Walking Dead Producer Claims Real Cable Set Top Box Competition Will Result In Piracy Armageddon

from the bbbrraaaains dept

As we've been discussing, the FCC has started working more seriously on opening the cable set top box to real competition. As it stands, 99% of consumers currently pay about $231 annually in rental fees for aging hardware that's often worth about half that much. The FCC's goal is ultimately to let consumers access cable content using the hardware of their choice, creating a healthy new competitive market, and by proxy better hardware at lower prices. But monthly set top box rental fees represent $20 billion in annual revenue to cable providers, which is why they've been having a hissy fit about the FCC's plan.

This manufactured outrage has involved claiming that more set top box competition will somehow hurt diversity (despite the plan providing access to a more diverse array of content than ever before). Or claiming that consumers having a choice of hardware will harm children's safety and user security. The latest attack on the FCC's plan? Having The Walking Dead producer and Producers Guild of America secretary Gale Anne Hurd pen a missive over at USAToday claiming that more set top box competition somehow automatically means a huge spike in piracy:

"If the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approves Chairman Tom Wheeler’s regulatory proposal to “open” set-top boxes, it will make piracy as easy and dangerous in the living room as it is on laptop and mobile devices. Wait, you didn’t know piracy was rampant on the Internet? Well, the figures shocked even me, and as a producer of horror and science fiction, I’m not easily scared. The season five premiere of my show, The Walking Dead, was illegally downloaded by roughly 1.27 million unique IP addresses worldwide within 24 hours of its debut."

Right, people pirate content. No debate there. That's in part because despite some notable progress, finding legitimate content online remains a bit of an expensive mole hunt (made worse by exclusive streaming arrangements), making piracy just cheaper and easier. But it's also because while copy protection on cable hardware (including the latest HDCP 2.2 standard for 4K) does a great job in annoying paying customers, it repeatedly fails to actually secure content. That's not going to change under a system where users have access to cheaper, better hardware. What will change is that users will no longer be trapped in the cable industry's set top box walled garden, and will have access to more ways to buy and watch legitimate content than ever before, including AMC's own website and streaming service. Outrageous!

Hurd doesn't appear to understand this, or how the FCC's plan actually works, since the outline the FCC has provided (pdf) notes that the FCC's plan leaves it up to cable providers to still "determine the content protection systems it deems sufficient to prevent theft and misuse" and "will not impede the introduction of new content protection systems." In other words, from a copy protection perspective, nothing will really change (unfortunately). But Hurd somehow tries to claim that the FCC's plan means that Google would somehow be driving users to pirated content:

"It would also allow Google — and for that matter set-top box manufacturers from all over the world, including China (where rogue boxes are being built by the millions) — to create and market applications or boxes with software that will treat legitimate and stolen material exactly the same, and may in many cases help to steer consumers to piracy."

Note again how Hurd just ignores the fact that set top box competition would also drive users to more legitimate options than ever before. No, apparently Hurd is worried that because these new set top boxes might actually connect people to the Internet (which is already happening in streaming boxes and game consoles), they'll be more likely to pirate:

"This is a real threat. Google's search engine does this today. Here’s what happens when I search “watch Fear the Walking Dead." After the paid results, the first option is AMC and the second is a pirate site — literally, side by side. Chairman Wheeler’s set-top box proposal places no restrictions on search results. If approved, it would allow device-makers to prominently display pirated content from the Internet alongside legitimate options — just like in my "watch Fear the Walking Dead" Google search.

So wait, because The Walking Dead shows up in a Google search result we shouldn't support the push for more set top box competition? Kind of throwing the baby away with the bathwater, aren't we? The FCC is proposing a system whereby users will have access to more content and cheaper, better content than ever, but because these set tops might have a browser we should run in terror? Hurd basically just takes some vague fear about piracy and uses it to villainize a reform effort that could potentially drive more legitimate viewers her direction than ever before.

