Inventor Of The Cell Phone Marvels At Entirely Avoidable US Broadband Gaps

from the it-doesn't-have-to-be-this-way dept

One the one hand, you have wireless carriers telling anybody who'll listen that 5G will soon create the incredible, smart cities of tomorrow and no limit of incredible innovation. On the other hand, you have 42 million Americans without access to broadband during a plague, and tens of millions more stuck paying high prices for slow services thanks to monopolization and a lack of competition. It's a discordant reality gap that isn't lost on Martin Cooper, who invented the first cell phone (the Motorola Dynatac 8000x) in 1973. In an interview at CNET, Cooper pointed out how despite a history of innovation, the United States still somehow can't make broadband both universal and affordable, which is why 40% of US students struggle to get online:

"Just imagine what that means over the long term," he said. "That's unacceptable." Cooper said the technology exists to deliver wireless broadband to students for as little as $5 to $10 a month, and that the government needs to be more proactive in convincing carriers to offer such services.

"It's as essential as water and food," he said. "We need to have 100% accessibility to broadband services not just for students, but everyone."

Of course that's largely because we've historically viewed broadband as a luxury good that should be exploited and barely regulated, not an essential utility, overseen by the dual guiding hands of both competent regulators (what's that?) and functional competition (huh?). That's proven to be notably problematic during a pandemic, given broadband is essential not just to online learning, employment, health care, and connection, but also to even sign up to get vaccinated. As such, he's damn right we need more "innovation" in universal and affordable broadband access policy, and less hype surrounding emerging technologies like 5G.

Cooper also shared some thoughts on the fact that the nation's largest companies tend to dominate spectrum auctions, resulting in valuable spectrum being hoarded by a select number of companies that aren't always interested in equitable use of that spectrum (especially by competitors):

"There's plentiful spectrum," he said, noting that his unofficial "Cooper's Law" states that spectrum capacity doubles every two and a half years. Cooper railed against Federal Communications Commission's spectrum auctions like the one that wrapped up in late February. Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile spent $81 billion on radio airwaves for 5G services.

"Someone that has paid billions of dollars for radio airwaves would not appreciate the idea of plentiful spectrum," he said, adding that spectrum should be only allocated to companies that can deliver services that take care of human needs..."We haven't finished the internet of people yet, and the industry is already emphasizing the internet of things."

COVID-19 is placing a lot of pressure on lawmakers to finally do something about America's spotty, expensive, and sluggish broadband. But it remains a concern that all the focus will be on innovative ways to throw more subsidies at industry, and less innovation when it comes to finding ways to drive more competition to market and dismantle massive US telecom monopolies (the cause of the problem in the first place). Especially at a time when "big telecom" gets a free pass, and "big tech" is busy sucking all the policy discourse oxygen out of the room.

Filed Under: 5g, broadband, coverage, internet access, martin cooper

Verizon, NYC Settle Lawsuit Over Verizon's Empty Fiber Promises

from the day-late-dollar-short dept

Like AT&T, Frontier, and other U.S. telcos, Verizon has a long, rich history of taking tax breaks, regulatory favors, and taxpayer subsidies in exchange for networks it only half deploys. That was the case in the 90s when Verizon took a several billion tax breaks from the state of Pennsylvania in exchange for networks it never deployed. It was also the case in New York City, where Verizon was sued by the city for promising to deploy fiber universally to all five boroughs, and then, well, not doing that.

In 2017, NYC sued Verizon, stating a 2014 deal to deploy fiber to the entire city fell well short of the full goal. As some local reporters had warned at the time (and were promptly ignored), the city's deal with Verizon contained all manner of loopholes allowing Verizon to wiggle over, under and around its obligations. And wiggle Verizon did; a 2015 city report found huge gaps in deployment coverage -- particularly in many of the less affluent, outer city boroughs.

