FCC Refuses To Release FOIA Documents Pertaining To Its Stupid Verizon 'Collusion' Joke

from the transparency! dept

You might recall that right before the FCC voted to kill net neutrality at Verizon's behest, the agency thought it would be a hoot to joke about the agency's "collusion" with Verizon at a telecom industry gala. The lame joke was a tone-deaf attempt to mock very legitimate concerns that Pai, a former Verizon regulatory lawyer, is far too close to the industry he's supposed to be regulating. The FCC even went so far as to include a little video featuring Verizon executives, who chortled about their plans to install Pai as a "puppet" leader at the agency. Hilarious.

While the audience of policy wonks and lobbyists giggled, the whole thing was tone deaf and idiotic from stem to stern. Especially given the fact that Pai's policies have been nothing short of a Verizon wish list, whether that involves protecting Verizon's monopoly over business data services (BDS), or the efforts to undermine any attempts to hold Verizon accountable for repeated privacy violations. Much like the other lame video Pai circulated at the time to make light of consumer outrage, it only served to highlight how viciously out of touch this FCC is with the public it's supposed to be looking out for.

Gizmodo recently filed a FOIA request to obtain any communications between the FCC and Verizon regarding the creation of the video, arguing the records were well within the public interest given concerns over Pai's cozy relationship with the companies he's supposed to be holding accountable. But Gizmodo says the FCC refused the request under Exemption 5 of the FOIA (Deliberative Process Privilege). While the request revealed around a dozen pages of e-mails between the FCC and Verizon, the FCC refuses to release them, arguing they could harm the ability of the agency to do its job (read: kiss Verizon's ass):

"At its own discretion, the Federal Communications Commission has chosen to block the release of records related to a video produced last year in which FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and a Verizon executive joke about installing a “Verizon puppet” as head of the FCC. In a letter to Gizmodo last week, the agency said it was withholding the records from the public in order to prevent harm to the agency—an excuse experts say is a flagrant attempt to skirt federal transparency law.

Needless to say, FOIA experts don't believe a tone deaf joke qualifies for the exemption:

"To argue that this video amounts to the same kind of deliberative process that goes on behind the scenes in terms of an agency deciding an official policy on a topic, or what actions it’s going to take, is absurd,” Marshall said. “The deliberative process is frequently used to withhold embarrassing information or inconvenient information. I have no idea how a draft of a skit that was supposed to be funny would impair the FCC’s decision-making process on anything, except on, I guess, maybe future skits."

In short the FCC was cocky enough to think that mocking Verizon collusion concerns was somehow a good idea, yet now doesn't want anybody seeing its communications with Verizon executives. The agency pretty clearly is worried the e-mails could be embarrassing or potentially harm the agency's chances against the wall of lawsuits headed its direction for ignoring the public interest.

Remember that Ajit Pai has routinely crowed about how "transparent" his FCC would be. Yet just one year in, Pai's agency is already facing numerous lawsuits for refusing to disclose conversations with ISP lobbyists about the plan to kill net neutrality, refusing to disclose net neutrality complaints filed with the agency, refusing to be transparent about a DDoS attack the FCC apparently concocted to downplay the "John Oliver effect," and for ignoring FOIA requests related to its failure to police website comment fraud during the public comment period (they're also blocking a law enforcement investigation into that same issue).

In short, whatever Pai's private definitions of both "transparency" and "joke" are, you sure as hell won't find them in the dictionary.

Filed Under: ajit pai, b5, deliberative process, fcc, jokes, transparency
Companies: verizon

New Jersey The Latest State To Protect Net Neutrality By Executive Order

from the Not-so-Comcastic dept

The Trump FCC is currently in the process of trying to eliminate all meaningful oversight of some of the least competitive companies in America. Not only are broadband providers and the Trump administration trying to gut FTC and FCC oversight of companies like Comcast, they're also trying to ban states from protecting net neutrality or broadband consumer privacy at ISP lobbyist behest. This is all based on the belief that letting Comcast run amok somehow magically forges telecom Utopia. It's the kind of thinking that created Comcast and the market's problems in the first place.

