AT&T Continues Its Bullshit Sales Pitch For A Fake Net Neutrality Law

from the zero-credibility dept

While Verizon, Comcast and AT&T may have convinced the FCC to repeal net neutrality, they've still got a steep, uphill climb before they can be comfortable that the repeal is on solid footing, meaning we still have some time before they begin taking full anti-competitive advantage. The FCC's repeal still needs to survive a wall of legal challenges from consumer groups, Mozilla, and nearly half the states in the union. From there, ISPs need to ensure that a future FCC or Congress doesn't just pass new, tougher rules all over again.

That's why Verizon, Comcast and AT&T are all now pushing for a new "net neutrality law" in name only. While the same ISPs that gutted these popular consumer protections insist they're just interested in "putting this contentious issue to bed," the reality is they want a law that pre-empts any future federal or state attempts to protect consumers. As usual, they've managed to get industry marionettes like Martha Blackburn behind the legislative push. Since they've long since demolished any credibility on this subject, there's been little traction in these legislative efforts so far.

But with the power they wield over Congress, they remain dedicated to the cause all the same, and they know full well that many of these kinds of legislative efforts are won by brutal repetition. Enter AT&T, who this week penned yet another blog post insisting that they really love net neutrality just like you!:

"So, today is another “Day of Action” for net neutrality advocates across the United States. We are supporting today’s Day of Action just as we did last summer’s Day of Action. But also like last summer, we support real action – actual legislation from Congress that places the pillars of net neutrality into law and applies those pillars across the internet for the benefit of all consumers.

Except the "real action" AT&T wants is little more than a head fake. AT&T's definition of "real action" involves throwing campaign contributions at Congress in exchange for a Congressional "solution" it knows its lawyers will literally be writing. Said law will ban things ISPs never had any intention of doing (the outright blocking of websites), but include so many loopholes as to be effectively meaningless. Again, the goal isn't passing real net neutrality protections -- it's to prevent real, comprehensive protections from being passed later.

A federal law would also pre-empt all of the numerous, state level measures currently winding through state legislatures across half of the States in the nation. Large ISPs convinced their BFF Ajit Pat to include pre-emption language attempting to ban states from protecting consumers in the wake of federal oversight apathy, but that effort rests on pretty shaky and relatively untested legal ground, and ISP lawyers know it.

And amusingly, while AT&T's version of "consumer protections" would be little more than a giant legislative middle finger aimed at consumers, AT&T's Bob Quinn acts as if trying to buy a hollow net neutrality law is some kind of altruistic act:

"We received criticism from a certain corner of this debate last year for our support of the Day of Action and I expect we will hear from those same folks again today. But no matter what some of the advocates argue, AT&T has supported enforceable net neutrality rules that do not crush investment incentives for over 10 years; there is nothing weak about them. The simple reality is that we won’t achieve those rules unless and until Congress acts. So, for today’s Day of Action, we reiterate our call for a Federal Consumer Bill of Rights that provides consumers with openness, transparency and privacy protections no matter where they go on the internet."

You'd be pretty hard pressed to find a company (outside of Verizon and Comcast) that has less credibility on the subject of consumer welfare than AT&T. After all, this is the same company that in the last few years has been fined for ripping off the hearing impaired, helping drug dealers run a directory assistance scam, ripping off a program intended to help the poor, and for actively making their bills harder to understand to help scammers and crammers. AT&T's the company you go to if you want tips on protectionism, the NSA's favorite foods, and regional monopolies, not consumer protection.

Regardless, expect AT&T's push for a new law to continue gaining momentum in the new year as incumbent ISPs grow increasingly nervous about their legal chances in the looming court case. A case that's going to repeatedly highlight all of the shady nonsense that occurred as the FCC rushed to repeal popular consumer protections solely to benefit a handful of telecom monopolies like AT&T.

Filed Under: congress, fcc, laws, net neutrality
Companies: at&t

AT&T Fails In Bid To Kill FTC Authority Over Broadband Monopolies

from the have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too dept

It can't be overstated that the broadband industry isn't just trying to kill net neutrality, it's trying to gut most meaningful federal and state oversight of entrenched telecom monopolies. While Ajit Pai dismantled consumer protections at the FCC, his "Restoring Internet Freedom" order also ironically attempts to ban states from holding ISPs accountable for privacy, net neutrality, or other anti-competitive behavior. With neither adult regulatory supervision or healthy organic competition in place to keep bad actors in line, the end result will likely be even worse behavior than the kind of Comcast shitshows we've grow used to.

