Broadband Lobbyists Gush Over Re-Appointment Of Trump's FCC Boss

from the we-just-love-consumers-so-very,-very-much dept

If you've been paying attention, you may have noticed that Trump-appointed FCC boss Ajit Pai is viciously unpopular. There are dozens of reasons for this, ranging from his assault on net neutrality and broadband privacy rules, to his efforts to protect cable's set top box monopoly while fiddling with data measurement to downplay a lack of competition in the space. Pai's the type to gut broadband funding programs for the poor while professing to be a stalwart champion of bridging the digital divide -- a man whose self-professed dedication to transparency is notably absent in his policy making.

This week, Pai was up for re-confirmation for a new five year term at the FCC. Consumer groups tried desperately to convince lawmakers to block his re-confirmation. It was a well-intentioned but arguably-futile exercise, since even if Pai was blocked, he simply would have been replaced by some other industry rubber stamp (most likely either current FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly, or Brendon Carr). Still the historically contentious 52 to 41 vote got notably closer than most people expected, with many politicians quick to highlight Pai's more-than-cozy relationship with giant cable operators:

Not too surprisingly, major ISP lobbying and policy organizations were quick to trip over themselves in gushing about Pai's re-appointment, using rhetoric so detached from reality as to border on high art. Comcast's top lobbyist David Cohen (Comcast apparently hates it when you call him what he is) proudly proclaimed that Pai's re-appointment was a major boon to consumers:

We commend the Senate’s decision today to reconfirm Ajit Pai as FCC chairman. Throughout his over five years at the FCC as a commissioner and during his nine-month tenure as chairman, Ajit Pai has favored deregulatory policies aimed at encouraging innovation, investment, job creation and economic growth – all in an effort to best serve consumers.

Yes, nothing "serves consumers" like gutting rules protecting them from Comcast's growing monopoly over broadband, allowing the cable giant to impose punitive usage caps and overage fees, saddling consumers with added costs while making competition harder for competing streaming providers. Or perhaps Cohen was referring to the way Pai crushed the FCC's attempted dismantling of cable's hardware monopoly over the cable box, thanks to a massive disinformation effort involving claims that cable box competition would hurt minorities, destroy copyright, confuse consumers, and rip the very Earth off of its axis.

Former FCC boss turned top cable industry lobbyist Michael Powell was similarly thrilled by Pai's re-appointment:

During his tenure at the FCC, Chairman Pai has consistently demonstrated a thoughtful approach to policymaking that promotes consumer welfare through marketplace competition and innovation. We share Chairman Pai’s vision for policies aimed at spurring continued investment and expanding opportunity for all Americans, and we look forward to working with him and all members of the commission in pursuing policies that protect consumers and promote the continued growth of new networks and services.

Right, nothing quite promotes the "continued growth of new services" like gutting popular net neutrality protections, which prevent smaller companies from being crushed by industry duopolists like Comcast and AT&T. And what helps foster "new networks" quite like killing rules that protect smaller competitors from Verizon and AT&T's total market domination of the special access, tower backhaul and business data services (BDS) markets, which will indisputably jack up prices for consumers and small businesses alike?

Not to be outdone, FCC Commissioner -- turned Comcast lobbyist -- turned top lobbyist for the wireless industry Meredith Attwell Baker, lavished praise on Pai for his dedication to "investment-spurring" policies:

On behalf of CTIA and the wireless industry, we congratulate Chairman Ajit Pai on his reconfirmation to the Federal Communications Commission. Chairman Pai’s continued leadership and expertise is essential as we transition to next-generation 5G wireless networks. He understands the need for smart policies to spur investment, innovation and growth and the importance of America continuing to lead the world in wireless.

As you all surely know, making it significantly more expensive for smaller businesses to survive and compete with industry giants is the very definition of "spurring innovation and growth." You also must know by now that Pai's tendency to completely ignore the broadband sector's blatantly obvious competition problems is the very first step toward a brave new tomorrow.