And while the Trump FCC is trying to ban states from protecting consumers in the wake of federal apathy (you know, states rights and all that), the individual states don't appear to be listening. Numerous states are pushing new legislation that effectively codifies the FCC's 2015 net neutrality rules on the state level, efforts that will be contested in the courts over the next few years. ISPs have been quick to complain about the threat of multiple, discordant and shitty state laws, ignoring the fact that they created this problem by lobbying to kill reasonable (and popular) federal protections.

Other states, like Montana and New York have gotten more creative, signing executive orders that ban ISPs from winning state contracts if they violate net neutrality. Montana Governor Steve Bullock went so far as to suggest that other states use his order as a template, something New Jersey appears to have taken him up on. The state this week issued its own executive order (pdf) protecting net neutrality, modifying the state procurement process to prohibit state contracts with ISPs that routinely engage in anti-competitive blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization.

In a press release, state leaders say the new rules will take effect in July:

"We may not agree with everything we see online, but that does not give us a justifiable reason to block the free, uninterrupted, and indiscriminate flow of information,” Governor Murphy said. “And, it certainly doesn’t give certain companies or individuals a right to pay their way to the front of the line. While New Jersey cannot unilaterally regulate net neutrality back into law or cement it as a state regulation, we can exercise our power as a consumer to make our preferences known."

Governor Murphy’s Executive Order will make New Jersey the third state –along with New York and Montana—to mandate that ISPs adhere to net neutrality rules or lose the ability to contract in state. The Executive Order will apply to all contracts between state entities and ISPs that are executed on or after July 1, 2018. The Attorney General’s Division of Consumer Affairs will work with the Division of Purchase and Property to carry out the Executive Order and monitor its enforcement.

One problem that could arise from these executive orders is the fact that ISPs can avoid violating the rules if they say they're simply engaging in "reasonable network management."

Defining what "reasonable" is has long been problematic in the net neutrality conversation, and ISP lobbyists have had a lot of luck weakening said definition after the fact to erode the importance of such protections. Hiding anti-competitive behavior behind "reasonable network management", artificial network congestion, or other faux technical justifications is a game ISPs have been playing for about as long as the net neutrality debate has existed, and since lawmakers often have no idea how any of this works it's often easy to mislead them.

Regulators and lawmakers also often like to talk tough on this subject, then avoid any meaningful enforcement down the road for fear of alienating deep-pocketed campaign contributors. So while it's great New Jersey, New York and Montana are doing something about federal regulatory capture, it's going to require an attentive press and public to ensure these state-level promises actually mean something.

The FCC has also stated it plans to take aim at these state executive orders as well state legislation, but it's going to be up to the courts to decide whether the agency's "pre-emption" efforts extend that far. The FCC has had its wrist slapped by the courts in the past for trying to stop states from passing protectionist state laws ("states rights" appears to have a ever-shifting meaning for many of these ISPs and politicians depending on what they're after).

The legal fight between the states and the FCC will be joining the countless looming billable hours as the FCC's unpopular decision gets bogged down in legal chaos for what's likely to be years to come. All so Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon can further abuse a lack of broadband competition for additional anti-competitive gain -- without the pesky threat of anybody actually doing anything about it.

Filed Under: ajit pai, executive order, fcc, net neutrality, new jersey, states rights

Trump's FCC Pats Itself On The Back For A Historically Stupid Year

from the mission-accomplished dept

If you've been playing along at home, Trump's FCC hasn't been particularly kind to consumers, competition, or the health of the internet. It has, however, been a massive boon to major ISPs terrified of disruption and competition, especially those looking to forge new media monopolies where they dominate both the conduit -- and the content -- coming to the home.