But there's one part of this effort that just faced a notable setback.

Under Ajit Pai's (read: the broadband industry's) proposal, the FCC would take a step back from overseeing ISPs, ceding any remaining authority to the FTC. What Pai and his ISP friends didn't mention is that the FTC's authority over ISPs is severely limited, or that AT&T has spent the last four years in court trying to demolish what authority the FTC does have. That this would leave consumers almost entirely unprotected from monopoly behavior must have simply slipped Ajit Pai's mind during his endless sales pitches for his unpopular repeal.

AT&T's legal gambit began when the FTC sued AT&T back in 2014 for lying to customers about the company's throttling practices. You'll recall that AT&T had been waging a not-so-subtle war on unlimited data users as it tried to drive them to more expensive, metered plans. Amusingly, AT&T lawyers tried to argue in court that the company's "common carrier" status -- the same status it has fought viciously against on the net neutrality front -- exempted it from FTC authority almost entirely under Section 5 of the FTC Act. As we noted at the time, it was a very absurd and Schrodinger-esque tap dance.

At the time, the FTC issued a warning stating that should AT&T lawyers be successful, any company with a common carrier component (from Google to oil conglomerates) could tap dance around FTC oversight. Those without such components could simply buy or merge with a small company with a common carrier component to nab the same benefit. This, the FTC warned, would create a massive accountability and enforcement gap regarding corporate America:

"The panel’s ruling creates an enforcement gap that would leave no federal agency able to protect millions of consumers across the country from unfair or deceptive practices or obtain redress on their behalf. Many companies provide both common-carrier and non-common-carrier services—not just telephone companies like AT&T, but also cable companies like Comcast, technology companies like Google, and energy companies like ExxonMobil (which operate common carrier oil pipelines). Companies that are not common carriers today may gain that status by offering new services or through corporate acquisitions. For example, AOL and Yahoo, which are not common carriers, are (or soon will be) owned by Verizon. The panel’s ruling calls into question the FTC’s ability to protect consumers from unlawful practices by such companies in any of their lines of business."

Unfortunately for AT&T, things didn't work out that way. This week the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled (pdf) AT&T's dream scenario wouldn't be coming to fruition, and that the lawsuit against AT&T for lying to its customers would be moving forward:

"We affirm the district court’s denial of AT&T’s motion to dismiss. Looking to the FTC Act’s text, the meaning of “common carrier” according to the courts around the time the statute was passed in 1914, decades of judicial interpretation, the expertise of the FTC and Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”), and legislative history, we conclude that the exemption is activity-based. The phrase “common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce” thus provides immunity from FTC regulation only to the extent that a common carrier is engaging in common-carrier services.

While an important win for FTC authority, it's important to note that on the broadband front this only retains the status quo: that is, the FTC's existing, flimsy oversight of broadband ISPs. And that oversight doesn't extend very far. Unlike the FCC, the FTC can't create new guidelines when needed, and can only act against broadband ISPs after the fact -- if it can be clearly illustrated that an ISP engaged in "unfair or deceptive" behavior. In the telecom sector, where anti-competitive behavior is often hidden behind claims of network security, that's often difficult.

That said, FCC boss Ajit Pai was quick to issue a statement (pdf) declaring that this was a win for consumers (correct, sort of), and that the FCC would be working closely with the FTC to protect net neutrality better than before (not correct, and extremely unlikely):

"The Ninth Circuit’s decision is a significant win for American consumers. Among other things, it reaffirms that the Federal Trade Commission will once again be able to police Internet service providers after the Restoring Internet Freedom Order takes effect,” said FCC Chairman Pai. “In the months and years ahead, we look forward to working closely with the FTC to ensure the protection of a free and open Internet."

Again, the FTC's authority over ISPs is extremely limited, and with no actual net neutrality rules to enforce it's comical to think this will be the equivalent of keeping real net neutrality rules (and FCC authority) intact. The throttling lawsuit aside, the FTC pretty rarely actually takes action against ISPs for oceans of bad behavior despite ample opportunity (most notably on the false advertising front). That's in part because the FTC's already under-funded and under-manned, and is tasked with overseeing everything from washer and dryer manufacturers to accuracy in bleach labeling.