Of course the idea that set top box reform is some kind of villainous Google plot to ruin the cable industry's day has been a cable industry industry narrative since the FCC's plan was unveiled. The fact that you'll see a huge number of editorials just like Hurd's popping up in newspapers and various websites nationwide isn't mystical coincidence, it's a concerted cable industry PR stunt. Given Comcast is playing a starring role in this PR offensive, Comcast's top spokesperson was quick to applaud Hurd's editorial on Twitter:

why would the gov reward Google w rules that will put stolen content in competition with legit contenthttps://t.co/fms26jk0C3 via @usatoday

— Sena Fitzmaurice (@SenaFitz) April 12, 2016

Make no mistake though. Opposition to the FCC's plan isn't about piracy, or a love of diversity, or Google, or privacy and security. It's about protecting $20 billion in captive rental fee revenue from competition. And because the cable industry can't just come out and say this fight is all about money (because we'd all just laugh at them), they're pushing an army of editorials that try to claim real set top box competition will be notably worse than a zombie apocalypse.

Filed Under: competition, copyright, drm, exaggeration, fcc, gale anne hurd, innovation, piracy, set top boxes, walking dead
Companies: google, producers guild of america

As ISPs Push Harder On Usage Caps, House Pushes Bill Preventing The FCC From Doing Anything About It

from the stripping-the-fcc-of-its-power-to-protect-consumers dept

In recent weeks, we've noted how ISPs are now moving beyond broadband usage caps and overage fees, and have begun charging users a $30-$35 premium if they want to avoid usage caps entirely. While the industry often dresses this up as everything from "improved flexibility and choice" to something necessary for the sake of fairness, it is, quite simply, an aggressive rate hike on uncompetitive markets. Users are being socked with dramatic new limits and fees -- simply because most have no real competitors to flee to.

Entirely uncoincidentally, the House is now pushing for new legislation that would hamstring the FCC's ability to regulate broadband rates. The "No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act" (pdf) is set to be debated this week in Congress, and would, according to a press release by the Energy and Commerce Committee, prevent the FCC from regulating rates charged for broadband Internet, "just as the administration promised when they reclassified access to the Internet as a utility under Title II of the Communications Act."

Except according to a Medium post by attorney Harold Feld, the bill tries to use a special definition of "rate regulation" to ban the FCC from, well, doing much of anything:

"H.R. 2666’s language would protect broadband providers from any “review” or “enforcement” of their prices, and prevent the FCC from even “declaring” — let alone addressing — any broadband prices or fees as even “unreasonable.” To make this even more clear, the bill prohibits the FCC from reviewing any prices, fees, or overages “regardless of any other provision of law.” That goes way beyond the FCC’s traditional rate setting authority. “Any other provision of law” includes the FCC’s mandate to promote competition and its consumer protection authority."

So basically, the House, at the behest of large ISPs, is looking to further neuter the FCC. Not only so it can't protect consumers from usage caps and price gouging, but to try and derail the FCC's plan to expand consumer broadband privacy protections, or say, open up the cable set top box to additional competition.

It should probably be reiterated that while the FCC says it does have the authority to regulate some rates under Title II and its net neutrality rules (preventing "paid prioritization," for example), the agency so far has shown no interest in really doing so. Whether it's a $300 million national broadband map that fails to show broadband prices (at industry behest), to the agency's continued blind eye to hidden fees, usage caps and zero rating, the FCC has made it abundantly clear that it finds a large amount of the broadband industry's current price gouging just "creative experimentation."

But while the FCC hasn't done much about broadband prices directly, it has tried to shore up competition in the market so prices drop organically, including support for municipal broadband. Between this, the agency's push for privacy rules, and net neutrality, the House has made it abundantly clear it plans to punish the FCC for standing up to giant ISPs like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast. As such, if it isn't a series of pointless, FCC "fact finding" hearings, it's yet another bill like this one that aims to tie the FCC's arms securely behind its back.

As it stands, there remain just two serious ways to roll back net neutrality and the FCC's decision to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under Title II: win the election and gut the FCC and its decision, or win the ongoing lawsuits against the FCC (a ruling on that front is expected soon). The House likely knows this, but is apparently keen to try and earn its telecom campaign contributions by putting on one hell of a taxpayer-funded show.