Unfortunately, because ISP lobbyists have convinced too many of us that maintaining a healthy internet and vibrant competition is somehow a "partisan issue," criticism of Pai's backward-ass policies will continue to be thrown under the media coverage bus. As a result, the next few months we'll get to enjoy the final killing blow against net neutrality, the rubber stamping of a competition-killing Sprint T-Mobile merger, and higher broadband prices than ever as bloated broadband and media empires cash in on Pai's regulatory apathy. Are you excited yet?

Filed Under: ajit pai, competition, fcc, net neutrality
Companies: comcast, ctia, ncta

Trump's FCC Boss Blasts Apple For Refusing To 'Turn On' FM iPhone Chipsets That Don't Actually Exist

from the yeah,-whoops dept

If you've seen current FCC Ajit Pai's name in print so far this year, it's probably for any number of his extremely anti-consumer, telecom industry friendly positions. Like his attempts to kill net neutrality, his support of gutting consumer broadband privacy protections, his efforts to protect the cable industry's cable box monopoly from competition, efforts to dramatically reduce media consolidation rules, his defense of prison phone monopoly price gouging, or the way he's making it harder for Americans to get affordable broadband.

To obfuscate this arguably-lopsided agenda, Pai has been busy trying to portray himself as somebody notably other than the revolving door regulator he actually is.

For example, Pai has repeatedly insisted that he's a heroic advocate for closing the digital divide, even while simultaneously weakening broadband deployment standards and eroding all oversight of historically-despised mono/duopolists like Comcast. Similarly, Pai spent many of his first months in office insisting he'd be breathlessly dedicated to transparency, yet the FCC boss has already been sued for refusing to document his communications with incumbent ISPs regarding net neutrality, or to provide hard data on why his agency appears to have hallucinated a DDoS attack.

Last week, Pai trotted out yet another effort to try and portray himself as an unwavering ally to consumers. In a missive posted to the FCC website (pdf), Pai lambasted Apple for refusing to turn on the FM radio chipsets embedded in iPhones, something he was quick to proclaim was a major affront to the safety and security of the nation's wireless subscribers:

"Apple is the one major phone manufacturer that has resisted doing so. But I hope the company will reconsider its position, given the devastation wrought by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. That’s why I am asking Apple to activate the FM chips that are in its iPhones. It is time for Apple to step up to the plate and put the safety of the American people first. As the Sun Sentinel of South Florida put it, ‘Do the right thing, Mr. Cook. Flip the switch. Lives depend on it.’”

And while that may look like Pai was busy trying to do a good thing, Apple was forced to issue a public statement pointing out that the chipsets Pai wants turned on -- don't actually exist:

"Apple cares deeply about the safety of our users, especially during times of crisis and that’s why we have engineered modern safety solutions into our products. Users can dial emergency services and access Medical ID card information directly from the Lock Screen, and we enable government emergency notifications, ranging from Weather Advisories to AMBER alerts. iPhone 7 and iPhone 8 models do not have FM radio chips in them nor do they have antennas designed to support FM signals, so it is not possible to enable FM reception in these products."

And while some older iPhone models do have such chipsets, they don't have the embedded antennas necessary to effectively utilize them. In many instances, the FM functionality is just part of an overall "system on a chip" (SOC) that technically contains the functionality, but isn't actually capable of being turned on. Pai appears to have drawn his information from this similarly incorrect Florida news report, something ten minutes of research could have clarified. From some additional commentary from Apple evangelist John Gruber:

"I’ve dug around, and what I’ve been told is that there is an FM radio chip in older iPhones, but it’s not connected, and there’s no antenna designed for FM radio. The chip is just part of a commodity component part, and Apple only connected the parts of the chip that the iPhones were designed to use. No iPhone was ever designed to be an FM radio, and there is no “switch” that can be “flipped” — nor software update that could be issued — that could turn them into one. It’s a complete technical misconception.

What’s absurd is that the FCC commissioner would take his understanding of the iPhone’s technical capabilities from a newspaper editorial rather than from Apple’s own FCC regulatory filings, which I’m pretty sure would show that they’re not capable of acting as FM radios.