So while this ruling is important in terms of ensuring the FTC can police bad actors generally, for the broadband industry specifically it simply means what little authority it has over ISPs remains intact. The shorter version: while uncompetitive broadband monopolies have been successfully gutting most federal and state oversight of their regional monopolistic fiefdoms, their attempt to eliminate all oversight won't be occurring just yet.

Filed Under: authority, fcc, ftc, net neutrality, oversight, regulations
Companies: at&t

NRA Gives FCC Boss An Award For 'Courageously' Killing Net Neutrality, May Have Violated Ethics Rules

from the idiocy-supernova dept

The NRA last week thought it would be a good idea to give FCC boss Ajit Pai an award for killing net neutrality. More specifically, the NRA gave Pai the Charleton Heston Award for Courage at the CPAC conference for killing the popular consumer protections. The entire affair was a tone deafness supernova from beginning to end, with American Conservative Union (ACU) Executive Director Dan Schneider making it abundantly clear that he and other attendees have absolutely no coherent idea what net neutrality even is. Schneider went so far as to declare the unpopular agency boss the "most courageous, heroic person that I know":

"Pai "fought to preserve your free speech rights" as a member of the FCC's Republican minority during the Obama administration, Schneider said. Pai "fought and won against all odds, but the Obama administration had some curveballs and they implemented these regulations to take over the Internet." "As soon as President Trump came into office, President Trump asked Ajit Pai to liberate the Internet and give it back to you," Schneider added. "Ajit Pai is the most courageous, heroic person that I know."

Of course if you've been paying even a shred of attention, you should realize there's nothing courageous about ignoring the public, ignoring the experts, ignoring all objective data just to give a sloppy wet kiss to despised telecom monopolies like Comcast. Pai's repeal is widely derided as one of the worst tech policy decisions in the modern internet era, making the backlash against legislative shitshows like SOPA look like a cozy beach side picnic in comparison. And despite every effort by the telecom industry to frame net neutrality as a partisan issue, that is, and continues to be, bullshit.

While a petty and blatant attention-seeking move, the stunt may have given both the NRA and Pai a little more than they bargained for. As part of the award Pai was given an antique musket, a move former Office of Government Ethics boss Walter Shaub was quick to criticize as a violation of FCC ethics rules:

It's possible Pai can tap dance around this by claiming the musket (which the NRA said would be stored and displayed at their offices in Virginia) never formally entered Pai's legal ownership. Of course that doesn't make this effort any less idiotic and tone deaf. CPAC apparently doesn't realize that Millennials are starting to vote in greater numbers than ever before, and while CPAC leadership may have thought combining the NRA (while in the middle of a massive PR kerfuffle) with the attack on net neutrality was an "epic troll," all younger voters are going to see here is a giant neon sign blinking the words "incompetence" and "corruption" in endless repetition.

Pai wasn't alone in potentially violating ethics rules during CPAC. Under the Hatch Act, FCC Commissioners can't openly pitch for a specific political candidate, a rule Pai's fellow Commissioner Mike O'Rielly violated when he urged CPAC attendees to vote for Trump:

"O’Rielly, however, later found himself embroiled in his own controversy. His trouble started with a question about what the FCC could do to stop the constant “ping-pong” of issues, such as net neutrality, every time the party in power changes in the nation’s capital.

“I think what we can do is make sure as conservatives that we elect good people to both the House, Senate and make sure that President Trump gets reelected,” O’Rielly began.

The GOP commissioner’s plug for the president riled some ethics watchdogs. Under a set of rules known as the Hatch Act, government officials such as O’Rielly generally aren’t supposed to use their stations to advocate for election outcomes.

Remember, these are the same FCC staffers that had an epic hissy fit a few years back when they claimed the former White House "improperly" violated nonexistent ethics rules by openly advocating for tough net neutrality rules. They're now embroiled in numerous GAO inquiries, face a growing mountain of lawsuits, and now face an FCC Inspector General Inquiry for potentially being too cozy with the industries they're supposed to be holding accountable on behalf of the American Public. Keep digging that hole, gentlemen.

