spends on the glazier that doesn't go towards more productive pursuits.

In the net neutrality world, those costs are massive. It is the costs of nearly all internet platforms and services, which now have massive levels of uncertainty about whether or not ISPs will end up abusing their power to limit access (or, more likely, charge for preferred access). It includes the uncertainty of the big broadband companies favoring their own content and service partners to effectively shut out independent services. It includes the costs to the public who have less choice and fewer services that they can use, and who are more locked in to a dwindling number of giant broadband companies.

In short, Ajit Pai's FCC has fallen completely for the broken windows fallacy, by focusing just on one narrow area of economic activity, without even being willing to acknowledge that it will negatively impact a much wider swath of the economy. This is especially disappointing to see, considering that Pai and his supporters keep claiming that they are the ones to "bring economics back" to the FCC, and they are the ones who argued that the Tom Wheeler FCC ignored economics. Yet, when you look at the details, it's Pai and his supporters who seem to be the ones sticking their heads in the sand here and, as Bastiat noted, confining their theory to "that which it seen" and taking "no account of that which is not seen."

In economics this is a pretty 101-level mistake. That the FCC is making it in dismantling a key concept that makes the internet function competitively is particularly disappointing.

Filed Under: ajit pai, broadband investment, broken windows, economics, fcc, innovation, make work, net neutrality

FCC, Big Telcos Take Aim At Line Sharing Rules In Bid To Further Hamstring Broadband Competition

from the more-of-the-same dept

So you might recall that part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the concept of line sharing, or local loop unbundling. Simply, the rules set forth by that law required that incumbent telcos needed to share their networks with smaller competitors, providing wholesale access to bandwidth. It was an effort to foster something vaguely resembling competition in the broadband space by letting smaller companies piggyback on existing network infrastructure. The thought was that because the barriers to market entry were so high, this could help smaller competitors gain footholds that would otherwise be impossible.

Unsurprisingly incumbent telcos utterly loathed this idea, and quickly got to work dismantling it. First by ensuring that the coordination between incumbent telcos (ILECs) and smaller competitors (CLECs) was as clunky, cumbersome and annoying as possible (something you probably noticed if you ever waited for installs from one of these smaller ISPs in the late 90s or early aughts), then by lobbying to have the rules dismantled. Incumbent telcos then used the resulting failure as evidence that the idea was doomed from the start, despite the fact we never truly gave it a chance.

The idea of opening incumbent networks to competitors is pretty common in some parts of the world. France for example managed to take the same concept and made it work quite successfully in cities like Paris, where to this day users can get TV, phone, and 100-500 Mbps broadband connections for a tiny fraction of what American consumers pay ($40 to $50 or so). A variation on this theme is open access, where multiple ISPs come in and compete over a core (sometimes government co-run) network; an idea that works well here and abroad, but also sees fierce incumbent ISP opposition for obvious reasons.

It's a battle incumbent telcos won handily thanks to lobbying power, but there remains a few lingering rules they're now trying to eliminate. As such, they've been petitioning the Ajit Pai FCC to eliminate the remainder of these rules. In a blog post by telco lobbying organization US Telecom, telcos argue that the rules are no longer necessary, and (much like their attacks on net neutrality) argue that eliminating them will drive "innovation and investment":

"This month, USTelecom is petitioning the FCC for nationwide forbearance from rules created in 1996 that no longer make sense in today’s marketplace. Specifically, the petition focuses on unbundling obligations, which require some ILECs (incumbent local exchange carriers, a.k.a. local telephone companies) to sell access to parts of their networks to certain competitors at extremely low rates set by regulators.

These outdated rules distort competition and investment decisions. When outdated and overly restrictive regulations are rolled back, innovation and investment thrives. And for over two decades, the broadband industry has transformed how the world communicates under a light-touch regulatory structure that spurred over one and a half trillion dollars in private investment."

Unsurprisingly the smaller companies that are still using those lines don't see the rules in the same light. Independent California ISP Sonic, for example, is one of the last surviving independent ISPs from that era. Sonic argues that they still need access to these networks as they slowly work to build out a fiber network of their own, and gutting the remaining rules is simply an attempt to further constrain what passes for competition in American broadband markets:

"Sonic is fully engaged in the process of building fiber to customers in a number of markets around Northern California, but this represents a serious impediment to our ability to deploy fiber," says Sonic CEO Dane Jasper of the group's petition.

"The 1996 Telecommunications Act created competition in the telephone and broadband marketplace by requiring incumbents to unbundle essential last mile facilities, primarily copper wires that go to premises," Jasper says. "Serving customers on these facilities is an essential step toward fiber deployment, which Sonic is actively engaged in."