Under Pai, the FCC has gutted broadband programs for the poor, protected the cable industry's monopoly over the cable box from competition, made it easier for prison phone monopolies to rip off inmate families, dismantled generations old media consolidation rules simply to aid Sinclair Broadcasting's merger ambitions, killed meaningful broadband privacy protections, tried to weaken the standard definition of broadband (to help hide competition gaps) and weakened rules preventing business broadband and backhaul monopolies from abusing smaller competitors, hospitals, or schools.

And that's before you even get to Pai's attack on net neutrality, potentially one of the least popular tech policy decisions in the history of the modern internet. That entire calamity is a universe unto itself, with the FCC currently under investigation for turning a blind eye to identity theft and fraud during the open comment period, as well as for bizarrely making up a DDOS in a ham-fisted attempt to downplay the public's disdain for Pai's agenda. It will take many years and numerous lawsuits for the problems with Pai's rushed repeal of the rules to fully materialize.

With Pai's tenure seen as a shitshow in the wake of the net neutrality repeal, the FCC recently tried to undertake an image reclamation effort. That came in the form of a press release (pdf) lauding what the FCC calls a "year of action and accomplishment" in terms of "protecting consumers," "promoting investment," and "bridging the digital divide." You just know the FCC under Pai is doing a good job because, uh, graphics:

Amusingly, the lion's share of the agency's listed "accomplishments" were noncontroversial projects simply continued from the last FCC under Tom Wheeler. That includes efforts to open additional spectrum for wireless use, attempts to speed up cell tower placement, or ongoing efforts to reduce robocalls (the impacts of which aren't apparent). Many of the listed efforts are just the FCC doing its job, ranging from conducting an investigation into the recently botched Hawaii ballistic missile snafu, to "approving new wireless charging tech" that nobody thought should be blocked anyway.

Elsewhere, the agency's accomplishment list engages in willful omission. For example, while the FCC pats itself on the back for creating a "broadband deployment advisory council," it ignores the fact that said counsel is plagued by allegations of cronyism and dysfunction in the wake of recent resignations. The FCC similarly pats itself on the back for the agency's Puerto Rico hurricane response, despite the fact that locals there say the federal government and the FCC failed spectacularly in its response to the storm.

But it's the agency's claims of consumer protection that continue to deliver the best unintentional comedy. As you might expect, Pai's FCC continues to claim that killing net neutrality rules was a good thing because the rules devastated sector investment, a proven lie the agency simply can't stop repeating:

"Voted to restore the longstanding, bipartisan light-touch regulatory framework that fostered rapid Internet growth, openness, and freedom for nearly 20 years. This action reversed the FCC’s 2015 imposition of heavy-handed Title II utility-style government regulation on Internet providers that discouraged investment in next-generation networks.

Another "accomplishment" cited by the FCC is its decision to kill a net neutrality investigation into AT&T and Verizon's abuse of zero rating (exempting select content from usage caps if companies pay more). The previous FCC was just about to ding both companies for exempting their own content from usage caps, having noted how caps can be used as an anti-competitive weapon, driving up costs for consumers and competitors alike. Trump's FCC is not only proud to have killed that inquiry, but insists doing so helps the nation's poor:

"Free Consumer Data—Ended a 2016 investigation into wireless carriers’ free-data offerings. These free-data plans have proven to be popular among consumers, particularly low-income Americans, and have enhanced competition in the wireless marketplace."

The accomplishment list pays heavy lip service to the agency's efforts to "close the digital divide," a goal we've repeatedly noted is consistently undermined by other agency policies like killing net neutrality or the FCC's privacy rules (which could have prevented ISPs from charging you more for privacy). For example Pai's FCC is slowly dismantling Lifeline, a modest $10 per month telecom subsidy for poor people begun by Reagan and expanded under Bush Jr. The FCC is also working overtime to protect the sector from competition on both the business and residential sectors.