Filed Under: ajit pai, cpac, ethics, ethics rules, fcc, mike o'rielly, net neutrality, nra, walter shaub
Companies: nra

The FCC's 'New' Broadband Availability Map Hallucinates Broadband Competition

from the rose-colored-glasses dept

A few years back the FCC (under Obama's first FCC boss Julius Genachowski) spent around $300 million on a broadband availability map that did a crap job actually measuring broadband availability. As we noted at the time, the map tended to hallucinate both available competitors and the speeds they could deliver to any address, providing a completely bogus sense of the nation's competitive options. It also failed utterly to include pricing data at ISP behest, lest somebody actually look at the data and realize that a lack of competition drives high prices and abysmal customer service from coast to coast.

After efforts to further fund the inaccurate map stalled (you can find the old map sitting unused here), Ajit Pai's FCC this week stated they've dusted off and relaunched the map as part of Pai's purported dedication to the digital divide (the new version is available here for your perusal). An FCC press release (pdf) said the new map offers better data at a lower price than the original:

"As it works to close the digital divide, the Federal Communications Commission has updated and modernized its National Broadband Map so the map can once again be a key source of broadband deployment information for consumers, policymakers, researchers, and others. The new, cloud-based map will support more frequent data updates and display improvements at a far lower cost than the original mapping platform, which had not been updated in years."

The FCC also took to Twitter to insist this new map will be the cornerstone of his office's noble quest to close the digital divide:

Except the "new" map appears to be a half-hearted reboot that shares all the problems of the original map. Were you to actually use the map to determine where coverage caps exist, you'd walk away thinking there is no digital divide. In that sense, the map is doing the exact opposite of what the FCC is claiming.

Both the old and new iterations of the map all-but hallucinate available options out of whole cloth while vastly over-stating the speeds available to American consumers. That's because it relies on ISP data provided the FCC via the Form 477 process; data that's routinely taken at face value without any real independent analysis or confirmation by objective third parties. Data provided by companies with a vested interest in actively hiding deployment and competitive shortcomings for what should be obvious reasons. The same ISPs that lobby relentlessly to kill efforts at more accurate mapping.

For example, I can only get access to one ISP (Comcast) at my residence in Seattle, purportedly one of the nation's technology leaders. Yet the FCC's new map informs me I have seven broadband options available to me. Two of these options, CenturyLink DSL and CenturyLink fiber are somehow counted twice despite neither actually being available. Three others are satellite broadband service whose high prices, high latency and low caps make them unsuitable as a real broadband option. The seventh is a fixed-wireless option that doesn't actually serve my address:

Again, only one of those is actually available or can be considered broadband, and it's being delivered by a company with arguably the worst customer satisfaction and service scores of any company in America. Four of them don't even meet the FCC's own definition of broadband (25 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up). Looking at the world through rose-colored ISP glasses isn't "closing the digital divide." In fact the perpetuation of inaccurate data makes the problem worse by convincing the public it's not a real problem at all.

Of course if you've watched Ajit Pai repeatedly proclaim his breathless dedication to closing the digital divide while dismantling broadband programs for the poor this probably isn't too surprising. Nor is it surprising if you're familiar with Pai's attempts to distort, twist, and manipulate data until the nation's broadband competition issues magically disappear. After all, if the data clearly shows that American broadband is expensive and patchy due to limited competition among regional mono/duopolies with a stranglehold over state and federal lawmakers, somebody might just get the crazy idea to actually do something about it.

Filed Under: broadband, broadband map, competition, fcc

FCC Broadband Availability Data Derided As Inaccurate, 'Shameful'

from the rose-colored-glasses dept

We've long-noted how the government doesn't do a very good job tracking broadband availability and pricing, in large part because incumbent ISPs like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T don't want them to. ISPs (and the lawmakers paid to love them) whined incessantly about the last FCC's efforts to raise the standard definition of broadband, given it only highlighted the fact that two-thirds of Americans can't get "broadband" (25 Mbps) from more than one ISP. ISPs also fight revealing pricing data, which is why our $300 million broadband availability map doesn't contain any price data whatsoever.

ISPs have also routinely lobbied against efforts to improve broadband availability mapping, since more clearly highlighting competition and deployment shortcomings might result in somebody actually doing something about it. As a result, government reports on the health of the clearly-dysfunctional U.S. broadband market tend to have a decidedly unrealistic and rosy timbre, which is often worse if the regulators in question are of the revolving door variety (as we're currently seeing under current agency boss Ajit Pai).

