Telecom, Broadcasters Convince FCC To Explore New Taxes On 'Big Tech'

from the this-probably-won't-go-well dept

Earlier this year, we noted how FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr had launched a bad faith effort suggesting that "big tech" gets a "free ride" on the internet, and should be forced to fund broadband expansion. Carr's argument, that companies like Google and Netflix somehow get a free ride (they don't) and should "pay their fair share," is a fifteen year old AT&T lobbyist talking point. AT&T's goal has always been to "double dip"; as in not only get paid for bandwidth by consumers and businesses, but to get an additional troll toll simply for, well, existing.

AT&T has long tried to offload its (often neglected or half-completed) network build and maintenance costs to somebody else to make investors happy. That somebody else is usually taxpayers, who've thrown billions in pointless tax breaks and dubious regulatory favors at the company in exchange for fiber networks that are always (so mysteriously!) left half completed and jobs that never arrive. Now AT&T (and their broadcaster allies) want tech giants to pay as well.

Over at the right wing Washington Examiner, you can see how this effort is framed in order to sell it to the public and regulators:

"The Federal Communications Commission is looking to hit Big Tech companies with new regulatory fees related to their high use of broadband facilitated by the agency — a sign of Washington's growing skepticism of Silicon Valley wealth and power."

You're given no indication that this is a telecom (AT&T) or broadcasting (the National Association of Broadcasters) bad faith political play. Carr (read: AT&T's policy folks) had originally suggested in a carefully seeded editorial that tech companies should be forced to pay into the Universal Service Fund, which helps fund broadband expansion to schools and low-income communities. Now, Carr's argument has also been piggybacked onto by broadcasters, who want tech companies to pay a tax simply to use unlicensed spectrum (like Wi-Fi hardware). Fortunately, the Examiner at least includes experts who point out the idea is stupid:

"Unlicensed spectrum was first established by the commission in 1985, and allows the general public to freely use, without a license, services such as Wi-Fi networks, Bluetooth waves, garage door openers, and other wireless technologies.

“The FCC is asking the public if we think fees on unlicensed spectrum is a good idea or not,” said Harold Feld, a telecom policy expert and lawyer at the consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge. “And I’m here to say it’s a bad idea. In the spirit of Halloween, I plan to take a chainsaw to it."

So I think the FCC is considering this route because it's true the USF needs more money if we're going to help make sure low-income kids and schools have decent connectivity. The problem is that the FCC's proposal is written in such a way that it sounds like you could potentially be seeing annoying new taxes on Wi-Fi networks, Bluetooth devices, garage door openers, and more. The other problem is the core motivation here is by telecom and broadcast companies who simply want to offload their costs to somebody else. If they're the ones writing the proposal (and it sounds like they are), the end product isn't going to be particularly balanced or productive.

But to me the bigger problem is that if we're genuinely interested in shoring up broadband funding and expanding access, we should first be targeting the billions upon billions in tax breaks, regulator favors, merger approvals, and other perks we give to telecom and broadcast giants (in Comcast and AT&T's case one in the same) in exchange for jack shit. The idea that we waste billions by throwing it mindlessly at regional monopolies seems like a good place to start if you're serious about reform. But please take a moment to notice that this idea never gets mentioned by folks like Carr. That's fairly telling.

Nothing gets fixed in U.S. broadband (especially affordability and access issues) without addressing regional monopolization and the state and federal corruption that protects it. But not only do we not do that, if you watch regulators and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, they can barely even candidly acknowledge it's even a problem. As a baseline (and it has been the baseline for 30 straight years) that's not a great recipe for success.

Filed Under: big tech, brendan carr, broadband, broadcasters, fcc, free ride, net neutrality, subsidies, taxes, telcos, universal service fund
Companies: at&t, facebook, google

FCC's Carr Still Pushing A Dumb Telecom Tax On 'Big Tech'

from the misdirection-ahoy dept

A few months back we noted how FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr had taken to Newsweek to dust off a fifteen year old AT&T talking point. Namely that "big tech" companies get a "free ride" on telecom networks, and, as a result, should throw billions of dollars at "big telecom" for no real reason. You'll recall it was this exact argument that launched the net neutrality debate, when former AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre proclaimed that Google wouldn't be allowed to "ride his pipes for free." Basically, telecom giants have long wanted somebody else to fund network builds they routinely leave half finished despite billions in subsidies.