Over and over, the FCC's accomplishment list conflates cronyism with consumer welfare. For example, the FCC's self-congratulatory missive crows about the agency having:

"Adopted an order relieving unnecessary regulation in areas where business data services are delivered competitively in order to promote facilities-based investment."

What the FCC actually did is notably different. In reality, the FCC eliminated price caps for broadband data services (BDS), where AT&T and Verizon enjoy a monopoly over the bandwidth used to feed everything from ATMs to cell towers. Not only that, Pai's FCC weakened the definition of "competitive" in this sector to aid these monopolies, declaring a business served by "competitive broadband" if there's one ISP within a half mile. The end result? Higher prices than ever for the small businesses, schools, hospitals and others left without affordable connectivity options.

The FCC's accomplishment list routinely and repeatedly dresses up industry cronyism as progress and transparency. And it dresses up its complete disdain for objective data as a devotion to hard science. For example, the FCC praises itself for the creation of a new "Office of Economics and Analysis" it claims will help "restore the place of economic analysis at the FCC." But as we just got done noting this is the same FCC that just got done ignoring all objective science in its rush to repeal net neutrality, making Pai's purpoted dedication to objective economics laughable.

Fortunately for us, historians, not Ajit Pai, will have the final say on Ajit Pai's accomplishments. And if year one is anything to go by, cronyism, disinformation, a lack of transparency and hubris will be this agency's historical legacy.

Filed Under: ajit pai, broadband, competition, fcc, net neutrality, wireless

The Same FCC That Ignored Science To Kill Net Neutrality Has Created An 'Office Of Economics & Analysis'

from the fake-science-is-the-best-science dept

You'll recall that the FCC ignored the public, the people who built the internet, and all objective data as it rushed to repeal net neutrality at Verizon, Comcast and AT&T's behest. Things got so absurd during the proceeding, the FCC at one point was directing reporters who had questions regarding the FCC's shaky justifications to telecom industry lobbyists, who were more than happy to molest data until it "proved" FCC assertions on this front (most notably the false claim that net neutrality killed sector investment):

"During a conference call FCC officials held with reporters last week, I asked about this discrepancy between Pai's assertion that investment is declining and what the actual data shows. The officials dismissed my question, saying I had my facts wrong. But they didn't offer any data that would prove Pai's argument.

Reached later, an FCC representative pointed to the USTelecom data (posted above) that Pai previously referenced. The representative declined to make the chairman or anyone else on his staff available for an interview."

With that as a backdrop, it's rather amusing to see the FCC this week hyping the creation of a new "Office of Economics and Analytics." This office, the FCC declares, will be focused on helping to ensure "that economic analysis is deeply and consistently incorporated" into the FCC's regular operations:

"The Federal Communications Commission today voted to create an FCC Office of Economics and Analytics. This new unit will help ensure that economic analysis is deeply and consistently incorporated as part of the agency’s regular operations. The Office of Economics and Analytics will use existing staff resources by bringing into one office FCC economists, attorneys, and data professionals who work on economic analysis, data policy and management, and research."

FCC staffers were quick to highlight the office's creation as a major paradigm shift and a return to "big picture policy thinking":

In an ideal world, this would be something to applaud the FCC for, since it has a long, proud history of using industry-provided data to justify federal apathy to the limited competition inherent in the broken telecom market. Real-world data has always inherently frightened incumbent ISPs like Comcast, since it shows how a lack of competition in countless markets is the primary reason American broadband suffers from high prices, historically awful customer service, and net neutrality violations (which themselves are just another symptom of limited competition).

The former FCC under agency head Tom Wheeler had actually taken some uncharacteristically-concrete steps on that front, including redefining broadband more realistically at 25 Mbps downstream, 3 Mbps upstream (something ISPs and their loyal lawmakers whined incessantly over). The FCC had also been working hard on basing policy decisions based on real world data provided by consumer routers with custom firmware, instead of its long-standing history of blindly taking ISPs' word at the speeds they deliver consumers.