If that's the level of Pai's fact-checking before accusing Apple of harming the safety of the "American people," it leaves you wondering just how much homework Pai has done before deciding to "take a weedwhacker" (his words) to essential consumer protections on the telecom front.

Filed Under: ajit pai, fcc, fm radios, iphones
Companies: apple

After Backlash, Verizon Will Give Rural Data Users A Bit More Time To Get The Hell Off Its Network

from the limited-unlimited dept

When last we checked in with Verizon Wireless, it was taking heat for kicking at least 8,500 wireless customers off of its network without much warning. The short version: Verizon created a program aimed at shoring up connectivity to rural areas, but after hyping the program and promising rural users access to unlimited data, Verizon realized the roaming costs were higher than initially projected, resulting in them quickly pulling the plug. In a notice to customers Verizon justifies the purging of these mostly-rural users by insisting they're using a "substantial" amount of data:

"During a recent review of customer accounts, we discovered you are using a significant amount of data while roaming off the Verizon Wireless network. While we appreciate you choosing Verizon, after October 17, 2017, we will no longer offer service for the numbers listed above since your primary place of use is outside the Verizon service area."

There's several problems here. One, Verizon's apparent inability to understand what "unlimited" means is a decade and numerous lawsuits old, yet clearly the company hasn't learned much. Two, nowhere is the company telling these users what a "substantial" amount of data is, leaving them uncertain as to what they were supposed to do. And three, many of these impacted customers say their usage is absolutely nowhere near excessive, and in some instances amounted to little more than a few gigabytes per month:

"My family has three lines, and we had a 6GB plan," Dedmon, who lives in Machiasport, told Ars. "We frequently either bumped it or had to purchase 1GB extra for $15." Dedmon provided us with screenshots of her data usage that back this up.

The Dedmon family's data use shows they were going through about 2GB or a little more per person each month. But the disconnection notice from Verizon told Dedmon that her family was "using a significant amount of data while roaming off the Verizon Wireless network."

So Verizon apparently thought it was a good idea to sell limited "unlimited" plans, then kick many of these users off the network for bogus reasons. But problems began to emerge when Verizon simply refused to state how much usage was too much. Additional problems surfaced when law enforcement officials began to state that the sudden disconnections have impacted them too, reducing their ability to protect the public. Facing the added backlash from law enforcement, Verizon was forced to issue a statement saying they'd be giving many of these users an additional few months to get the hell out of dodge:

"We recently notified approximately 8,500 Verizon customers that we would no longer offer service to them because our costs when they roam on other wireless networks exceeds the amount they pay us every month. Since that notification, we have become aware of a very small number of affected customers who may be using their personal phones in their roles as first responders and another small group who may not have another option for wireless service.

After listening to these folks, we are committed to resolving these issues in the best interest of the customers and their communities. We’re committed to ensuring first responders in these areas keep their Verizon service.

If you’ve received a letter in the past two weeks, we’re giving you more time to switch providers - you now have until December 1, 2017. If there is no alternative provider in your area, you can switch to the S (2 GB), M (4 GB), 5 GB single line or L (8 GB) Verizon plan but you must do so by December 1.

While that's nice of Verizon and all, nothing in Verizon's statement explains why it's falsely claiming that many of these users were consuming excessive data when they weren't. The statement itself also goes well out of its way to downplay a problem that's impacting around 20,000 lines belonging to around 8,500 users -- so far. Again, if companies don't want customers "abusing" unlimited data plans, there's quite a simple solution: stop using the word unlimited. And again, Verizon's been facing lawsuits and investigations for its inability to use the dictionary correctly for more than a decade.

But there's another problem bubbling just under the surface of this mess. Verizon has spent years justifying its failure to upgrade its fixed-line networks (in many instances after getting numerous tax breaks or subsidies to do so) by claiming wireless broadband was going to be "good enough" for these users. And in the wake of natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy, Verizon simply refused to repair destroyed fixed-line infrastructure, insisting that wireless was "good enough." Yet here we are, and it's abundantly clear that good enough -- simply isn't.