"However, we cannot lose access to copper in the meantime," Jasper said. "The cut-off of unbundled network elements as contemplated by US Telecom is an audacious attempt at limiting new fiber deployment by competitive carriers including Sonic, and it would directly harm hundreds of thousands of California consumers and businesses who we currently provide high-speed services using UNE copper facilities and backhaul."

The EFF also has a good blog post explaining why these rules are still important:

"While copper wire infrastructure may strike people as the infrastructure of yesterday, its existence and the legal rights to access it remain essential for competitive entry into the high-speed broadband market. This is because it is one of the only remaining ways a new company can gain customers to then leverage to finance fiber optic deployment. Should the FCC grant the petition, the growing monopolization of high-speed broadband above 25 Mbps where more than half of Americans have only one choice will likely become worse."

And while this isn't a story that's going to get much (any) real attention in the midst of so many other pressing issues, it's important all the same. Especially for a broadband market that's actually getting less competitive than ever thanks to these same telcos routinely refusing to upgrade their own networks, providing giant cable companies like Comcast a growing monopoly over an already uncompetitive broadband sector.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, fcc, line sharing, open access

'Transparent' FCC Doesn't Want To Reveal Any Details About Ajit Pai's Stupid Reese's Mug

from the bringing-transparency-back dept

One of FCC Chair Ajit Pai's claims about how he's changed the FCC is that he's making it more transparent. And, to be fair, he did make one key change that his predecessors failed to do: which is releasing the details of rulemakings before they're voted on. That was good. But in so many other ways, Pai has been significantly less than transparent. And this goes all the way down to incredibly stupid things, like his silly stupid giant Reese's coffee mug. That mug is so famous, that even John Oliver mocked it in his story on net neutrality:

Taylor Amarel had some questions about the mug, and made a FOIA request using Muckrock, that might shed some details on the mug (and, perhaps, a few other things):

I would like to obtain all emails sent to, from, or copied to Deanne Erwin, Executive Assistant, containing any of the following non-case-sensitive key-strings: “reeses”, “ethics”, “mug”, “liberals”, or “Reese’s” from January 1, 2017 to present day.

But the wonderfully "transparent" Ajit Pai... apparently didn't want that. The FCC's General Counsel sent back an oddly accusatory email to Amarel, demanding a ridiculous amount of completely unnecessary information -- claiming it needed that info to assess fees to respond to the FOIA request:

In our attempts to discern your fee categorization, we became aware that the name you provided, Taylor Amarel, is likely a pseudonym. In order to proceed with your request, please provide us with your name, your personal mailing address, and a phone number where you can be reached.... We ask that you provide this information by May 29, 2018. If we do not hear from you by then, we will assume you are unwilling to provide this information and will close your requests accordingly.

As Muckrock noted, there is no reason why anyone should need to prove that they are using their real name or to provide all this personal info to the FCC, and it feels like an intimidation technique. Muckrock does note that such info might be useful in determining if Amarel should be granted media status, which might help waive fees, but Amarel did not request to be covered under such status.

Amarel handed over the info... and was then told that it would cost $233 to get the emails related to Pai's Reese's mug. Using Muckrock's own crowdfunding platform, users chipped in to fund the money, so hopefully at some point the FCC will live up to its legally required transparency and tell us about that stupid mug.

Filed Under: ajit pai, fcc, foia, resse's mug, transparency

Senators Wyden and Schatz Wants To Know Why The FCC Made Up A DDOS Attack

from the makin'-stuff-up dept

So we've been noting how (thanks to FOIA requests) the FCC has been caught completely making up a DDOS attack in a bizarre, ham-fisted attempt to downplay public opposition to their net neutrality repeal. In short, agency e-mails confirm agency staffers routinely fed false claims to gullible reporters that the FCC website outages caused by John Oliver's coverage of the repeal were the result of a malicious attack, then used those false claims to further prop up the bogus narrative. The goal was apparently to try and downplay massive public backlash to what Americans overwhelmingly believe to be shitty, corruption-fueled policy.

Not too surprisingly, the FCC has gone radio silent in response to press inquiries on this from numerous press outlets. For such a normally chatty agency, that suggests that FCC lawyers are well aware that this entire fracas could prove to be legally problematic, given the repeated false DDOS claims to the reporters, press, and public (pdf). Most of the e-mails provided so far via FOIA requests are heavily redacted, suggesting there's likely much more to this story that's going to emerge over time.

Meanwhile, Senators Brian Schatz and Ron Wyden this week pressed the issue, sending the FCC a letter demanding more insight into the DDOS attack that never was. In the letter, the duo ask for any and all FCC evidence on the phantom attack, and the results of any internal FCC investigations that may have occurred so far:

"On May 9, 2017, we sent you a letter regarding alleged cyberattacks on the Federal Communication Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System during that month. There was also an ECFS issue involving the net neutrality proceeding in 2014. In our letter we asked that you keep Congress fully briefed as to your investigation.