Carr, who has been trying to seed this idea in the press and policy circles for months, was back at it again last week, pointing to a new Oracle-funded study that suggests funding broadband expansion via a tax on advertising revenue:

As usual with Carr, there are a few problems here.

The study in question took a look at the FCC's USF system, which helps subsidize broadband expansion and provides some small broadband, wireless, or phone discounts (a paltry $9.25 per month, to be specific) to low income Americans. At no point does the study actually suggest companies like Google get a "free ride" on the internet. Nor does it suggest "big tech" alone is responsible for funding the program. It does recommend that taxing bloated adtech revenues in general might be a good way to shore up lagging USF contributions.

But the study also recommends several other things, like helping ensure broadband subsidies are useful by raising the FCC's current pathetic definition of broadband (25 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up) to something modern and useful, something Carr has actively opposed. Why has he opposed it? Because the telecom industry opposes it. Why does the telecom industry oppose it? Because a higher standard would reveal market failure, a lack of competition, and how that results in substandard and expensive service. It's a story as old as time at this point.

There are a few things that are true. One, the USF does need more funding. As the report notes, the flatlining level of broadband subscriber growth (because of a saturated market) means that just levying USF fees on broadband and phone lines doesn't scale with funding needs. It's not unreasonable to consider expanding the contribution base to the profit-rich adtech sector in general, but again that's just one idea of several. And Carr distorts it in strange ways that signal he's not really approaching any of this in good faith.

One, the idea that Google gets a "free ride" on the internet is a bullshit, antiquated talking point telecom giants have been pushing for years. A company like Google spends billions of dollars on their own transit, cloud, and broadband infrastructure. Hell, Google even owns its own residential ISP (Google Fiber). And as the freshly unredacted version of Epic's antitrust lawsuit against Google shows, Google has (stupidly, frankly) been paying wireless carriers billions of dollars since 2009 simply to not compete with its app store. There's no free ride with U.S. telecom. Ever. Claims to the contrary are just nonsense.

If you're familiar with telecom problems and serious about fixing them (and again, Carr is not), your first impulse should not be "make Netflix and Google throw money at it." Your first topic of discussion should be the endless tax breaks, subsidies, and regulatory favors (see: killing net neutrality) we throw at telecom giants for little to nothing.

Time after time after time entrenched telecom giants promise they'll cover the world in cheap, next-generation broadband and amazing jobs if only they get "X," be that merger approval, more subsidies, deregulation, whatever. And time after time after time those promises prove absolutely hollow. Hell, Carr and Trump's FCC majority is fresh off a scandal in which it doled out more than $9 billion dollars to companies that were gaming the entire FCC process, nabbing huge sums of money by making promises that made no coherent sense.

Carr not only doesn't bring any of that up here, he never brings it up. He always actively ignores all of telecom's warts, including the indisputable fact that U.S. broadband is heavily regionally monopolized, resulting in high prices that harm everybody, particularly low income Americans. Like Trump FCC boss Ajit Pai, he's literally incapable of acknowledging the telecom sector has any such flaws, which should set off alarm bells. If you're a telecom regulator who can't admit the telecom sector has major flaws, yet is always incessantly fixated on the flaws of companies telecom has a beef with and you don't regulate (Pai had this very same mysterious habit), I'd say that's a pretty solid warning sign you may not be operating consistently and objectively as a policymaker.

Again, I think the telecom and media (Rupert) industries have been working hard in DC for several years to exploit the recent (and usually very valid) animosity against big tech to push several agendas. One is to saddle companies whose ad revenues they covet with additional layers of obligation and regulation, while removing oversight of their own sectors (see: the elimination of media consolidation and net neutrality rules by Carr and Pai). The other is, which is a 20 year old ploy at this point, to push the idea that other companies and industries should be giving them billions in additional dollars for networks that mysteriously always wind up only half deployed.