Filed Under: congress, consumer protection, fcc, fees, isps, rate regulations, regulation, scams

Tennessee Man Builds His Own Gigabit Network Thanks To State's Protectionist Broadband Law

from the protect-the-status-quo dept

We've noted how Tennessee is one of twenty states that has passed state laws, quite literally written by companies like AT&T, prohibiting towns and cities from wiring themselves with broadband -- even if nobody else will. When the FCC announced it would be taking aim at these protectionist broadband laws last year, Tennessee politicians threw a hissy fit, suing the FCC for "violating states rights." That incumbent ISPs are being allowed to write awful state law that's hampering a generation of business development in the state? Not apparently much of a concern.

As an unsurprising result, Tennessee remains one of the least connected broadband states in the nation, and state residents have increasingly been giving beholden state politicians an earful. Those who can, like Tennessee developer John "Thunder" Thornton, have started taking matters into their own hands and building their own gigabit networks. To do so, Thorton had to get the aid of a power cooperative in Alabama, a state that has a slightly less restrictive municipal broadband law in place:

"Unable to gain high-speed broadband at what he deemed an affordable price from AT&T or Charter Communications and limited from service extensions from EPB's ultra-fast Internet in Chattanooga, Thornton created his own Internet service provider last year. The private developer spent more than $400,000 to build his own fiber network and link it with a power cooperative in Stevenson, Ala., where fast broadband is available."

According to Thorton, the money he spent to wire his hilltop development cost a third of what AT&T was charging:

"Thornton said when he approached AT&T about providing Gig service to Jasper Highlands he was quoted a price of $1.3 million to serve his mountaintop development — more than three times what it ended up costing Thornton to build his own network connected to Alabama.

"Our costs are much less, but then I don't have to pay for 27 lobbyists in Nashville like AT&T does," Thornton quipped.

So yeah, Tennessee lawmakers have done such a bang up job letting AT&T write awful state telecommunications law, state residents are being forced to spend their own money to get broadband at a relatively sane price. Sadly, most of the people that can't get decent broadband can't afford to go Thorton's route. And while you'd think the cacophony of complaints from Tennessee residents would be enough to get some movement in the state legislature after a decade, all recent efforts to overturn the state's protectionist law have gone nowhere.

Tennessee's law prevents a popular Chattanooga-based utility-run ISP, EPB, from expanding its up to 10 Gbps offerings into any more markets. But attempts to repeal the law earlier this year went nowhere after mammoth pressure from incumbent ISP lobbyists. When that didn't work, one lawmaker tried to pass a compromise bill that would have allowed EPB to expand into just one neighboring county. That proposal was shot down as well, one of the dissenting votes being that of Rep. Patsy Hazlewood, a former AT&T executive.

That leaves the FCC as the best, current option in getting some of these miserable laws overturned.

As it stands, the FCC is arguing that Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act allows it to preempt state laws that conflict with the agency's Congressional mandate to guarantee "reasonable and timely" broadband deployment. While there's twenty such laws, the FCC is currently trying to overturn just two: in Tennessee and North Carolina; the hope being the legal precedent then rolls downhill. But both states have taken the FCC to court, bravely defending their right to take campaign contributions -- in exchange for protecting incumbent broadband providers from necessary and inevitable evolution.

Filed Under: broadband, fcc, gigabit, john thornton, tennessee

The FCC Is Pushing A 'Nutrition Label' For Broadband Connections

from the 70%-fat dept

A report last year by the GAO (pdf) found that most consumers have no real idea what kind of a broadband connection they're buying. The report argued that caps, interconnection squabbles, throttling, and other line limitations make it virtually impossible for many consumers (especially the more Luddite-inclined among us) to understand what they're buying, or compare it with competing services. As a result, the FCC this week proposed a new "nutrition label" (pdf) for broadband that would include not only connection speed -- but any network management, latency, usage caps, overage fees, or other conditions impacting the line.

They should, according to some samples provided by the FCC, look a little something like this:Interestingly, the FCC"s push for improved labeling includes some renewed attention on the disclosure of sneaky, below-the-line fees, which many ISPs use to jack up the advertised rate post sale. We've noted how many of these fees are simply pulled out of thin air and are pure profit, a practice the FCC (after fifteen years of apathy) is now showing some interest in:

"The FCC receives more than 2,000 complaints annually about surprise fees associated with consumers’ Internet service bills. The actual prices paid for broadband-related services can be as much as 40 percent greater than what is advertised after taxes and fees are added to a bill, according to consumer complaints to the Commission. With the average monthly cost of broadband service ranging between $60 and $70, consumers deserve to know what they are going to get for their money."