Filed Under: competition, fcc, unlimited, verizon wireless
Companies: verizon

FCC Sued For Ignoring FOIA Request Investigating Fraudulent Net Neutrality Comments

from the ignore-a-problem-and-it-goes-away,-right? dept

For months now we've noted how somebody is intentionally filling the FCC's net neutrality comment proceeding with bot-generated bogus comments supporting the agency's plan to kill net neutrality protections. Despite these fake comments being easily identifiable, the FCC has made it abundantly clear it intends to do absolutely nothing about it. Similarly, the FCC has told me it refuses to do anything about the fact that someone is using my name to file comments like this one falsely claiming I support killing net neutrality rules (you may have noticed I don't).

While nobody has identified who is polluting the FCC comment system with fake support, it should be fairly obvious who this effort benefits. By undermining the legitimacy of the public FCC comment proceeding (the one opportunity for transparent, public dialogue on this subject), it's easier for ISPs and the FCC to downplay the massive public opposition to killing popular net neutrality rules. After all, most analysis has shown that once you remove form, bot and other automated comments from the proceeding, the vast, vast majority of consumers oppose what the FCC and Trump administration are up to.

Attempts to dig deeper into this mystery haven't gone well. Freelance writer Jason Prechtel filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on June 4 asking the FCC for data on the bogus comments, the API keys used, and how the FCC has worked to address the problem. But while the FCC acknowledged the FOIA request, it wound up giving Prechtel the runaround throughout the summer -- stating on June 14 that it would be extending the deadline for responding to his request from July 3 to July 18 -- before ultimately deciding to ignore his request altogether.

As a result, Prechtel has filed a lawsuit against the FCC (pdf), stating the agency is breaking the law by sitting on its hands. From a Medium post written by Prechtel explaining the suit:

"As the agency is legally obliged to respond to my request, and as the underlying questions behind my request still haven’t been answered, I have filed a lawsuit against the FCC for their refusal to conduct a reasonably timely search for the records, and have demanded the release of these records. Even now, over three months after my FOIA request, and even after I’ve filed a lawsuit, this request is still listed as “under agency review”.

If you're playing along at home, this is just one of several lawsuits that have been filed against the agency for its Keystone Cops-esque handling of the network neutrality proceeding to date. The FCC has been sued for obfuscating details on its meetings with major ISPs in regards to net neutrality, and also faces a lawsuit over the agency's apparently completely fabricated DDoS attack it claimed occurred conveniently at the exact same time John Oliver told his viewers to file comments with the agency. Perhaps the more observant will notice a trend at Ajit Pai's FCC?

Again, nobody knows who's behind this effort to pollute the public discourse, and the FCC is making it pretty clear it doesn't want to make it any easier to find out. Having covered the sector for twenty years, this sort of thing is well within the behavioral norms of the wide variety of "non profit," "non-partisan" groups hired by ISPs to pee in the discourse pool. Whoever's to blame, it's pretty clear the FCC is playing a role in not only making it harder to understand what happened, but in undermining the value of the public comment period.

As the FCC moves to formally vote to kill the rules in a month or two, expect Ajit Pai and friends to increasingly use the dysfunction they helped cement to downplay legitimate public opposition to its plan. After that, you can expect all of this dysfunction to play a starring role in the multiple, inevitable lawsuits that will be filed against the agency in the wake of the vote. Again, how was this blistering shitshow a better idea than simply listening to the will of the public and leaving the existing, popular net neutrality rules alone?

Filed Under: fcc, foia, net neutrality, transparency

California Sides With Comcast, Votes To Kill Broadband Privacy Law Favored By EFF

from the who-needs-privacy-anyway dept

You'll recall that earlier this year, AT&T, Verizon and Comcast successfully lobbied the GOP and Trump administration to kill consumer broadband privacy protections that were supposed to take effect last March. While big ISPs engaged in breathless hysteria about the "draconian" nature of the rules, the restrictions were quite modest -- simply requiring ISPs be transparent about what user data gets collected and sold. They also made it more difficult for big ISPs to charge users significantly more money just to opt out of private data collection, an idea both AT&T and Comcast have already flirted with.