And while Pai is busy insisting that he's all about transparency, hard economics, and "closing the digital divide," his policies repeatedly and consistently undermine those claims.

Case in point: folks in West Virginia have complained about particularly awful broadband for years. The state is the poster child for what horrible broadband (and the corruption that helps protect it) looks like. Verizon neglected the state's infrastructure for years, then offloaded its unwanted DSL customers to Frontier Communications, who not only bungled the acquisition, but has been caught repeatedly ripping off taxpayers thanks to regulatory apathy. The end result has been millions of state residents who either can't get broadband at all, or are forced to pay an arm and a leg for sub 3 Mbps DSL straight from 1999.

So when a recent FCC broadband availability report tried to claim the state was awash in broadband availability, the people who actually live there were understandably annoyed:

"Numbers in a federal report about West Virginians who have access to broadband internet services are “not even close to being correct,” the chairman of the state’s broadband council said Thursday. The Federal Communications Commission released the report last week. It claims, among other things, that seven West Virginia counties have 100-percent access to a fixed broadband connection.

"To me, this goes beyond having inaccuracies,” Hinton said. “It’s just disappointing. That’s all it is. At what point next year are they going to say West Virginia has 100 percent coverage?" "It’s shameful,” Hinton said. “It’s just disappointing that moving forward, this is the kind of data that will dictate where we can invest infrastructure dollars."

Again, this kind of errant data isn't a mistake, it's intentional. ISPs spend millions of dollars annually to ensure broadband availability and pricing data isn't particularly accurate. And while they claim providing more accurate data than currently obligated under the form 477 process would be expensive and "burdensome," the reality is they don't want anybody pointing out that these companies enjoy vast last-mile monopolies across huge swaths of the country. And, thanks to many telcos refusing to upgrade aging DSL lines the problem is getting notably worse in many areas.

Again, were government mapping efforts to provide a more accurate understanding of competition and deployment shortcomings, it might result in somebody pushing policies that actually do something about it, and we most certainly wouldn't want that.

Filed Under: ajit pai, broadband, competition, data, fcc

FCC Boss Being Investigated By His Own Agency For Being Too Cozy With The Industry He Regulates

from the not-particularly-shocking dept

If you watched FCC boss Ajit Pai's rushed repeal of net neutrality there really shouldn't be any question about where Pai's loyalties lie, and it certainly isn't with smaller companies, healthy competition, transparency, openness, innovation, or American consumers. The agency head repeatedly lied about the justifications for the repeal, casually using fabricated data to justify what may just be the least popular policy decision in this history of modern technology. Pai's fealty to giant monopolies runs so deep, his agency now just directs reporters to lobbying talking points when they question the flimsy logic propping up the repeal.

So for those paying attention, it's probably not too surprising to see news that the FCC's own Inspector General is investigating the agency boss for being a bit too cozy with the giant companies he's supposed to be holding accountable:

"Last April, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai, led the charge for his agency to approve rules allowing television broadcasters to greatly increase the number of stations they own. A few weeks later, Sinclair Broadcasting announced a blockbuster $3.9 billion deal to buy Tribune Media — a deal those new rules made possible.

By the end of the year, in a previously undisclosed move, the top internal watchdog for the F.C.C. opened an investigation into whether Mr. Pai and his aides had improperly pushed for the rule changes and whether they had timed them to benefit Sinclair, according to Representative Frank Pallone of New Jersey and two congressional aides."

Sinclair's $3.9 billion acquisition of Tribune Media has already faced broad, bipartisan opposition by those concerned that the merger will dramatically damage both competition and opinion diversity across countless markets nationwide. The Sinclair Tribune tie up would give Sinclair ownership of more than 230 local broadcast stations around the nation, allowing it to reach 72% of the public with "reporting" frequently lamented as grotesquely distorted on a good day.

Sinclair's latest merger couldn't occur without Pai's decision to gut numerous media consolidation rules over the last few months, including several decades old rules specifically designed to prevent any one company from unfairly dominating a media market and crushing local competition. Unsurprisingly, consumer groups were quick to seize on the news suggesting that the agency should suspend its review of the merger until the Inspector General inquiry is complete:

"Until the inspector general’s investigation is complete, Chairman Pai and any other FCC staff subject to this inquiry should recuse themselves from all dealings related to Sinclair’s proposed takeover of Tribune Media," Free Press Senior Counsel Jessica J. González said in a statement. "If the investigation finds that Pai or any other FCC staff did indeed let their own bias and favoritism shape decisions related to the deal, they must not be permitted to vote on this matter and they should be subject to other appropriate ethics-review processes."