While well intentioned, it's not exactly clear if ISPs will actually use the new labels. According to the FCC announcement, the labels are only "recommended" by the agency for ISPs concerned that they're not meeting the FCC's transparency requirements, which were part of last year's still-contested net neutrality rules:

"The FCC’s Open Internet transparency rules require broadband Internet access service providers to disclose this information to consumers in an accurate, understandable and easy-to-find manner. These formats, while not mandated by the agency, are recommended by the Commission and will serve as a “safe harbor” to meet those requirements."

Knowing ISPs as most of you do, you'll probably know their definition of "accurate, understandable and easy to find" may not exactly match your own. The labels have the approval of the FCC's Consumer Advisory Committee, which includes companies like Verizon and CenturyLink. That these two companies find the labels acceptable could very well mean they have no intention of actually using them (possibly pointing to their existing website structure as good enough). Both companies also are busy trying to scrap the FCC's net neutrality rules entirely, which if successful would mean a quick death to the rules -- and these labels.

Another problem is that the use of hidden, manufactured fees to jack up the advertised price is considered false advertising and fraud by many. Many ISPs are so un-frightened of regulatory enforcement on this front they're barely trying any more. CenturyLink, for example, charges millions of its DSL customers a $2 "Internet Cost Recovery Fee" that its website explains as such:

"This fee helps defray costs associated with building and maintaining CenturyLink's High-Speed Internet broadband network, as well as the costs of expanding network capacity to support the continued increase in customers' average broadband consumption."

And here you were thinking that's what your advertised existing monthly broadband bill was for. As such, given the obvious fraud on the hidden fee front, it may take a little more than a few labels to meaningfully improve ISP behavior and transparency.

Filed Under: broadband, fcc, gao

AT&T Tries To Claim That Charging Users More For Privacy Is A 'Discount'

from the tomato,-tomahto dept

Last year, AT&T launched the latest sexy trend in broadband -- charging users significantly more money if they want to opt out of their ISP's snoopvertising. It basically works like this: users ordering AT&T's U-Verse broadband service can get the service for, say, $70 a month. But if you want to opt out of AT&T's Internet Preferences snoopvertising program (which uses deep packet inspection to study your movement around the Internet down to the second) you'll pay at least $30 more, per month. With its decision, AT&T effectively made user privacy a premium service.

As the FCC has started pushing for new privacy rules (precisely because of ISP moves like this), AT&T's luxury-privacy option has been under heightened scrutiny. Speaking at a recent Consumer Federation of America panel, AT&T regulatory affairs executive Jacquelyne Flemming feebly tried to defend AT&T's policy, likening it to a "discount" that bestows "reciprocal benefits" to consumers:

"We, AT&T, have a broadband Internet access service that we market to customers that if you agree, if you opt-in, to the use of your data for various reasons, then you get a discount,” Flemming continued. “That doesn’t mean that other people who don’t get the discount are paying for privacy. I wouldn’t say that,” she explained, even though that is in fact actually the case."

So, you see it's not that AT&T's charging you more just to protect your data, it's that you're getting a "discount" by letting AT&T snoop into your online behavior. It's much the same way that ISPs aren't charging you aggressively more money for buying just broadband, they're giving you a "discount" if you sign up for phone or television service you may not actually want. Flemming then amusingly proceeds to argue that hey, at least not all ISPs are doing this:

"I think that there is a benefit to the customer,” Flemming finished, “and it’s not as if we’re talking [all] broadband Internet access services, of which there are a wide range of them that are available to customers. In this particular instance, if you like to get this benefit, then there is a reciprocal benefit to the customer and the company."

Right, except most users don't have the choice of more than one or two broadband providers, and if they're both charging you a premium to opt out, you'd be shit out of luck. Flemming also severely misstates what's happening here. A detailed look at what AT&T is doing shows that it's actually really hard to find how to opt out in the first place. Users have to read numerous instances of fine print to find the option, which isn't really explained clearly. So not only is AT&T making it more expensive to opt out -- they're intentionally making it notably difficult to actually do so.