But in quickly axing the rules, big ISPs --- and the regulators and lawmakers paid to love them -- got a bit more than they bargained for. The ham-fisted rush to kill the protections quickly resulted in more than a dozen states passing a patchwork collection of new state laws aimed at protecting broadband consumers. Among the most notable was California Assemblyman Ed Chau's AB 375 (pdf). The proposal largely mirrors the FCC's proposal, though it took an even harder stance against ISPs looking to abuse the lack of competition to effectively make privacy a paid, premium option.

The law quickly received praise from the EFF, which argued that the law would be a good template for other states moving forward, lessening the chance for over-reaching, inconsistent, and poorly written state measures. But large ISPs, Facebook and Google lobbyists quickly got to work demonizing Chau's proposal too, falsely claiming it would somehow weaken user security and magically increase pop ups all over the internet. These and other claims were recently picked apart in an EFF blog post:

"The prediction of "recurring pop-ups" is also false because if anything, the bill would "likely result in fewer pop-ups, not to mention fewer intrusive ads during your everyday browser experience," Gillula wrote. "That’s because A.B. 375 will prevent Internet providers from using your data to sell ads they target to you without your consent—which means they’ll be less likely to insert ads into your Web browsing, like some Internet providers have done in the past.."

But the lobbying had its intended effect, and California lawmakers voted to kill the effort in a night vote over the weekend:

"It is extremely disappointing that the California legislature failed to restore broadband privacy rights for residents in this state in response to the Trump Administration and Congressional efforts to roll back consumer protection,” EFF Legislative Counsel Ernesto Falcon said. “Californians will continue to be denied the legal right to say no to their cable or telephone company using their personal data for enhancing already high profits. Perhaps the legislature needs to spend more time talking to the 80% of voters that support the goal of A.B. 375 and less time with Comcast, AT&T, and Google's lobbyists in Sacramento.”

While the proposal can be reintroduced next year, fighting upstream against the collective lobbying firepower of massive ISPs and Silicon Valley giants like Facebook and Google has proven no easy task. And there have been some comments from FCC Commissioners that they may try and use FCC authority to hamstring these efforts as well. You see, it's a "states rights" issue if you try to prevent states from letting ISP lobbyists write protectionist law hamstringing competition, but those concerns magically disappear when states move to actually protect consumers from duopoly harm.

It's worth re-iterating that ISPs spent years arguing consumers didn't need added privacy protections because the sector would self-regulate. Of course, Verizon subsequently highlighted the folly of such claims when it was busted modifying user packets to track users around the internet without telling them. AT&T similarly did the same when it began charging users $400 to $550 more per year to opt out of behavioral advertising. And other, smaller cable companies like CableONE joined the fun when they proclaimed they'd be using consumer financial data to provide worse customer service to bad credit customers.

The origins of this aggressively bad behavior? The lack of competition in the broadband space. And with the Trump administration looking to effectively gut all oversight of one of the least-competitive and least-liked sectors in American industry, anybody thinking these privacy issues will magically resolve themselves (instead of say, just getting progressively worse) hasn't been paying attention.

Filed Under: broadband, california, fcc, privacy

FCC's New 'Diversity Chair' Has Long History Of Undermining Minority Consumers At Comcast's Behest

from the with-friends-like-these... dept

For years one of the greasier lobbying and PR tactics by the telecom industry has been the hijacking of minority and civil rights groups to help parrot awful policy positions. Historically, such groups are happy to take financing from a company like Comcast, in exchange repeating whatever memos are thrust in their general direction -- even if the policy dramatically harms their constituents. The tactic of creating or "co-opting" such groups helps foster the illusion of broad support for awful, anti-consumer policies, whether that's support for the latest competition-killing merger or support for the assault on net neutrality.