Of course if you're familiar with Pai's work, you know that won't be happening, and in Pai's ideologically-blinded brain this will all be dismissed as the errant rantings of partisans. But again, opposition to this deal is fairly uniform across the spectrum. Conservatives don't like it because they realize Sinclair is going to squeeze smaller media outlets out of the equation unfairly. Liberals don't like it because they know Sinclair is going to fill the airwaves with more nonsense just as we're trying to get a hold on problems inherent in foreign influence, disinformation, and discourse quality.

Regardless, Pai's going to have a very busy few years. He's already facing several different inquiries into why his agency made up DDOS attacks and turned a blind eye to identity theft as part of an apparent attempt to downplay massive public opposition to his policies. He's also facing several law enforcement inquiries (one of which he's actively blocking) and numerous lawsuits into his agency's blatant disregard of the public interest. And while this particular inquiry may not conclude that Pai technically broke the law or violated agency rules, it's pretty hard to act confused about where Pai's loyalties truly lie.

Filed Under: ajit pai, crony capitalism, fcc, inspector general, media ownership, ownership rules
Companies: sinclair broadcasting, tribune media

Congress Pressures FCC Boss Over His Total Failure To Police Net Neutrality Comment Fraud

from the complete-non-transparency dept

By now it's pretty apparent that the FCC doesn't much want to talk about who was behind the numerous bogus comments that flooded the agency's net neutrality repeal proceeding. When I asked the FCC for help after someone lifted my identity to support repealing the rules, the FCC responded with the policy equivalent of a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Similarly, when New York Attorney General Eric Shneiderman approached the FCC looking for help identifying the culprit (9 requests over 5 months, he said in an open letter), the FCC blocked the investigation.

Most analysts believe the effort was a ham-fisted attempt to erode trust in the public comment proceeding in order to downplay massive public opposition to the FCC's plan (a tactic that has mysteriously plagued other government proceedings over the last year). The FCC could pretty quickly clear this all up by providing access to server logs and API key usage details to law enforcement. Its consistent refusal to do so quickly dismantles agency boss Ajit Pai's continued, breathless claims that he's a massive fan of transparency and would run a more transparent operation than his predecessor.

This week, members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce sent a letter to Pai again asking him to explain (pdf) why the FCC ignored the public and sat on its hands as millions of bogus comments (some of them from dead people) piled up. Included in the questions were inquiries regarding how the FCC (which says it ignored comments "devoid of substance") determined what public comments were worth paying attention to, if any:

"How were comments determined to be “devoid of substance”? How were others determined to “bear substantively” on the issue? What were the training methods and guidelines for staff making these determinations? How many staff hours were dedicated to this?"

Pai was also asked why he doesn't think helping law enforcement get to the bottom of the scandal is a good idea:

"Why has the FCC failed to cooperate with the NY attorney general’s investigation into potential identity theft?"

And why didn't the agency implement any kind of screening process to help ferret out bulk, bogus comments (many of which were submitted by a bot in purely alphabetical order):

"Why did the FCC choose to not implement any kind of identity verification in its comment platform? The FCC says it excluded comments that used fake names, but how was it determined which these were? And if it is known which comments used fake names, why were these comments not removed from the docket?

Of course like previous inquiries, Pai isn't likely to respond -- at least not with any answers that provide real meaning. Since ISPs have been obnoxiously successful falsely framing net neutrality as a partisan issue, and the letter sent to Pai consists largely of Democrats, it will be relatively easy to dismiss the inquiry as little more than partisan gamesmanship. You'd just have to ignore the fact that an open, healthy internet free of domination by telecom monopolies benefits everyone, or the fact that polls routinely show net neutrality has broad, bipartisan support.

It's not hard for the FCC to identify who was behind the effort, and given the attack only benefits either the telecom industry or the folks in the Trump administration pushing the repeal, the short list of culprits is arguably tiny. But while Pai apparently has zero interest in helping find out who was behind the disinformation campaign, it's likely additional details will emerge courtesy of the countless lawsuits currently heading the FCC's general direction.