That, combined with AT&T and Verizon's foray into stealth packet headers, is why the FCC's now exploring broadband privacy rules -- rules that AT&T has breathlessly opposed in several blog posts. And while these posts throw out a wide variety of false claims about how consumer privacy protections aren't necessary because broadband ISPs are harmless sweethearts, there's really one idea driving AT&T's thinking: an empowered, informed consumer with the tools to protect their privacy means AT&T makes less money.

Filed Under: broadband, fcc, privacy
Companies: at&t

Comcast Thinks Having Basic Broadband Privacy Protections 'Irrational'

from the we're-angels dept

Last week the FCC announced that it would be imposing some relatively new basic privacy protections on broadband. While the full rules will be hashed out after extensive public and company input (meaning if anything they'll get weaker), FCC boss Tom Wheeler's proposal (pdf) is fairly basic: ISPs should alert customers when their data is stolen, ISPs should be totally transparent about what they're collecting, and ISPs should provide users with working opt-out tools for any data collection service the ISP employs. None of these requirements are particularly onerous, and most ISPs will find that they're already adhering to them.

Given that an informed and empowered customer that opts out of snoopvertsing means less money earned, it's no mystery that ISPs have been whining about the FCC's proposal. After all, as wireline and wireless subscriber growth has become saturated, companies like Comcast and Verizon have turned to advertising as their next great growth market (thus Verizon's $4.4 billion AOL buy).

Obviously Comcast can't just come right out and say it's solely worried about losing money, so top company lobbyist David Cohen (apparently the company hates it when I call him that) has coughed up a new company blog post in which Comcast tries to argue that having some basic, new broadband privacy rules is an "irrational" move that creates an "unjustified set of regulatory shackles." Shackles that would, apparently, prevent consumers from enjoying all of the marketing Comcast intends to throw at them:

"Beyond blocking ISPs from competing in the online advertising marketplace, the FCC proposal will have other spillover effects. One example of the extreme nature of the FCC’s proposal and how it would negatively impact competition and consumers relates to cross-marketing of our competitive products and services to existing ISP customers. Under the FCC proposal, Xfinity Internet customers could miss out on learning about lower prices for taking bundles of services like Xfinity Home Security. Today, consumers are benefitting from competition in these new and expanded services, and they expect to receive these offerings from their broadband provider. The proposed FCC’s rules would unjustifiably make that much more difficult."

That's really just an overlong, alternative way of saying that Comcast is worried they won't be able to upsell you as much unnecessary shit as they otherwise would. But again, with transparency and opt-out consent the cornerstones of the FCC's plan, the FCC has made it clear that there's really nothing that will prevent ISPs from upselling their own, or anybody else's services. Despite hysteria in the telecom sector there's no indication the FCC's panning anything more elaborate or "difficult," with the primary focus being letting consumers opt out -- with no hard focus on requiring consumers opt in (much preferred by many privacy advocates).

ISPs have been pushing funded studies for months stating privacy rules aren't necessary because ISPs don't really collect much about you (just flatly incorrect) and VPNs and encryption means consumers have tools to protect themselves already making further action unnecessary. But as studies like this one from Team Upturn have noted, ISPs collect an ocean of data on users via multiple technologies. Most Internet of Things and other household traffic isn't encrypted, and ISPs still track and monetize user behavior by studying DNS records and other network footprints.

Still, Cohen tries to pretend that there's no reason for the FCC to get involved in privacy because nothing bad has ever happened on the broadband privacy front:

"There is no evidence of any problem with ISP privacy and security practices: research published by the Harvard Business Review and the Pew Research Center shows that consumers trust their ISPs just as much, if not more, than other providers in the Internet ecosystem. And there have been very few ISP-related privacy or data security issues under the FTC regime, even while the FTC has taken numerous enforcement actions against others in the Internet ecosystem. "

Cohen has a short memory. You'll recall that one of the key reasons the FCC is even pursuing new broadband privacy rules was Verizon's abuse of so-called "stealth cookies," which involved embedding wireless user packets with unique header identifiers that let Verizon track consumers and build detailed online profiles. Verizon was using this tracking technology for three years before security analysts even noticed. Consumers were never informed. It took another six months of public pressure and an FCC investigation before Verizon allowed customers to opt out. The FTC never raised a finger, which is why you'll generally see ISPs argue for leaving some telecom enforcement in the hands of said agency.