Beyond your initial internal analyses that you reference in your June 15, 2017, response, have any subsequent FCC or third-party (e.g., vendor, contractor, or government agency) analyses or investigations verified that a cyberattack on ECFS occurred in 2017 and, if so, that the attack is best classified as a DDoS attack? If not, why was no investigation conducted? Please provide any and all reports, findings, and other relevant details of any such investigations."

Of course from reading the news, the Senators already know the FCC appears to have zero hard evidence that the attack occurred, and previous claims that internal "analysis" had confirmed the attacks were false. Democrats have been hoping to use the repeal of net neutrality to their advantage during the midterms, and the fact evidence proves the FCC lied during their justifications for the move is likely to be politically problematic for the "freedom restorin'" FCC.

Meanwhile, the nonpartisan GAO is currently investigating both this scandal and the identity theft and fraud that occurred during the net neutrality repeal. There's likely several more layers to this story, some of which are likely to be revealed during the net neutrality court challenges that should take flight sometime in the next few weeks.

Filed Under: ajit pai, brian schatz, ddos, fcc, john oliver, lies, ron wyden

Oddly The Trump FCC Doesn't Much Want To Talk About Why It Made Up A DDOS Attack

from the radio-silent dept

We've discussed for a while how the FCC appears to have completely made up a DDOS attack in a bizarre effort to downplay the "John Oliver effect." You'll recall that both times the HBO Comedian did a bit on net neutrality (here's the first and the second), the resulting consumer outrage crashed the FCC website. And while the FCC tried to repeatedly conflate genuine consumer outrage with a malicious attack, they just as routinely failed to provide any hard evidence supporting their allegations, resulting in growing skepticism over whether the FCC was telling the truth.

Last week, e-mails obtained via FOIA request revealed that yes, FCC staffers routinely misled journalists in order to prop up this flimsy narrative, apparently in the belief they could conflate consumer outrage with criminal activity. The motive? It was likely for the same reason the FCC refused to do anything about the identity theft and bogus comments we witnessed during the repeal's open comment period: they wanted to try and downplay the massive, bipartisan public opposition to what the lion's share of Americans thought was an idiotic, corruption-fueled repeal of popular consumer protections.

Understandably with so much going on, the story floated semi-quietly under the cacophony of other national outrages. But the FCC's response to the story has proven to be somewhat comical all the same.

One of the FCC staffers accused of making false statements about the DDOS attack was recently departed FCC IT chief David Bray. Original reports stated that Bray and other staffers had been feeding this flimsy DDOS narrative to gullible reporters for years, then pointing to these inaccurate stories as "proof" the nonexistent attack occurred. Under fire in the wake of last week's report, Bray first doubled down on his claims, adding that the 2014 "attack" hadn't been publicized because former FCC boss Tom Wheeler covered it up. But Wheeler himself subsequently stated in a report late last week that this was unequivocally false:

"When I was in the greenroom waiting to come in here, I got an email from David Bray, who said 'I never said that you told us not to talk about this and to cover up,' which was the term that got used. Which of course is logical, because as the Gizmodo article that you referenced pointed out, A) FCC officials who were there at the time said it didn’t happen, [and] B) the independent IT contractors that were hired said it didn’t happen. So if it didn’t happen it’s hard to have a cover up for something that didn’t happen."

Since this story was first published, the Trump FCC (which you'll recall bragged it would be super transparent) has gone radio silent about the story. Multiple requests for comment from numerous news outlets have been ignored since the story broke:

"The FCC has gone dark on this issue. It is refusing to answer questions from reporters. It is even refusing to go on the record to say it stands by its own story about a malicious cyberattack causing its system to crash for a second time last year....(FCC media relations contact Brian Hart) did not respond to multiple follow ups. In fact, his office has not responded to related inquiries for the past eight days. And not just from Gizmodo; it did not respond to Newsweek nor Ars Technica either. When somehow reached by Nextgov, it declined to say anything at all.

It's understandable the FCC doesn't want to chat about why it's withholding data and repeatedly making false statements (pdf) to the press and public, especially given the GAO is currently investigating this whole kerfuffle. Between this and the identity theft and comment fraud during the net neutrality repeal's public comment period, one gets the aching suspicion there's a few additional layers to this story that have yet to be unearthed. Both issues may also make an appearance during legal efforts to get popular net neutrality rules restored.

Filed Under: ajit pai, david bray, ddos, fcc, john oliver, lies