Because this cozy quid pro quo is implied but never put into writing, ISPs traditionally respond with breathless indignance to the mere suggestion they're using minority voices as policy props. But Comcast has found that tactic consistently so successful, a few years back it went so far as to give its top lobbyist, David Cohen, a new title: "Chief Diversity Officer." Said title not only lets Cohen profess the company's unwavering dedication to minorities with one hand while undermining them with the other, but helps him skirt the government's flimsy restrictions on lobbying.

A few weeks back boss Ajit Pai announced the creation of a new "Advisory Committee on Diversity and Digital Empowerment," a group Pai insisted was established to champion the voice of every American, “no matter their race, gender, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation." But as we've noted before, Pai's breathless support of closing the digital divide is utterly illusory, as his policies (ranging from gutting popular consumer protections to protecting the cable industry's monopoly over the cable box) consistently involve undermining consumer interests while encouraging industry rate hikes.

Pai has appointed Julia Johnson, president of a consulting firm called NetCommunications, to lead the Advisory Committee. Not too surprisingly, The Intercept was quick to highlight how Johnson has a long history of actively undermining minority interests on behalf of the Multicultural Media, Telecom & Internet Council, a Comcast, AT&T and Verizon funded vessel specifically designed to help provide illusory minority community support for these companies' positions:

"Shortly after Trump named Pai to lead the FCC, the Multicultural Media, Telecom & Internet Council — a nonprofit chaired by Johnson and funded by Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and other large telecom firms — released statements praising Pai’s appointment and endorsing his strategy for unwinding the net neutrality protections secured during former President Barack Obama’s administration. MMTC’s pro-Trump administration statements, cast as being made on behalf of communities of color, are typical of Johnson’s approach. Over the years, Johnson has used racial minorities as a cudgel to disingenuously lobby on behalf of industry."

It should go without saying, but mindlessly cheering for competition-killing mega-mergers raises rates and harms consumers -- minority or otherwise. As does advocating for the destruction of popular net neutrality and broadband privacy rules. Such protections, however imperfect, help prevent large, incumbent ISPs from abusing the obvious lack of competition in the broadband market. With little to no competition, we've watched as companies like AT&T have tried to charge users a steep premium for privacy, and companies like Comcast have slowly but surely imposed arbitrary and unnecessary usage caps.

We've also noted how this lack of competition has resulted in a large number of minority communities being left behind completely when it comes to next-generation broadband. Groups like the MMTC and dollar-per-holler allies like Johnson have consistently undermined efforts to actually do something about these problems. And getting them to admit their financial ties to giant ISPs has long proven comical, as Ed Markey found out in a 2006 hearing when he tried to uncover whether Johnson was being paid by the telecom industry to oppose policies aimed at forcing ISPs to expand broadband coverage to disadvantaged areas:

Markey: Is your organization financially supported by the Bell [telephone] companies in any way?

Johnson: No, we’re not.

Markey: At all.

Johnson: Yes, and let me elaborate upon that too. We’re a relatively new organization.

Markey: No, that’s OK. I can go along with that answer. That’s fine. Thank you. And are you compensated in any way by the Bell companies?

Johnson: I have a consulting firm that works for a variety of companies, generally in the regulatory space.

Markey: But are the Bell companies amongst those companies that pay you?

Johnson: Yes.

Traditionally the media hasn't shown much of an interest in connecting what are often fairly-obvious dots, a major reason this disinformation and lobbying tactic has been so successful over the last decade. Knowing this all too well, the FCC appears poised to lean on this tactic heavily as it works to kill net neutrality and eliminate most meaningful oversight of one of the least competitive markets in American industry. All while groups like the MMTC and industry allies like Johnson proclaim that gutting consumer protections will somehow aid the very communities these decisions will harm the most.