Again, ISPs had spent the last decade arguing that a "self-regulatory regime" was all that was needed to protect consumer privacy -- but when push came to shove it simply couldn't do it. Between Verizon's stealth cookies and AT&T's decision to make opting out of snoopvertising a steep monthly premium, the lack of broadband competition has meant ISPs could consistently ignore customer privacy rights without repercussion. In an ideal, competitive market you might not need net neutrality or privacy rules, but as anybody held hostage by the nation's dynamic duopoly knows, that's just not the reality most broadband consumers live in.

Filed Under: broadband, david cohen, fcc, isp, privacy
Companies: comcast

FCC Commissioner: Gov't Should Never Interfere In Private Markets...Unless ISPs Have A Chance To Mock Netflix

from the hypocrisy-is-the-new-black dept

As we just got done noting, Netflix recently admitted that it has been throttling the streams it sends to AT&T and Verizon wireless customers in order to lessen the impact of usage caps. While most everybody agrees that Netflix should have been transparent about the practice, most also agree that Netflix -- an outspoken opponent of usage caps and supporter of net neutrality -- was actually trying to improve the customer experience with the move. As such, no real harm was done, and nobody even noticed that Netflix had been doing it -- for five years. Really not much of a story in and of itself.

But the telecom industry and its allies, outraged by Netflix's support of net neutrality, opposition to usage caps, and the threat it poses to legacy TV, have been desperately and hysterically trying to paint Netflix's reveal as some kind of immense gotcha.

AT&T (fresh off of an FTC lawsuit and FCC fine for lying about throttling for years) insisted it was "outraged" by Netflix's behavior. The American Cable Association (fresh off of 10 years of claiming net neutrality was an unnecessary solution to a hallucinated problem) insisted that Netflix should be investigated for its awful behavior, and the FCC should actually expand net neutrality rules to cover so-called "edge" providers. Now FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly has joined the fun, insisting that the FTC, FCC, and Congress should investigate Netflix immediately....for something:

"Netflix has attempted to paint a picture of altruism whereby it virtuously sought to save these consumers from bumping up against or exceeding their data caps," O'Rielly said. "There is no way to sugarcoat it: the news is deeply disturbing and justly generates calls for government—and maybe even Congressional—investigation."

It's true what Netflix did wasn't entirely altruistic. Reducing the streams of capped customers means they'll be less likely to erode their usage caps quickly, and happier with Netflix's service. But when it comes to looking out for consumers on the issue of net neutrality and usage caps, Netflix has been nothing but a genuine consumer ally -- while bigger companies professing to love net neutrality (**cough** Google) -- ran and hid when the going got politically tough during the most recent fight over net neutrality rule verbiage.

If you're unfamiliar with O'Rielly, he and FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai (a former Verizon lawyer) vote down absolutely every pro-consumer action item that comes to the FCC, and certainly if it attempts to hold a large telecom company accountable for clear, obvious fraud. From holding AT&T accountable for ripping off the poor or the hearing impaired, to thwarting prison phone companies from ripping off inmate families, O'Rielly votes it all down, consistently lamenting government waste and overreach, while praising the natural ability of the free market to overcome all evil using something akin to magic.

In a recent blog post, O'Rielly argues at great lengths that government should simply stay out of the affairs of the private sector:

"In communications, government is exceedingly busy and involved. It tries to dictate performance of the private sector, enter the marketplace itself, prop-up failing firms, chase flawed policy goals, subsidize favored classes or companies, stifle the offerings of goods and services by disliked firms, tilt the playing field in certain directions and much worse. While some level of activity occurs because of legacy policies, the constant tinkering inevitably interferes with the workings of capitalism and promotes bad outcomes.