Filed Under: advertising, big tech, brendan carr, fcc, free ride, net neutrality, tax, universal service fund
Companies: facebook, google, oracle

AT&T Gets Loyal Lawmakers To Push A Broadband Tax For 'Big Tech'

from the you're-not-helping dept

Hoping to capitalize on legitimate animosity against "big tech," AT&T lobbyists and policy makers have been busy recirculating a fifteen-year-old talking point. Namely, that big tech companies should throw billions of dollars at big telecom companies to subsidize their broadband deployments. The argument that AT&T has been pushing since 2004 or so is that since big tech companies get a "free ride" on telecom networks (which has never been true), they should pay telecom giants billions of additional dollars... just because.

The argument never made any coherent sense. Tech giants like Netflix and Google pay not only billions of dollars for bandwidth, they also spend billions of additional dollars on cloud, transit, undersea cable, CDN, and other broadband infrastructure. U.S. consumers and businesses alike also pay an arm and a leg for bandwidth courtesy of limited competition. When it comes to U.S. telecom, nobody gets a free ride.

Telecom giants like AT&T also invest billions of dollars in telecom infrastructure. But they also receive billions upon billions in taxpayer subsidies, dubious tax breaks, and regulatory favors in exchange for network upgrades that are always mysteriously half-delivered. There's not a day that goes by where some telecom company isn't getting ridiculous sums of money for projects that don't make sense or simply never get deployed. So if you were serious about reforming the FCC's USF or subsidy systems used to expand broadband access, that would be the place to start.

Instead, AT&T has asked captured regulators like FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr to push for a broadband tax on tech giants. Carr recently pushed the idea in a an editorial over in a Newsweek Op/Ed, and since then outlets from CNET to Axios have been parroting the idea as if it's a good faith effort. It's not. It's an AT&T policy and lobbying missive being dressed up as a legitimate idea by corrupt lawmakers and regulators.

Now, Senators Roger Wicker, Shelley Moore Capito, and Todd Young have introduced a doomed bit of legislation dubbed the Funding Affordable Internet with Reliable (FAIR) Contributions Act. It too suggests that "big tech" has gotten a "free ride" on US telecom networks and should be subject to a new tax to fund broadband deployments:

"For too long, Big Tech has been able to profit off of the critical infrastructure used for common day-to-day activities while not helping at a sufficient level to improve those capabilities with broadband investment in states like West Virginia. With communications platforms moving away from telephone networks toward internet heavy platforms, it’s important now more than ever that we start looking at ways that Big Tech can step up and help close the digital divide and secure true universal service for West Virginians."

Again, the gross irony here is that for the better part of twenty years, West Virginian lawmakers have been in persistent thrall to regional telecom monopoly Frontier Communications. This generally involves doing everything the telecom giant asks, then throwing billions in unaccountable subsidies at the company in exchange for jack shit. The same problem is repeating itself in most states across America. So to come out and suggest the country's broadband shortcomings are Google's, Netflix's, or Amazon's responsibility to fund and fix is fairly laughable.

Our broken and corrupt telecom regulatory approach is precisely why US broadband is so expensive, patchy, and slow by global standards. Yet you'll note that the AT&T loyal Republicans (and some Democrats) pushing this stuff never acknowledge the need for reform of the telecom industry and the subsidies we throw its direction. They're usually not even capable of acknowledging the sector has any problems.

Josh Hawley and friends have spent several years hyperventilating over "big tech monopolies" but rarely (if ever) acknowledge the problems with regional telecom or energy monopolies. They're using legitimate concerns about "big tech" to push policies of interest to "big telecom." But with very few exceptions, the modern GOP is genuinely not interested in fixing any problems. They're interested in keeping campaign contributions from the likes of Comcast and AT&T flowing. And their only interest in "big tech" is finding leverage that will force them to carry race-baiting disinformation, a cornerstone of modern GOP power.