Filed Under: ajit pai, diversity, fcc, julia johnson

Senators Blast The FCC For Weakening The Definition Of Broadband To Try And Hide The Industry's Lack Of Real Competition

from the set-the-bar-at-ankle-height dept

Back in 2015, the FCC raised the standard definition of broadband from 4 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up, to an arguably-more-modern 25 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up. Of course the uncompetitive broadband industry (and the lawmakers who adore them) subsequently threw a collective hissy fit about the change, because they realized a higher bar would only highlight their failure to deliver next-generation broadband to vast swaths of America.

And highlight it did: by this new metric, two-thirds of the country lack access to real broadband from more than one ISP. We've explored repeatedly how this is due to a refusal by the nation's telcos to upgrade lagging DSL connections, leaving cable companies with a growing broadband monopoly across huge swaths of the country. With this reduction in competition comes a growing apathy to customer service, as well as the ability to impose new unnecessary and arbitrary usage caps (read: price hikes) without any competitive reaction by the broken market.

Normally, this is where regulators would step in with policies aimed at shoring up this lack of competition. Under the Telecommunications Act, the FCC is required by law to track broadband deployment and competition and -- if things aren't up to snuff -- "take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market." But if you fiddle with how precisely broadband penetration and competition is measured, you can avoid having to admit there's a problem, or do anything about it.

With industry-ally Ajit Pai now in charge of the FCC, the telecom industry has been lobbying to weaken the standard definition of broadband to help mask the sector's shortcomings. As if on demand, a new FCC proposal would lower the definition of broadband by declaring a region covered if it has access to wireless data connections at speeds of 10 Mbps. The goal: lower the goalposts for the express benefit of lazy telecom duopolies. Duopolies that talk a good game about "closing the digital divide," but refuse to upgrade huge swaths of their networks (espcially the parts where disadvantaged and poor people live) -- and lobby for protectionist state laws ensuring nobody else can, either.

Of course the FCC isn't framing their decision as the industry-coddling myopia it is, instead declaring this a "modernization" of FCC policy, in some instances fooling media outlets into thinking this is about "reclassying wireless broadband" for some ambiguously noble policy purpose. But a handful of Senators this week criticized the FCC's new plan, highlighting (correctly) how lowering the broadband deployment bar to ankle height is a disservice to those waiting for, or trying to deploy, better broadband:

"At this time, such a striking change in policy would significantly and disproportionately disadvantage Americans in rural, tribal, and low-income communities across the nation, whose livelihoods depend on a reliable and affordable broadband connection... In reading this notice of inquiry, it appears that the FCC, by declaring mobile service of 10Mbps download/1Mbps upload speeds sufficient, could conclude that Americans' broadband needs are being met—when in fact they are not. By redefining what it means to have access, the FCC could abandon further efforts to connect Americans, as under this definition, its statutory requirement would be fulfilled."

AT&T, Verizon and the current FCC will tell you that mobile broadband is a perfect substitution for quality fixed-line broadband. And while that might be true by 2030 or so, that's certainly not the case now. Wireless networks certainly can offer comparable speeds to lower-end fixed-line connections, but traditionally at much higher prices -- and often with notable restrictions on usage (more so with the looming death of net neutrality). So these Senators are also right in highlighting how wireless is far from being a suitable-replacement for fixed-line connectivity:

"We believe that mobile broadband service cannot adequately support the same functions as does fixed service currently and, therefore, cannot be a substitute at this time. A small business owner who wants to begin a new venture today would not be adequately supported by mobile-only service. Should the decision to change current policy be made with the technology currently available, it would signal a strong departure from the Commission's mission, while also implying that certain consumers must accept lower-quality connectivity."

Unfortunately, like net neutrality, the quest to erode basic deployment standards will somehow be framed as a "partisan" debate, causing many to lose the plot. And pandering to the Comcast status quo will be framed as some sort of heroic pledge to phony free market ideals none of the regulators or companies backing this effort actually believe in. But lowering the bar to obfuscate the fact U.S. broadband is an uncompetitive market rife with regulatory capture (especially on the state level) isn't some panacea, it's the kind of weak-kneed regulatory apathy that gave us the customer-service abomination we call Comcast in the first place.

Filed Under: ajit pai, broadband, competition, congress, definitions, fcc