And here's an editorial O'Rielly recently co-wrote for Forbes in which the FCC Commissioner rails against government interference in industry as an assault on innovation, citing Netflix itself as a prime success story thanks to a hands-off government approach:

"Given the unparalleled record of U.S. success in developing and bringing new, innovative technology products to market with a relatively hands-off regulatory approach, you would think there would be extreme hesitancy to alter that formula. The environment that brought us services like Amazon and Netflix is no accident, but instead can be attributed to a conscious decision to let the tech sector develop with minimal government intervention."

And while channeling Milton Friedman is certainly fine, here the Commissioner is, pushing for a multi-agency investigation into a non-starter. And when O'Rielly can't seem to find any rules that Netflix might have broken, he just starts hunting and pecking around in the dirt to try and find some:

"A company cannot knowingly make misrepresentations and inaccurate statements before the Commission," O'Rielly said. "In fact, doing so violates Commission rules intended to protect the integrity of the Commission and our decisions. We need to closely examine filings that were made for potential violations in light of this new information. It appears that Netflix made accusations of wrongdoing by ISPs, all the while knowing that its own practices were one of the causes of consumer video downgrading."

But when pressed to cite precisely what "misrepresentations and inaccurate statements" Netflix made before the FCC, O'Rielly can't actually cite any. So again, O'Rielly has whined incessantly about how net neutrality and the lack of broadband competition aren't real or deserving of government attention whatsoever, yet he's pushing for a multi-pronged government investigation into Netflix -- for trying to help customers on expensive wireless plans? It's another example of how Washington is painfully beholden to companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, while simultaneously lecturing the public on the miracle of free markets.

Filed Under: fcc, free market, hypocrisy, mike o'rielly, throttling
Companies: at&t, netflix

Router Company Lazily Blocks Open Source Router Firmware, Still Pretends To Value 'Creativity'

from the unintended-consequences dept

Last fall, you might recall that the hardware tinkering community (and people who just like to fully use the devices they pay for) was up in arms over an FCC plan to lock down third-party custom firmware. After tinkering enthusiasts claimed the FCC was intentionally planning to prevent them from installing third-party router options like DD-WRT and Open-WRT, we asked the FCC about the new rules and were told that because modified routers had been interfering with terrestrial doppler weather radar (TDWR) at airports, the FCC wanted to ensure that just the radio portion of the router couldn't be modified.

The FCC stated at the time that locking down the full, broader use of open source router firmware entirely was absolutely not their intent:

"Our rules do permit radios to be approved as Software Defined Radios (SDRs) where the compliance is ensured based on having secure software which cannot be modified. The (FCC's) position is that versions of this open source software can be used as long as they do not add the functionality to modify the underlying operating characteristics of the RF parameters. It depends on the manufacturer to provide us the information at the time of application on how such controls are implemented.

The FCC also updated the guidance in question (pdf) and penned a blog post that tried to explain all this. But while the FCC may not have intended to block third-party firmware, many worried that because many routers have "system on chip" -- where the CPU and radio exist in a single package -- router vendors would "solve" the problem by just taking the cheapest and easiest path and locking down firmware entirely. And that's precisely what appears to be happening -- at least with one router manufacturer.

Gearmaker TP-Link recently posted a notice to the company's website announcing that as of June of this year, it would be locking down firmware installations on its routers entirely. In a statement, the company blames the FCC for the fact it's taking the lazy route and annoying its more technically-proficient customers:

"The FCC requires all manufacturers to prevent user from having any direct ability to change RF parameters (frequency limits, output power, country codes, etc.) In order to keep our products compliant with these implemented regulations, TP-LINK is distributing devices that feature country-specific firmware. Devices sold in the United States will have firmware and wireless settings that ensure compliance with local laws and regulations related to transmission power."

Again, TP-Link could work with the community and developers to ensure users can mod everything but radio parameters, but it's being cheap and lazy. The company's statement then adds insult to injury by pretending it still values the community's "creativity":

"As a result of these necessary changes, users are not able to flash the current generation of open-source, third-party firmware. We are excited to see the creative ways members of the open-source community update the new firmware to meet their needs. However, TP-LINK does not offer any guarantees or technical support for customers attempting to flash any third-party firmware to their devices."