That's not to say "big tech" doesn't have ample problems that need fixing. It's also not to say that the subsidy and FCC funding mechanisms propping up our feeble broadband efforts aren't in dire need of reform. But this "big tech gets a free ride and therefore should throw billions at the telecom industry" is not a serious argument, and anybody treating it as such hasn't been paying attention to more than fifteen years of telecom history. If you want to fix the US broadband industry and improve service the path is obvious: tackle regional monopolization and the corruption that enables and protects it.

Filed Under: big tech, brendan carr, fair share, fcc, free ride, universal service fund

AT&T Has DC Pushing The Idea That 'Big Tech' Should Give 'Big Telecom' Billions For No Coherent Reason

from the we've-been-over-this dept

Last month we noted how FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr had taken to Newsweek to dust off a fifteen year old AT&T talking point. Namely that "big tech" companies get a "free ride" on telecom networks, and, as a result, should throw billions of dollars at "big telecom" for no real reason. You'll recall it was this kind of argument that launched the net neutrality debate, when former AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre proclaimed that Google wouldn't be allowed to "ride his pipes for free." Whitacre was effectively arguing that in addition to paying him a premium for bandwidth, tech giants should pay him a troll toll. You know, just because.

Telecom lobbying and policy folks have done a great job capitalizing on the legitimate animosity over "big tech" to reseed this idea in the press using captured lawmakers and unskeptical news outlets. For example here's Axios this week parroting GOP claims that they genuinely want to address the shortfall in broadband subsidy funding by... having technology giants pay for it:

"It's just simply asking them to pay a fair share and start contributing on an equitable basis for these networks that they benefit from so tremendously," Carr told Axios."

Again, this is a self-serving 20 year old AT&T policy argument parroted by captured regulators and politicians. Namely that tech giants are mean old freeloaders, and should be throwing billions of dollars at telecom giants. Telecom giants that have long coveted Silicon Valley ad revenues, but have repeatedly proven too incompetent to develop their own modern media and advertising alternatives. So instead, they come up with creative ways to game DC's revolving door regulators and campaign cash slathered lawmakers in a bid to obtain money they legitimately believe they're "owed."

But it's all bullshit. For one, nobody gets a "free ride" when it comes to US telecom. Companies like Amazon, Google, and Netflix all pay billions of dollars in total for undersea cable runs, massive cloud storage, transit routes, and content delivery networks. Hell, Google is even a residential ISP. That's on top of the money consumers, businesses, and Silicon Valley giants pay for their own bandwidth, which in the US is often some of the highest in the developed world thanks to regional monopolization and captured regulators (precisely like those quoted in the Axios piece).

Axios, like many outlets, has also helped push the narrative that the modern GOP is genuinely interested in "antitrust reform":

"The interest in taxing Big Tech coincides with some GOP support for antitrust bills that would prevent the companies from buying up smaller rivals or favoring their own products."

I'm in the minority in thinking the GOP's support for "antitrust reform" (with a tiny few exceptions) is populist, performative bullshit. In reality, they're just generally pissed that some wealthy Californians belatedly (and sloppily) prevented them from spreading disinformation and racist dog whistles on the internet. So they're looking for any leverage over those companies they can find. They're also listening to the siren calls of AT&T and Rupert Murdoch, who want their competitors in "big tech" saddled with additional scrutiny as they successfully obliterate government oversight of their own sectors (media and telecom).

I'm not saying tech giants haven't engaged in dodgy business practices or that we don't need meaningful reform. But I am saying that a lot of corrupt, bad actors have capitalized on the public's legitimate animosity over big tech to push idiotic, self-serving ideas via corrupt lawmakers. And while the FCC's broadband subsidy (E-Rate, USF) systems do need a funding overhaul, there are plenty of ways to accomplish that that don't involve forcing Netflix to pay AT&T billions of additional dollars for no reason.