But Ajit Pai and Trump's FCC is an entirely different animal.

Ajit Pai's agency has shown time and time again that its interest in "objective data" consists of blindly parroting "research" by ISP economists, hired specifically to molest the numbers until they justify the agency's frontal assault on consumer protections and meaningful sector oversight. Pai himself has similarly parroted all manner of falsehoods as he rushed to axe net neutrality, from claims that net neutrality emboldens dictators in Iran and North Korea, to the claim the U.S.' modest neutrality rules utterly devastated sector investment (disproven by SEC filings, earnings reports, and countless CEO statements).

So yeah, ideally you'd hope this office is used to make sure genuine, objective data is used to fuel agency decisions. But based on the last year's worth of behavior by Pai, it seems much more likely that the office will simply be used to industrialize the act of using telecom lobbying data to justify federal apathy to the lack of competition in the U.S. broadband market. Perhaps we can start a Techdirt pool on which outcome is the most likely?

Filed Under: ajit pai, data, economics, evidence, fcc, net neutrality

FCC 'Broadband Advisory Panel' Faces Accusations Of Cronyism

from the protect-the-status-quo! dept

Last year we noted how the FCC had been hyping the creation of a new "Broadband Deployment Advisory Panel" purportedly tasked with coming up with solutions to the nation's broadband problem. Unfortunately, reports just as quickly began to circulate that this panel was little more than a who's who of entrenched telecom operators with a vested interest in protecting the status quo. What's more, the panel featured few representatives from the countless towns and cities that have been forced to build their own broadband networks in the wake of telecom sector dysfunction.

One report showed how 28 of the 30 representatives on the panel had some direct financial ties to the telecom sector, though many attempted to obfuscate this connection via their work for industry-funded think tanks.

You'll recall that FCC boss Ajit Pai consistently insists he's breathlessly dedicated to closing the digital divide, despite the fact his policies (like killing net neutrality or protecting business broadband monopolies) will indisputably make the problem worse. Regardless, Pai has spent the last few weeks insisting in speeches like this one (pdf) that his advisory council is the centerpiece of his efforts to close the digital divide:

"...the BDAC’s work is critical to my top policy priority as FCC Chairman—closing the digital divide. I’ve long said that every American who wants to participate in the digital economy should be able to do so. That’s why at my first open meeting as FCC Chairman, I announced the establishment of the BDAC. And since last March, you’ve been hard at work developing recommendations to the FCC about strategies to promote better, faster, and cheaper broadband. Indeed, you’ve been working so hard that it’s going to take you two days, rather than the one typical for advisory committee meetings, to review and finalize many of these recommendations.

And while Pai insists that this council is doing yeoman's work in solving all of the industry's issues, that's not how non-incumbent-industry panel members see it. In fact, San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo last week resigned from the panel claiming in his resignation letter (pdf) that the panel exists almost exclusively to help prop up the interests of incumbent ISPs (if you've watched the whole net neutrality thing, this surely comes as no surprise):

"It has become abundantly clear that despite the good intentions of several participants, the industry-heavy makeup of BDAC will simply relegate the body to being a vehicle for advancing the interests of the telecommunications industry over those of the public. The apparent goal is to create a set of rules that will provide industry with easy access to publicly-funded infrastructure at taxpayersubsidized rates, without any obligation to provide broadband access to underserved residents."

As we've noted repeatedly, numerous towns and cities are building their own networks after more than a decade of limited competition has resulted in over-priced, under-performing broadband in countless markets nationwide. Often the only option available to these folks if they want quality connectivity in the Comcast era is to either build their own networks, or strike public/private partnerships with the likes of Google Fiber. But we've also noted for years how ISPs have passed protectionist laws in more than 20 states banning towns and cities from doing so, with the full support of the Trump FCC.