So, hey kids, we're locking down your ability to be creative starting this June, but go be creative! In one blow, TP-Link is not only alienating a large number of potential customers, but making networks less secure (since custom firmware tends to be more secure and updated more religiously among the tinkering faithful).

I've reached out to the FCC for comment, but wasn't able to glean any more detail from the agency beyond what has already been said. And while the TP-Link lockdown may have not been the FCC's plan or its fault directly, it may very well be a very ugly, unintended consequence. It's a shame that an agency that has been a bit more consumer friendly in terms of opening up other hardware and beefing up broadband competition didn't spend more time thinking this through.

Fortunately, TP-Link isn't exactly a brand favorite for most router buyers anyway, and the company's language leaves some wiggle room to suggest that while "the current generation" of open-source third-party firmware won't work on routers made after June 1, future versions of this same firmware may. TP-Link also appears to be the only vendor doing this (so far at least, please correct me in the comments if this has changed). With any luck, a few competing router vendors will see this as an opportunity to not be lazy and alienate customers -- but to compete by providing gear that still respects a user's freedom to tinker.

Filed Under: dd-wrt, fcc, firmware, open source, open-wrt, router
Companies: tp-link

Prison Telco Claims Prisoners Will Riot If Company Can't Keep Overcharging Inmate Families

from the amoral-majority dept

For many, many years interstate inmate calling service (ICS) companies have charged inmates and their families upwards of $14 per minute for phone calls. Because these folks are in prison, and as we all know everybody in prison is guilty, drumming up sympathy to convert into political momentum had proven difficult. But after decades of activism the FCC intervened last year, voting to cap the amount companies can charge the incarcerated. According to the FCC's updated rules, ICS companies can no longer charge more than twenty-two cents per minute -- depending on the size of the prison. Caps were also placed on the fees companies could charge those trying to pay these already bloated bills.

The companies profiting off of ripping off the incarcerated have unsurprisingly been fighting the FCC's proposal tooth and nail in the courts. Global Tel*Link (GTL) and Securus Technologies managed to win a partial stay earlier this month (pdf) that put the FCC's per minute price caps on hold until a lawsuit against the FCC is decided. FCC lawyers have argued (pdf) the stay still lets them apply older (2013) interim price caps on interstate calls to intrastate calls until the case is settled.

In response, Securus Technologies CEO Richard Smith filed an emergency motion in federal appeals court last week (pdf) in which he tried to basically claim that if the FCC moves to prevent inmates from getting ripped off, prisoners will riot:

"This chaos and confusion about what is the correct intrastate calling rate—and the only answer is that there is no federally mandated intrastate calling rate after the Court's March 7 Order which stayed all new rates—will carry over into correctional facilities themselves. Inmates will be angry if they believe that Securus is charging the wrong rates. There could be damage to Securus phones and equipment, as well as a threat to overall security and corrections personnel including inmates within the facilities. Having been in this industry for eight years, I have experience with jail unrest and I know that issues with the phones can trigger it."

In other words, if inmates that have been ripped off for decades suddenly believe they'll be facing lower rates -- and Securus keeps charging the higher rates -- they'll riot. While it's incredibly sweet of the company to be so concerned with prisoner safety, it's odd that Securus wasn't all that concerned with inmates rioting earlier, given these companies have been charging Mercedes prices for what's arguably a Yugo-grade product for the better part of a generation.

Keep in mind that voice services these days cost very little to actually provide. Also keep in mind that Securus and other such companies are part of a dangerously cozy and captive market, where prisons get paid upwards of $460 million annually in "concession fees" (read: kickbacks) to score exclusive, lucrative prison contracts. As a result, the service pricing and quality are just about what you'd expect. And as a hack of Securus late last year revealed, these contracts appear to involve helping government record potentially privileged attorney client conversations (Securus just settled a 2014 Texas case claiming precisely this).

So again, ripping off consumers for years? Ok. Working in concert with government to record privileged communications? Fine. Croynistic, monopoly control over a (literally) captive audience resulting in abysmal service? Sure! Trying to prevent inmate families from having to take out a second mortgage to speak to their loved ones? Inevitable riots, safety first!

Filed Under: fcc, ics, inmate calling service, phone calls, prisons, richard smith
Companies: global tel*link, securus technologies