Axios doesn't bother to mention it, but the FCC's broadband subsidy programs are a broken mess that routinely dole out billions of dollars for network build-outs that make no coherent sense. We also throw billions in tax breaks, subsidies, and regulatory favors (like killing net neutrality) at companies like AT&T in exchange for jack shit. Those genuinely interested in shoring up broadband funding gaps should probably start looking at the vast, unaccountable subsidy trough that gives giants like AT&T untold billions in exchange for perpetually half-completed fiber networks.

Filed Under: brendan carr, fcc, free ride, net neutrality, networks
Companies: facebook, google

No, 'Big Tech' Should Not Give 'Big Telecom' Billions Of Dollars For No Reason

from the we've-already-been-over-this dept

A few weeks back we noted how FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr had taken to Newsweek to dust off a fifteen year old AT&T talking point. Namely that "big tech" companies get a "free ride" on telecom networks, and, as a result, should throw billions of dollars at "big telecom" for no real reason. You'll recall it was this kind of argument that launched the net neutrality debate, when former AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre proclaimed that Google wouldn't be allowed to "ride his pipes for free." Whitacre was effectively arguing that in addition to paying for bandwidth, tech giants should pay him a troll toll. You know, just because.

The claim that technology giants (or anybody, really) gets a "free ride" when it comes to US telecom is farcical. Companies like Amazon, Google, and Netflix all pay billions of dollars in total for undersea cable runs, massive cloud storage, transit routes, and content delivery networks. Hell, Google is even a residential ISP. That's on top of the money consumers, businesses, and Silicon Valley giants pay for their own bandwidth, which in the US is often some of the highest in the developed world thanks to regional monopolization and captured regulators (precisely like Carr).

Carr's right about one thing: we need to reform the USF broadband subsidy system, heavily reliant on income from dying landline phones. But he's not actually coming at the issue in good faith. He's using that need for reform to help shovel yet more unearned cash at AT&T, a company that already gleaned billions in utterly pointless tax breaks, subsidies, and regulatory favors under Carr and Donald Trump's watch.

I've covered the telecom beat for twenty years of an adult life, and know what a captured regulator looks like when I see one. But despite the fact AT&T's argument is coming out of Carr's mouth, the press somehow keeps taking Carr's point earnestly. CNET recently took him at face value last week. This week it was Bloomberg's turn to promote Carr's idea that Google, Netflix, and Amazon should throw money at companies like AT&T for no damn reason:

"The pandemic has spotlighted the need for fast internet connections for schooling, work and health care and has emerged as an area of agreement as President Joe Biden and lawmakers of both parties grope for ways to support more broadband. Carr, in an interview, said one way to do that is by getting companies such as Amazon, Google and Netflix Inc. to pay. He cited “businesses that are benefiting from the modern network and paying virtually nothing."

Bloomberg oddly doesn't even challenge this argument that Google and friends "pay virtually nothing" for bandwidth, despite the billions upon billions they pay for...bandwidth. You literally can't stumble five feet without seeing some report about a major Netflix, Google, or Amazon investment in cloud storage, transit, undersea cables, or content delivery networks. Like CNET, Bloomberg also implies that Carr is having an original thought that AT&T just happens to agree with, when the underlying argument is actually AT&T's:

"AT&T Inc., the largest U.S. phone company by revenue, perked up when Carr laid out his plan in Newsweek.

“Hard to imagine successful reform that does not include some version of this proposal,” Hank Hultquist, vice president of federal regulatory for AT&T, said in a tweet. The company has advocated for appropriations from Congress -- an idea opposed by others who fear the subsidy may fall prey to annual funding fights.

Amazing. AT&T planted a dated, dumb argument in a Newsweek article with the help of a captured regulator, then continues to get major outlets to amplify it as if they are just some objective third party. Worse, Bloomberg somehow manages to get interim FCC boss Jessica Rosenworcel to give her tacit approval to socking tech giants with arbitrary troll tolls:

"Carr in a Newsweek editorial suggested lawmakers and regulators could set fees for web companies such as Google, Facebook, Apple Inc. and even Microsoft Corp. for Xbox gaming.

The call from Carr, a Republican, has drawn interest. “It’s an intriguing idea. And we’re going to need ideas,” FCC Acting Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, told Bloomberg TV on June 11.