Liccardo, one of the only municipal representatives on the panel (quite by intent) goes on to note how the agency has yet to put forth one meaningful solution to truly help bridge the digital divide:

"The chairs of the working groups on which I participated have been very cordial, and collaborative in tone, and I am grateful for that. However, after nine months of deliberation, negotiation, and discussion, we’ve made no progress toward a single proposal that will actually further the goal of equitable broadband deployment. Although we’ve adopted principles that pay lip service to that objective, not a single one of the draft recommendations attempts to meaningfully identify any new or significant resources to promote digital inclusion."

If you truly want to fix the nation's broken broadband (whether high prices, privacy abuses or net neutrality violations), you need to embrace creative new ways to drive more competition to the market. But since entrenched incumbent providers don't want the associated reduction in revenues, the best alternative is the illusion of productivity. And nothing helps foster that illusion more than paying empty lip service to closing the digital divide on one hand, while actively working to keep everything as broken and dysfunctional as possible with the other.

Filed Under: ajit pai, broadband, competition, cronyism, fcc, sam liccardo

Harvard Study Shows Community-Owned ISPs Offer Lower, More Transparent Prices

from the when-in-doubt,-ban-it dept

We've routinely noted how countless communities have been forced to explore building their own broadband networks thanks to limited competition in the market. As most of you have experienced first hand, this lack of competition routinely results in higher prices, slower speeds, worse customer service, and massive broadband deployment gaps. And thanks to telecom industry regulatory capture (taken to an entirely new level during the Trump administration), countless well-heeled lawmakers make it a personal mission to keep things that way.

Needless to say, the threat posed by angry users building or supporting their own networks is a major reason ISPs have lobbied (read: literally bought and written) laws in twenty-one states banning towns and cities from pursuing this option. In some states, towns and cities are even banned from striking public/private partnerships, often the only creative solution available to the traditional broadband duopoly logjam.

Not too surprisingly, a new study out of Harvard details just what AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Charter (Spectrum) are afraid of.

The study found that averaged over a four year period, service offered by community ISPs tends to be significantly cheaper that broadband service made available from privately-owned alternatives. In some areas, the researchers couldn't directly compare community-owned broadband with private service, either because the private ISP in question couldn't even offer the FCC definition of broadband (25 Mbps downstream, 3 Mbps upstream), or because ISPs went to great lengths to prevent users from seeing their actual prices. But in 23 out of 27 cases, the community option provided lower prices:

"When considering entry-level broadband service—the least-expensive plan that provides at least 25/3 Mbps service—23 out of 27 community-owned FTTH providers we studied charged the lowest prices in their community when considering the annual average cost of service over a four-year period, taking into account installation and equipment costs and averaging any initial teaser rates with later, higher, rates."

What's more, the study found that the community options tended to offer prices that were more upfront with the end user, and less reliant on misleading promos or hidden fees:

"While community-owned FTTH providers’ pricing is generally clear and unchanging, private providers almost always offer initial "teaser" prices and then raise the monthly price sharply. This price hike in the communities we studied ranged between $10 (20 percent) and $30 (42.8 percent) after 12 months, both imposed by Comcast, but in different communities. Only one community-owned FTTH provider employed this marketing practice for a data-only plan."

It's worth noting the study was only able to directly compare stand alone broadband prices, since ISPs often obfuscate broadband pricing via the use of bundles and promotions. Often these bundles "promise savings" to users to combine broadband with TV and phone service, though in reality users are routinely and severely financially penalized for ordering just standalone broadband service. Even then, the study is quick to point out how ISPs go to great lengths to make direct price comparisons "extraordinarily difficult":

"In general we found that making comprehensive pricing comparisons among U.S. Internet service plans is extraordinarily difficult. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not disseminate pricing data or track broadband availability by address. Additionally, service offerings follow no standard speed tiers or definitions (such as the specifics of video or phone service bundles)."