Last week during the holiday bustle the city quietly announced it had settled its lawsuit with Verizon. Under the confidential settlement, the city claims Verizon will expand fiber deployment to an additional 500,000 low income homes across the city:

"This settlement will make sure that Verizon builds out its fiber footprint more equitably throughout New York City — especially in low-income communities that have historically been underserved by internet service providers,” said DoITT Commissioner and Citywide CIO Jessica Tisch. “This agreement attacks that unfair imbalance, and recognizes that high-quality internet is a necessity, not a luxury."

The problem, as usual, will be in the follow up. The original lawsuit (pdf) stated that Verizon had deployed fiber to 2.2 million out of the city's 3.3 million residences with FiOS, despite the original 2008 agreement with the city calling for "100%" FiOS availability. An additional 500,000 deployed homes sounds good, especially during a pandemic, but it's still a far cry from the company's original promise to the city. The city likely found the lawsuit to be too costly or unwinnable, and with so much else going on, agreed to settle and at least get something for its efforts.

Granted this isn't just some one-off problem. Telecom giants are so politically powerful (on both the state and federal level) that genuine accountability for failed promises is extremely hard to come by. One simply needs to look at the long list of cities and states that have accused the company of taking subsidies and tax breaks then failing to evenly deploy fiber, whether it's Philadelphia or a huge swath of New Jersey. And again, you'll find much the same story having played out with telco giants like AT&T and Frontier Communications from Mississippi to West Virginia.

As we've noted for a long time, policymakers act as if U.S. broadband mediocrity is just something that happens or is due to America just being really, really big. In reality, the reason U.S. broadband is patchy, expensive, with atrocious customer service? Plain old state and federal corruption we often refuse to even acknowledge, much less do anything about.

Filed Under: broken promises, digital divide, fiber, fios, internet access, new york city, promises, subsidies
Companies: verizon

Pai FCC Ignored Falsely Inflated Broadband Numbers To Pat Itself On The Back

from the whoops-a-daisy dept

We've noted more than once that the Donald Trump, Ajit Pai FCC isn't much for this whole accurate data thing. This FCC can routinely be found parroting inaccurate lobbyist claims on a wide variety of subjects, whether that's the rate of recent broadband investment, or the number of people just out of reach of affordable broadband. As such, it's not uncommon to find the FCC basing policy decisions on junk data; most recently exemplified by its rubber stamping of the job and competition eroding Sprint/T-Mobile merger (which was approved before FCC staff had seen ANY data).

Last year, Pai's FCC tried to claim that the number of U.S. residents without access to fixed broadband (25Mbps downstream, 3Mbps upstream as per the FCC) dropped from 26.1 million people at the end of 2016 to 19.4 million at the end of 2017. Pai's agency attributed this improvement to the agency "removing barriers to infrastructure investment," which is code for gutting most meaningful consumer protections at lobbyist behest. But last year we noted that a good chunk of that improvement was not only thanks to policies Pai historically opposed (community fiber broadband networks and fiber build out conditions affixed to the 2015 AT&T DirecTV merger), but to administrative error.

Consumer groups also pointed out that a big reason for that shift was a major false claim on the part of a smaller ISP named BarrierFree. BarrierFree had dramatically overstated its coverage areas in Form 477 data submitted to the FCC, resulting in broadband improvement numbers overstated by millions of Americans. In a follow up report this week, the FCC quietly acknowledged that the FCC was long aware of the "mistake" but published the falsely inflated numbers anyway:

"This week, the FCC released more details on BarrierFree's apparent history of violating rules requiring ISPs to submit "Form 477" broadband-deployment data every six months, and it shows that numerous warning signs were spotted by FCC staff long before Pai touted the inaccurate data. The FCC on Tuesday issued a Notice of Apparent Liability that proposed a $163,912 fine for BarrierFree, kicking off a process that gives BarrierFree a chance to respond to the allegations and fight the proposed penalty.

The problem, of course, is that this isn't some one off. The form 477 data submitted by ISPs has long been taken at face value by the FCC; an obvious problem since ISPs have a vested interest in obscuring any broadband coverage or competition shortcomings (lest somebody try to do something about it). In addition to not really verifying submitted numbers, the FCC compounds the problem with methodology that declares an entire census block "served" with broadband if just one home in that block has service. As a result, the FCC is in no position to claim with any accuracy that it even knows where broadband is truly available, much less that unpopular efforts like the attack on net neutrality contributed to meaningful improvements.