I know Rosenworcel is just being polite, but we just had a fifteen year fight (dubbed net neutrality) over applying arbitrary fees on websites and services, then throwing that money at telecom giants for no reason. Yes, the USF and broadband subsidy process needs reform. But that starts with fixing a broken FCC subsidy process that throws billions of dollars annually at politically powerful telecom companies that game the system. You'll notice this idea never quite crosses Carr's lips, in large part because such slush funds have historically been of immense benefit to AT&T and friends, his only real constituents.

Carr and AT&T's argument is popping up now because AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and friends want to pre-empt the Biden broadband plan (which promises to heavily fund local competitors and community broadband efforts) with their own alternative: have "big tech" throw billions at AT&T. AT&T strategy and policy folks want to exploit the justified political and public anger at big tech to seed an idea they've been pushing for literally twenty years now. That "big tech" is a bunch of mean freeloaders who should be funding telecom giants' perpetually unfinished network builds.

In reality you fix/fund US broadband infrastructure like you fund most of the rest of our neglected infrastructure: by actually taxing corporations and billionaires. You then fix the very broken (intentionally) broadband mapping and subsidy process, using that money to fund competitors that meaningfully challenge entrenched local monopolies. Said entrenched local monopolies don't want that sort of real reform, so instead we get this theater. Theater the unskeptical press then regurgitates because it apparently doesn't know how this game is played.

Filed Under: big tech, brendan carr, competition, fcc, jessica rosenworcel, subsidies, universal service fund

CNET Amplifies FCC's Carr's Attempt To Force 'Big Tech' To Pay 'Big Telecom' For No Reason

from the troll-tolls dept

So last week we noted how FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr had taken to Newsweek to dust off a fifteen year old AT&T talking point. Namely that "big tech" companies get a "free ride" on telecom networks, and, as a result, should throw billions of dollars at "big telecom" for no real reason. You'll recall it was this kind of argument that launched the net neutrality debate, when former AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre proclaimed that Google wouldn't be allowed to "ride his pipes for free." Whitacre was effectively arguing that in addition to paying for bandwidth, tech giants should pay him a troll toll, just because.

As we noted last week, this claim that technology giants (or anybody, really) gets a "free ride" when it comes to US telecom networks is laughable. Companies like Amazon, Google, and Netflix all pay billions of dollars in total for undersea cable runs, massive cloud storage, transit routes, and content delivery networks. Hell, Google is even a residential ISP. That's on top of the money consumers, businesses, and Silicon Valley giants pay for their own bandwidth, which in the US is often some of the highest in the developed world thanks to regional monopolization and captured regulators (precisely like Carr).

In reality, the argument that "big tech" gets a "free ride" has long been a flimsy proxy for telecom providers who believe it's their God-given right to get a cut of massive Silicon Valley ad revenues, even if that makes no coherent sense. It has popped up again and again for fifteen straight years, usually out of the mouths of those prodded into making it by telecom policy and lobbying organizations.

So when it popped up again last week I was fairly sure it would be ignored. Until CNET grabbed Carr's column believing it was in good faith, and amplified it to even more people:

"In a follow-up interview with CNET on Friday, Carr said companies like Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Netflix have been enjoying a free ride on the internet infrastructure, while millions of Americans have been paying what amounts to an additional tax on their telephone bills for broadband service.

"It's time for Big Tech to pay its fair share," Carr said.

CNET barely challenges Carr's assertion that these companies get a "free ride," even though you can't go five feet without running into an announcement where a company like Google is spending big bucks on telecom infrastructure. While Carr is right that the existing FCC USF and subsidization model does need fixing as contributions drop, Carr's not actually coming at this argument in good faith. If he were, he'd be able to mention in passing the billions we throw at telecom giants for fiber networks they routinely half deploy, or the countless examples of outright subsidy fraud that have plagued the telecom sector for years.