ISPs also routinely lobby the government to ensure the FCC doesn't collect and share pricing data, lest somebody figure out the connection between limited competition and high prices. That lobbying influence is one of the major reasons this country spent $300 million on a broadband availability map that not only over-states broadband availability and speeds, but fails completely to even mention pricing. ISPs and lawmakers paid to love them will often focus on empty promises to "expand broadband availability," intentionally ignoring the role competition and pricing plays in that equation.

Again, these towns and cities wouldn't be getting into the broadband business if they were happy with the services being provided by the likes of Comcast. And again, Comcast could quickly nip these efforts in the bud by offering better, cheaper service. But time after time it's clear that Comcast, AT&T, and other incumbent ISPs would prefer to instead file lawsuits, spread disinformation, and buy laws banning communities from making their own decisions on local infrastructure. Whatever it takes to avoid having to directly compete.

Filed Under: broadband, community owned broadband, competition, fcc, municipal broadband, transparency

FCC Hopes Its Phony Dedication To Rural Broadband Will Make You Forget It Killed Net Neutrality

from the misdirection dept

The FCC and its large ISP allies are trying to change the subject in the wake of their hugely unpopular attack on net neutrality. With net neutrality having such broad, bipartisan support, the FCC is trying to shift the conversation away from net neutrality (which remember, is just a symptom of a lack of broadband competition), toward a largely-hollow focus on expanding broadband to rural areas. The apparent goal: to convince partisans that net neutrality is only a concern among out of touch Hollywood elites, and the FCC is hard at work on the real problem: deploying broadband to forgotten America.

This attempted pivot was exemplified in a statement last week by FCC boss Ajit Pai, when he tried to argue his attack on net neutrality was already magically paying dividends for broadband expansion:

"The draft report indicates that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the prior Commission’s Title II Order. However, the draft report also discussed how, over the course of the past year, the current Commission has taken steps to reduce barriers to infrastructure investment and promote competition in the broadband marketplace. Taken together, these policies indicate that the current FCC is now meeting its statutory mandate to encourage the deployment of broadband on a reasonable and timely basis."

As we've noted repeatedly, the idea that net neutrality stifled sector investment is a lie, and the claim that axing popular consumer protections somehow "encouraged competition" is laughable.

Pai has long paid entirely-empty lip service to the task of "closing the digital divide," despite the fact that most of his policies have made this particular problem notably worse. From propping up business broadband and prison phone monopolies to killing attempts to bring competition to the cable box, Pai has made it clear his top priority is the protection of incumbent ISP revenues from anything even vaguely resembling disruption. While he's busy prattling on about his dedication to the digital divide, he's busy dismantling broadband programs for the poor and killing policies like net neutrality, driving up costs for everyone in the internet ecosystem just to please a handful of extremely unpopular telecom giants.

Of course you're not supposed to notice this chasm between rhetoric and reality when Pai pops up on Twitter to pat himself and his recently-formed "Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee" for their unparalleled contributions to closing the digital divide:

In his speech before the FCC's shiny new broadband advisory panel (which has been widely criticized as being a who's who of telecom industry lobbyists, executives, and other policy cronies), Pai again doubles down on his supposed dedication to closing the digital divide:

"First, the BDAC’s work is critical to my top policy priority as FCC Chairman—closing the digital divide. I’ve long said that every American who wants to participate in the digital economy should be able to do so. And the plain reality is that if you live in rural America, you are much less likely to have highspeed Internet access than if you live in a city. If you live in a low-income neighborhood, you are less likely to have high-speed Internet access than if you live in a wealthier area."

Yes, what better way to fix the broadband market then by letting uncompetitive duopolies like Comcast effectively dictate both federal and state telecom policy from stem to stern? It's worth noting that the ambiguous quest to "close the digital divide" has always received endless lip service from politicians and regulators from both parties, many of whom are comically incapable of admitting that a lack of competition is what's actually driving this problem. Limited competition also drives privacy and net neutrality violations, but fixing the core problem would require standing up to deep-pocketed telecom campaign contributors.