Consumer groups say in this case, the Pai FCC once again failed to make accurate data a genuine priority, or take any real accountability for its own failure to adequately police the data reported by ISPs:

"Although the FCC is trying to fine BarrierFree for submitting inaccurate data, the commission is not penalizing the ISP for failing to submit over 10 years' worth of required Form 477 reports. "The Pai FCC slept on BarrierFree's repeated violation of FCC rules," Free Press Research Director Derek Turner told Ars, calling the FCC's attempt to downplay its own role in spreading inaccurate data "shameful."

This bunk data and willful incompetence is most easily reflected by the FCC's $300 million broadband availability map. Spend just a few minutes perusing your neighborhood and it quickly becomes apparent the FCC is not only all but hallucinating available providers and speeds, but it also refuses to even collect and share data on another telling metric: broadband prices. The end result is a broadband affordability problem we genuinely haven't yet measured, and rose-colored glasses proclamations by the Pai FCC that are based more on magical thinking than anything resembling hard data.

Filed Under: ajit pai, broadband, broadband availability, digital divide, fcc, internet access
Companies: barrierfree

Comcast Says It Will Respond To Cord Cutting In 2020 With...More Price Hikes

from the that's-not-how-this-works dept

Cord cutting continued to set records in 2019 despite years of cable and broadcast executives trying to claim the trend wasn't actually happening. Now that they're finally acknowledging the threat is real, many of these same executives are doubling down on the kind of behavior that brought them to this point in the first place.

For example, Comcast's Q4 earnings report released this week shows the company saw a 3.2% drop in traditional cable TV subscribers in 2019, double the 1.6% loss rate the company saw 2018. How does the company plan to tackle the customer exodus driven by ramped up streaming competition from the likes of Disney, Apple, and others in 2020? Why even more price hikes, of course:

Keep in mind, US consumers already pay some of the highest rates for fixed and mobile broadband in the developed world. These latest price hikes are occurring the same time Comcast's cable division CAPEX dropped 10.5% in 2019. You know, the exact opposite of what the Ajit Pai FCC promised when it obliterated FCC authority over telecom providers at lobbyist behest.

This isn't the first time Comcast has made it clear that its strategy to tackle the rise in streaming competition and fleeing users is to just double down on price hikes. Company executives have noted several times that any money they lose on television, they simply make up for on the broadband side:

"Watson added that while Comcast tries to keep customers through a variety of programming and broadband packages, but added that when a customer leaves as a result of price, the impact is actually favorable to the company. “We segment the marketplace,” Watson said, adding that when a low-end customer drops video service over price, but keeps their broadband service – at a higher monthly charge – the company makes out better.

Oddly the reason this is possible is something most analysts and trade magazines don't much like to talk about for whatever reason: Comcast's growing monopoly over broadband and its stranglehold over state and federal regulators and lawmakers.

As US telcos give up on residential broadband, they're giving giants like Comcast and Spectrum an even greater monopoly over faster broadband across massive swaths of the country. So when users in those markets cut the TV cord and move to streaming, Comcast's free to sock them with rate hikes, nonsensical fees, and bogus usage caps and overage surcharges. Because there's no competition and currently no federal regulators looking out for consumers, there's no penalty for this behavior. The telecom lobby has even tried to ban states from stepping in to fill this vacuum and protect users from monopoly harm.

While 5G is often bandied about as a free market panacea for what ails the US telecom sector (ie "we don't need to fix this problem because amazing wireless will soon arrive to save the day"), many of these same problems plague wireless as well (regulatory capture, competition eroding consolidation, regional fiber/backhaul monopolies, etc.). In short, without healthy competition or functioning regulatory oversight you shouldn't put too much stock in giants like Comcast being forced to give much of a damn anytime soon.