Instead the onus for funding America's unfinished broadband deployments is for whatever reason thrown at the feet of Silicon Valley, something Carr rambles on at length about, as if telecom sector monopolization/corruption and FCC incompetence is somehow Silicon Valley's fault:

"When it comes to deciding which companies should contribute to the fund and how much they should be required to pay, Carr suggests that legislators look at companies that benefit the most financially from the use of internet infrastructure.

..."For instance, Google's ad revenues -- I think those are fair game for looking at a charge to support the network," he said. "The same with Facebook or Apple's App Store, maybe even iPhone cloud services and certainly the [video] streamers."

But again, this presumes that these companies don't already pay massive amounts of money for bandwidth and telecom infrastructure. Or that telecom giants have somehow received an unfair shake, despite gleaning untold billions in tax cuts, subsidies, merger approvals, and regulatory favors in exchange for network investment and job promises that routinely never show up. CNET does at least point out this is all not new, though it's framed in the "he said, she said" view from nowhere journalistic approach that usually leaves readers wondering which side is telling the truth:

"This is an argument that large internet service providers have been pushing for years," former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said in an interview. In 2006, AT&T's former CEO Edward Whitacre was among the first to suggest publicly that companies such as Google shouldn't be given a "free ride" on his network. The comments ignited more than a decade of debate over net neutrality regulations.

CNET then proceeds to quote the telecom lobby, trotting out Rick Boucher, one time fair use champion turned AT&T lobbying and policy prop:

"Groups representing the telecommunications industry largely support Carr's proposal. The Internet Innovation Alliance, which represents AT&T along with telecom equipment makers like Alcatel Lucent, Ciena and Corning, says it makes sense. "Requiring Big Tech to help close the digital divide is an obvious and attractive solution to the Universal Service Fund (USF) crisis," former Rep. Rick Boucher, an honorary chair of the organization, said in a statement. "It makes sense for the Amazons, Googles, Apples and Facebooks of the world -- that depend upon and benefit from Americans being online -- to back efforts to achieve universal broadband. It's in their interest, as their user bases would be bolstered."

But it doesn't make sense in the broader context of the fact that US taxpayers have thrown countless billions already at telecom giants for fiber networks that mysteriously only wind up half deployed. That's not Amazon, Netflix, or Google's responsibility to fix, however much justified animosity you may have at these companies for dodgy behavior on numerous other fronts.

The story ends with Carr getting the last word about how he's just looking out for the little guy. But there's been no indication, at any point in Carr's long history of questionable claims, that this is actually true. What's more likely is that companies like AT&T, worried about the Biden broadband plan driving competition into their markets, want to capitalize on the animosity toward "big tech" by once again trotting out a lame argument that the real solution lies not in holding legislators, regulators, or telecom giants accountable for years of fraud and wasted money, but in taxing Silicon Valley. And Carr, never one to see a telecom argument he doesn't breathlessly support, was more than happy to amplify it.

Filed Under: big tech, brendan carr, fcc, free ride

Americans For Prosperity Sue Commerce Department To Find Out Who Was Influencing NTIA's Attack On Section 230

from the interesting-list dept

This is kind of fascinating. The group Americans for Prosperity have announced they've filed FOIA litigation against the Commerce Department after it has refused to respond to a FOIA request seeking communications between two former top NTIA officials that we've discussed here recently, regarding Section 230.

As background, you'll recall that after Twitter added two fact checks on Donald Trump's misleading tweets about mail-in ballots, Trump issued a bizarre executive order, demanding that (among other things) NTIA ask the FCC to reinterpret Section 230. Trump needed to order NTIA to do this because the FCC is supposed to be an independent agency and the President isn't supposed to order it to do anything. Indeed, as you'll recall, when Barrack Obama merely made a public statement about net neutrality, without directing the FCC to do anything, basically every Republican, including Donald Trump, whined that he was illegally trying to "bully' the FCC to do his bidding.

It quickly came out that two NTIA staffers were responsible for crafting the Executive Order: Adam Candeub, a long term critic of Section 230 who had just been hired to NTIA, and Nathan Simington. Candeub was later promoted to run NTIA and just this week was given a top job in the Justice Department. Simington, despite little qualifying experience, has been made an FCC Commissioner.