Filed Under: ajit pai, congress, eric schneiderman, fake comments, fcc, house energy and commerce committee, transparency

Verizon Begins Locking Down Its Phones Again, Purportedly To 'Stop Theft'

from the fool-me-once dept

If you've been around a while, you probably know that Verizon has an adversarial relationship with openness and competition. The company's history is rife with attempts to stifle competing emerging technologies that challenged Verizon's own business interests, from its early attempts to block GPS and tethering apps so users would have to subscribe to inferior and expensive Verizon services, to its attempts to block competing mobile payment services to force users (again) onto Verizon's own, inferior products. And that's before you get to Verizon's attempts to kill net neutrality and keep the broadband industry uncompetitive.

In the earlier years, Verizon had a horrible tendency to lock down its devices to a crippling and comical degree. But with the rise of net neutrality, competition from carriers like T-Mobile, and open access conditions affixed to certain spectrum purchased by Verizon, the company slowly-but-surely loosened its iron grip on mobile devices. But let's be clear: the company had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the new, more open future we all currently enjoy, where (by and large) you can install whatever apps you like on your device, and attach most mainstream devices (with some caveats) to Verizon's network.

That's why more than a few eyebrows were raised after Verizon gave CNET the early exclusive news (apparently in the hopes that they'd frame it generously, which they did) that the company will soon be locking down its smartphones as part of a purported effort to "combat theft." Carriers have been justly criticized (and sued) for doing too little to prevent theft, in part because they profit on both sides of the equation -- both when a customer comes crying to Verizon to buy a new phone, and when the user with the stolen phone heads to Verizon to re-activate it on a new line.

On its surface, Verizon's plan doesn't seem to have much of an initial impact on traditional users, who'll still get to have their phone unlocked after an unspecified amount of time. The only initial problems that could arise involve users who buy a phone, then head overseas to insert a local SIM to get more reasonably-priced service. Those users may have to contact Verizon before that phone will work, something that may or may not be a pain in the ass in real-world practice.

But it's more the precedent of the move that has people familiar with Verizon's handiwork on this front a little nervous. Especially given Verizon's recent successes in not only killing net neutrality, but gutting most state and federal oversight of ISPs entirely (something many haven't keyed into yet). For one, locking down its devices technically violates the "Carterfone" open access rules affixed to the 700MHz spectrum used in Verizon's network. Verizon was quick to insist to CNET that this shift back toward locking down devices does not violate the "spirit of the agreement":

"The move marks a broad reversal of its policy to offer all of its phones unlocked -- part of a deal with the Federal Communications Commission requiring it to unlock phones as part of its acquisition of the "C block" of 700 megahertz spectrum, which powers its 4G LTE network. One section of the deal specifically prohibits Verizon from configuring handsets to prevent them from working on other networks.

Avi Greengart, an analyst at Global Data, said the policy change appears to contradict the existing rules.

Verizon, however, argues it's still following the intent of the rule.

"This change does not impact the spirit of that agreement as it is designed to deter theft by those who engage in identity theft or other fraud," said a spokeswoman for Verizon. "It is not inconsistent with our obligations under the C Block."

Oh, ok then. The problem is that Verizon doesn't have very much (read: any) credibility on this front, something other news outlets were notably more blunt about:

"Verizon has peddled CNET the story that this is about preventing handset theft and fraud. No facts or figures are provided to back up that assertion.

The simple fact is this: Verizon believes it can get away with SIM-locking its handsets again. This creates confusion for consumers. "Can I take my Verizon phone to another network?" Goes from being answered with a simple "Yes" to "Well, probably, but first you need to contact customer service, ask for us to do this, give us your phone's serial number, wait a week, and make sure this software update comes through."

Again, Verizon's pretty damn ambiguous about the hard specifics of this new plan, only stating the handset lock down will expand over time. Verizon (like many large telecom operators) has a long, proud history of hiding anti-competitive behavior behind faux-technical jargon and a breathless concern over the safety and security of the network. So locking down phones "for security reasons" is great cover for what could be ballooning efforts to make it harder for wireless consumers to switch to competitors. After all, who's going to stop them, net neutrality opponent, former Verizon employee, and current FCC boss Ajit Pai?

Filed Under: fcc, locked phones, theft, unlocked phones
Companies: verizon