Filed Under: cable tv, competition, cord cutting, internet access, price hikes
Companies: comcast

RIAA Continues Its Legal War To Turn ISPs Into The Copyright Police: Sues Charter Communications

from the stepping-on-up dept

The RIAA's war to force internet access providers to become copyright cops has continued to move forward. The RIAA planned this strategy out years ago, in the wake of losing the SOPA fight. Back in 2012 we wrote about an internal plan to try to convince courts that Section 512(i) of the DMCA actually mean that ISPs had to completely kick users off the internet based solely on accusations of infringement. The end goal here is, as always with the RIAA, to get everyone else to try to police the internet.

Part of the issue here is the incredibly inartful drafting of the DMCA, that has lead to multiple lawsuits over how conflicting aspects of the law should be interpreted. The results over the last decade or so of cases tend to have the courts simply deciding in favor of the more sympathetic party, rather than with any consistency as to the law itself. So, in the Viacom/YouTube case, the court required "actual knowledge" rather than the "general knowledge" that Viacom sought. Yet, in the IsoHunt case (unsympathetic defendant), the court found "red flag" knowledge to be enough. In the first case testing the RIAA's theories on 512(i) and ISPs, against Cox, the RIAA won, but mainly due to Cox's own bad behavior (specifically: internal employees mocked and did not follow the company's own repeat infringer policy).

In the second case testing this theory, against Grande Communications, as was widely expected given an earlier magistrate judge's opinion, the court has said that Grande does not qualify for the DMCA's safe harbors, and therefore may be liable for infringement on its network. Once again, as with Cox, Grande's own actions appeared to doom its argument for safe harbors. The company admitted that it didn't actually have a repeat infringer policy. It had a stated one, but no effort was made to follow it internally -- and since 512(i) requires a "reasonably implemented" policy, the lack of any plan to implement it means... no safe harbors. As we noted when the magistrate judge recommended this finding, this does not mean that Grande automatically loses the case. The RIAA still will need to prove contributory infringement on the part of Grande, which might not be that easy since it will have to show that Grande actively induced people to infringe (as per the Supreme Court's standard in the Grokster case).

Either way, the RIAA is not waiting around and has moved on to an even bigger target: It is now suing Charter Communications on the same basic theory concerning 512(i). The record labels make some fairly bold claims about Charter in the case:

Charter is one of the largest Internet service providers (“ISPs”) in the country. It markets and sells high-speed Internet services to consumers nationwide. Through the provision of those services, Charter has knowingly contributed to, and reaped substantial profits from, massive copyright infringement committed by thousands of its subscribers, causing great harm to Plaintiffs, their recording artists and songwriters, and others whose livelihoods depend upon the lawful acquisition of music. Charter’s contribution to its subscribers’ infringement is both willful and extensive, and renders Charter equally liable. Indeed, for years, Charter deliberately refused to take reasonable measures to curb customers from using its Internet services to infringe on others’ copyrights, including Plaintiffs’ copyrights—even after Charter became aware of particular customers engaging in specific, repeated acts of infringement. Plaintiffs’ representatives (as well as others) sent hundreds of thousands of statutory infringement notices to Charter, under penalty of perjury. Those notices advised Charter of its subscribers’ blatant and systematic use of Charter’s Internet service to illegally download, copy, and distribute Plaintiffs’ copyrighted music through BitTorrent and other online file-sharing services. Rather than working with Plaintiffs to curb this massive infringement, Charter did nothing, choosing to prioritize its own profits over its legal obligations.

You may notice a key problem here -- as we've pointed out in other cases. The RIAA seems to think that mere accusations of infringement are proof of infringement, and thus should lead to people being disconnected from the internet. The RIAA also makes a real stretch of the requirement under the law for a "direct financial benefit" by claiming the following:

Charter has derived an obvious and direct financial benefit from its customers’ infringement. The unlimited ability to download and distribute Plaintiffs’ works through Charter’s service has served as a draw for Charter to attract, retain, and charge higher fees to subscribers. By failing to terminate the accounts of specific recidivist infringers known to Charter, Charter obtained a direct financial benefit from its subscribers’ continuing infringing activity.