This was despite a separate FOIA request that revealed that Candeub and Simington, together, had emailed with a Fox News producer, asking to get Fox News host Laura Ingraham to attack Section 230 to help move the NTIA petition forward, and noting that it was important to do so to help re-elect Trump and help with down-ballot Republicans. This, of course, should be disqualifying for either of them to hold government jobs. When you get a job in the government you represent everyone and not just your own political party. You are not supposed to be using your government job to bully the media to do things for purely political reasons.

Given that, there should be tremendous interest in just who Candeub and Simington were talking to about Section 230. And Americans for Prosperity sent a FOIA request seeking exactly that information, asking for any emails between the two of them about Section 230 with a short list of known anti-Section 230 folks, including former Fox lobbyist (and the person responsible for getting FOSTA passed), Rick Lane, anti-230 FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, AT&T (a company protected by 230, but which has decided to attack the law because it hates Google), DCI Group (a famously sketchy lobbying organization) and a bunch of others.

The full complaint details what happened:

On October 26, 2020, NTIA transmitted its first interim production, which contained 128 records in 35 electronic files. Ex. 5. Thirty-five records were withheld “in part or in their entirety,” under Exemption 5, but without identifying any relevant privilege. Id. An additional eight records were “withheld in part under Exemption 6.”

In this production, one record revealed that Mr. Candeub sent an email from a government email address to his private, gmail.com email address.

On November 10, 2020, AFPF asked NTIA whether it could email the next production and when another interim or final production could be expected.

On November 11, 2020, AFPF raised concerns that the first interim production did not include any text messages or instant messages. Id. (“These should be included in ‘all communications’ as well as e-mail, hand-written notes, etc.”).

On November 16, 2020, NTIA responded that the second interim response was prepared, but the agency required an address clarification. Ex. 8. NTIA also claimed that AFPF’s “request only specified email, it did not specify text and IM. If [AFPF] would like to request text messages and IM, [it] will need to file another FOIA request for those records.”

AFPF immediately confirmed its mailing address and noted that its initial FOIA request contained “no reference to seeking only e-mail records,” as it instead mentioned “all communications.” Id. AFPF further noted that this “matches the same language in [NTIA’s] . . . clarification confirmation e-mail from September 18 . . . . Therefore, the request covers text messages and IMs.” Id. AFPF also asked how many records were left after the second batch and when AFPF could expect to receive them.

NTIA responded that it does “not have a final count or an estimate of how many records will be responsive to [AFPF’s] request. Nor d[id it] have an estimate of when this will be completed.” Id. Additionally, NTIA attempted to justify its refusal to include records beyond e-mails in a search for “all communications” by pointing to a footnote in AFPF’s request that defines the term “record.”

On November 18, 2020, NTIA transmitted its second interim production, which contained 153 records in 39 electronic files. Ex. 9. Fifty-nine records were withheld “in part or in their entirety,” under Exemption 5, but without identifying any relevant privilege. Id. An additional twenty-five records were “withheld in part under Exemption 6.” Id. Additionally, fourteen records were referred to the Department of Justice and three to the Department of Commerce “for a direct response[.]”

On December 14, 2020, AFPF emailed NTIA noting that both Mr. Candeub and Mr. Simington will reportedly be leaving the agency. Ex. 10. Given these reports, AFPF requested “that NTIA take affirmative steps to preserve all potentially responsive records, including text message records and any private email account that may contain government records.”

To date, NTIA has not provided a final determination on AFPF’s request, nor has it released another interim or final production of responsive records.

And thus, the lawsuit for failing to comply with FOIA's requirements. As with most FOIA lawsuits, the main remedy sought is having NTIA actually cough up the records requested, as required by the law. It sure would be interesting to see what's there, and why NTIA seems unwilling to obey the law and hand over those records.

Filed Under: adam candeub, brendan carr, commerce department, donald trump, executive order, fcc, foia, nathan simington, ntia, rick lane, section 230, transparency
Companies: afp, at&t, dci