One creative way to finally drive more accountability and competition (especially in low ROI rural markets) is community broadband or public/private partnerships. But as we've long noted, Pai has consistently supported letting ISPs like AT&T and Comcast literally write state laws banning your town or city from even considering the option, even in instances where private ISPs won't deploy service. It's ironic then, when one of Pai's fellow FCC Commissioners points out that the broadband advisory panel's "findings" covertly malign such community-run alternatives:

The section in question (pdf) argues that community broadband is nice and all, but it should never exist without what's effectively the express permission of private ISPs:

"If, and only if, the Rural municipality receives no reasonable and credible proposal from a private Communications Provider to build a Broadband network and otherwise determines that none of the first three options in Article 12(b) are viable and if, and only if, the Rural municipality makes a positive determination of costs, feasibility, sustainability, and that the action is in the interest of the general public may the Rural municipality invest in a Fully Public Funded and Operated Network and/or engage in Public-Led Contracting.

This kind of language, which gives the incumbent ISP the right of first refusal to offer or upgrade service in spotty coverage areas, is commonly used in ISP-written state protectionist laws. The problem is that these promises to build are routinely never followed up on, letting ISPs first deny the right of a community run ISP (or public/private partnership) to even exist, then avoid anything even resembling accountability as it turns a blind eye to its deployment promises. This is a major reason why we've shelled out countless billions to private ISPs like Verizon for fiber networks that are never fully built.

Private ISPs not only want the right of first refusal, but they often enjoy putting all manner of funding and referendum requirements on the ability to build community broadband networks, knowing full well that ISP lawyers and lobbyists can often derail these projects in the cradle -- whether with lawsuits or disinformation. Again, the goal is to ban your town and city from being able to explore creative alternatives to the status quo, without making it look like that's what they're doing.

Pai's focus on the digital divide is a choreographed effort by the industry to distract the public from the fact they're being sold down river exclusively to Comcast, AT&T and Verizon's benefit. You'll note this breathless new adoration for rural broadband runs hand in hand with not-coincidentally-timed op/eds popping up everywhere by ISP lobbying groups like US Telecom, who are thrilled by the reduction in real oversight but the expansion of taxpayer subsidies:

"This isn’t the first time that a White House has declared the deployment of rural broadband a national priority. What is yet to be determined is the concrete action — via congressional legislation, an improved regulatory environment and federal funding to critical programs — they will follow through on to ensure that every American has access to broadband, no matter where they live."

Of course this "concrete action" involves not only removing all meaningful FCC consumer protections (you're welcome, heartland America) but gutting both state and federal oversight of some of the least-liked, least-competitive companies in America. But the real goal has nothing to do with rural America, which the lion's share of these folks couldn't care less about. The real goal is to distract you from the government's recent handouts to the telecom sector's largest and most powerful players, and to dress up mindless deregulation and cronyism as an unwavering dedication to America's heartland.

Oh, and just as more and more criticism is being raised about this committee, it appears that the few non-telco industry reps who were on the committee as fig leafs are realizing they made a huge mistake. San Jose's mayor Sam Liccardo has just resigned from the panel and not pulled any punches in his explanation for why.

"It has become abundantly clear that despite the good intentions of several participants, the industry-heavy makeup of BDAC will simply relegate the body to being a vehicle for advancing the interests of the telecommunications industry over those of the public. The apparent goal is to create a set of rules that will provide industry with easy access to publicly-funded infrastructure at taxpayer-subsidized rates, without any obligation to provide broadband to underserved residents."

So, while Pai pats himself on the back for "closing the digital divide," actual people dealing with the digital divide are quitting his little consortium and pointing out that his dedication to actually fixing this problem is decidedly hollow. Whatever it takes to help the public forget he sold them out on net neutrality just to make AT&T, Verizon and Comcast happy.

Filed Under: ajit pai, broadband, competition, crony capitalism, digital divide, fcc, municipal broadband, net neutrality, rural broadband