But that's not how the "direct financial benefit" aspect works. The point of "financial benefit" in the DMCA is meant to apply to those services that get a financial benefit from the infringement itself and not just the general providing of services. Otherwise, that term is meaningless within the law -- which is exactly how the RIAA would like it to be.

Incredibly, the key bit of "evidence" that the RIAA puts forth to prove that Charter's behavior is so bad... is (and I kid you not), the fact that it advertises high speed internet. Really. In explaining why Colorado is the proper venue for the lawsuit, it focuses on the fact that Charter advertises high speed broadband there, and suggests that the only possible reason why anyone could want high speed internet access is infringement.

Moreover, Charter has engaged in substantial activities purposefully directed at Colorado from which Plaintiffs’ claims arise, including providing Internet service to Colorado subscribers who used Charter’s network to directly and repeatedly infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights; continuing to provide Internet service to, and failing to suspend or terminate the accounts of, Colorado customers, even after receiving multiple notices of their infringing activity; advertising its high-speed Internet services in Colorado to serve as a draw for subscribers who sought faster download speeds to facilitate their direct and repeated infringements...

This ignores that there are tons of other reasons why people want high speed broadband including, you know, to access licensed services for content such as Netflix and Spotify. But, hey, the complaint chooses to ignore all that and insist it must be because of infringement.

Who knows how this particular lawsuit will go. As with Cox and Grande, much may depend on Charter's internal policies and processes. However, so much of the complaint is utter bullshit. It again shows how the RIAA thinks the only reason people want to go online is to consume its content.

Of course, there's a larger issue that may come up eventually. In 2017 in the Packingham case, the Supreme Court rejected a law that would kick people off the internet, saying being completely barred from the internet is unconstitutional. If the RIAA succeeds in forcing ISPs to kick people off the internet -- without any judicial due process -- then the Supreme Court may need to step in and point out that 512(i) itself is similarly unconstitutional. The RIAA's greedy, unrealistic interpretation of the law could eventually backfire badly.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, dmca 512, internet access, isps, repeat infringer policies
Companies: charter communications, riaa

African Countries Shooting Themselves In The Digital Foot By Imposing Taxes And Levies On Internet Use

from the how-not-to-do-it dept

Techdirt has written a number of stories recently about unfortunate developments taking place in the African digital world. The Alliance for Affordable Internet (A4AI ) site has usefully pulled together what's been happening across the continent -- and it doesn't look good:

A4AI's recent mobile broadband pricing update shows that Africans face the highest cost to connect to the internet -- just 1GB of mobile data costs the average user in Africa nearly 9% of their monthly income, while their counterparts in the Asia-Pacific region pay one-fifth of that price (around 1.5% of monthly income). Despite this already high cost to connect, we're seeing a worrying trend of governments across Africa imposing a variety of taxes on some of the most popular internet applications and services.

The article goes on to list the following examples.

Uganda

imposes a daily fee of UGX 200 ($0.05) to access social media sites and many common Internet-based messaging and voice applications, as well as a tax on mobile money transactions.

Zambia

has announced it will levy a 30 ngwee ($0.03) daily tax on social network use.

Tanzania

requires bloggers to pay a government license fee roughly equivalent to the average annual income for the country.

Kenya

aims to impose additional taxation on the Internet, with proposed levies on telecommunications and on mobile money transfers.

Benin

imposed a 5 CFCA ($0.01) per megabyte fee to access social media sites, messaging, and Voice-over-IP applications, causing a 250% increase in the price for 1GB of mobile data.

The article explains that the last of these was rescinded within days because of public pressure, while Kenya's tax is currently on hold thanks to a court order. Nonetheless, there is a clear tendency among some African governments to see the Internet as a handy new source of tax income. That's clearly a very short-sighted move. At a time when the digital world in Africa is advancing rapidly, with innovation hubs and startups appearing all over the continent, making it more expensive and thus harder for ordinary people to access the Internet threatens to throttle this growth. Whatever the short-term benefits from the moves listed above, countries imposing taxes and levies of whatever kind risk cutting their citizens off from the exciting digital future being forged elsewhere in Africa. As the A4AI post rightly says:

Africa, with the largest digital divide of any geographic region, has the greatest untapped potential with regards to improving affordable access and meaningful use of the internet. With affordable internet access, African economies can grow sustainably and inclusively.

Sadly, in certain African countries, that seems unlikely to happen.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: africa, benin, censorship, fees, internet, internet access, kenya, levies, social media, tanzania, taxes, uganda, zambia

Ajit Pai's Cure For The 'Digital Divide' Looks Suspiciously Like A Giant Middle Finger

from the ill-communication dept

FCC boss Ajit Pai likes to repeatedly proclaim that one of his top priorities while chair of the FCC is to "close the digital divide." Pai, who clearly harbors post-FCC political aspirations, can often be found touring the nation's least-connected states proclaiming that he's working tirelessly to shore up broadband connectivity and competition nationwide. More often than not, Pai can be found somewhere in flyover country "highlighting how expanding high-speed internet access and closing the digital divide can create jobs and increase digital opportunity."

And that would be great... if he was doing anything to actually accomplish that goal.

While Pai's best known for ignoring the public and making shit up to dismantle net neutrality, his other policies have proven to be less sexy but just as terrible. From neutering plans to improve cable box competition to a wide variety of what are often senseless attacks on smaller competitors, most of Pai's policies are driving up costs for the rural Americans he so breathlessly pledges fealty to.

For example, a guy that's actually trying to improve competition wouldn't be taking steps to hide that lack of competition by weakening broadband availability standards. Similarly, a politician actually focused on improving broadband connectivity to rural areas wouldn't be actively dismantling programs specifically designed to accomplish that goal.

One of Pai's biggest targets has been the FCC's Lifeline program, an effort started by Reagan and expanded by Bush that long enjoyed bipartisan support until the post-truth era rolled into town. Lifeline doles out a measly $9.25 per month subsidy that low-income homes can use to help pay a tiny fraction of their wireless, phone, or broadband bills (enrolled participants have to chose one). The FCC under former FCC boss Tom Wheeler had voted to expand the service to cover broadband connections, something Pai (ever a champion to the poor) voted down.

Some of the most-frequently ignored in the battle for better connectivity are native populations and tribal areas. Under Chairman Ajit Pai's "leadership," the FCC voted 3-2 last November to eliminate a $25 additional Lifeline subsidy for low-income native populations on tribal land. As part of Pai's effort he also banned smaller mobile carriers from participating in the Lifeline program, a move opposed by even the larger companies (Verizon, AT&T) that stand to benefit.

Small wireless carriers and several tribal organizations subsequently sued the FCC (pdf) in the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, noting the FCC "failed to engage affected tribal governments" ahead of the rule changes. Tribal leaders also filed a petition (pdf) claiming Pai's multi-pronged attack on Lifeline would only make it harder to connect tribal lands to the internet:

"The Order on review adopted new restrictions on the provision of enhanced support that threaten the fundamental viability of the Lifeline program in many tribal areas. As relevant to Crow Creek’s petition, the Order would limit the availability of enhanced support to facilities-based carriers only, thereby excluding MVNOs from the tribal Lifeline program. Once the rule takes effect, MVNOs will be eligible to receive only $9.25 in support for service provided on tribal lands, an amount that the Commission already determined is woefully insufficient to ensure that low-income American Indians have access to telecommunications."

And while tribal leaders had petitioned the FCC to stay its decision pending the appeal, the FCC last week unsurprisingly rejected that request. Much like opponents of Pai's net neutrality repeal, tribal leaders say the FCC violated laws like the Administrative Procedures Act by reversing existing policy without truly consulting those impacted and without basing the decision on, you know, hard, substantive data:

"The Commission failed to engage affected tribal governments prior to adopting the MVNO exclusion as required by its own policies, the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), and laws governing the relationship between the federal government and federally recognized American Indian tribes."

That's curious for a guy that tries so hard to portray himself as a bosom buddy to marginalized communities trying to obtain affordable internet in the Comcast era. But again, it's not surprising if you watched Pai ignore the fact that a massive, bipartisan coalition of Americans telling him his net neutrality repeal was a terrible, counter-productive policy.

While the telecom industry is certainly no stranger to subsidy fraud and waste, the Lifeline program -- which you generally only qualify for if you're living near the poverty line -- has generally been agreed upon as the very least we can do to help the downtrodden get connected to the internet. Pai prattles on ad nauseum about his dedication to closing the digital divide, and so far has faced few repercussions for the fact his policies will actively make the problem worse. Especially since it couldn't be any clearer that Pai intends to do absolutely nothing about the lack of competition that sits at the heart of this dysfunction.

Filed Under: ajit pai, broadband, competition, digital divide, fcc, internet access

Comcast & The Cable Industry Greets The New Year With A Flurry Of Price Increases

from the we-don't-have-to-compete,-we're-the-cable-and-broadband-industry dept

What do you do when you're faced by an existential, evolutionary shift that threatens your entire, overly-comfortable industry? Why you raise rates, of course! Comcast is one of six cable providers who have informed customers that they've raised the rates for the new year, despite the record-setting shift toward cord cutting during 2017. Everything Comcast offers is seeing price hikes of some kind, ranging from increases in the company's traditional channel bundles, a price increase for Comcast's standalone streaming platform, and even the fee charged for renting a modem (which is now $11 per month).

Comcast's even jacking up the obnoxious fees it's currently facing several lawsuits over. That includes the "Broadcast TV fee," which is simply a part of the cost of doing business (paying for content) buried below the line, letting Comcast advertise one rate -- then sock consumers with another price entirely once the bill comes due. That fee, which Comcast has insisted is just its way of "being transparent," was just $1.50 when introduced in 2013 -- and will be bumped to $8 per month in the new year:

With cord cutting setting records, why doesn't Comcast feel the need to actually adapt to changing markets? It doesn't have to. The company is securing a bigger monopoly over broadband in a growing number of markets thanks to telcos that no longer think it's worth it to upgrade aging DSL lines.

That means there are more markets than ever where if you want a decent broadband connection that meets the FCC's 25 Mbps definition of broadband, Comcast is your only option. As a result, Comcast knows that it can simply jack up the cost of broadband as well to counter any TV revenue losses without being punished by the pesky nuisance of competition. This, of course, includes Comcast's implementation of arbitrary and unnecessary usage caps and overage fees, which have proven a handy weapon in hamstringing streaming alternatives. It doesn't take an economics degree to know that when you're the only provider in a market for a product that many feel is a necessity, that prices will rise quickly.

Publicly, Comcast and other cable providers will lay the blame squarely at the feet of broadcasters, who consistently demand higher and higher rates for the same product. But that ignores the fact that Comcast is a broadcaster (NBC Universal, several regional sports networks), and is jacking up pricing on numerous services, hardware rental costs, and other products that have nothing to do with the cost of programming.

Granted, with the Trump administration laying the groundwork for gutting federal and state oversight of an already quite dysfunctional and broken cable and broadband market, you can expect a lot more where this came from over the next few years.

Filed Under: cable, competition, fcc, fees, internet access, price hikes
Companies: comcast

As Predicted, Cox's Latest Appeal Points To SCOTUS' Refusal To Disconnect Sex Offenders From Social Media

from the which-is-worse? dept

Last week the Supreme Court managed to hold its nose long enough to properly assert that banning convicted sex offenders from social media was plainly an infringement on their First Amendment rights. While much of the media coverage focused on the question of sex offenders having access to these well-trafficked websites, the real implications of the ruling were always likely to be far more reaching. We specifically pointed to the reasonable question: if sex offenders can't be blocked from internet sites due to their First Amendment rights, how can we possibly require ISPs to disconnect those accused of piracy from the internet under even the most tortured reading of 512(i) of the DMCA? In that original post, Mike wrote:

I expect that to be quoted in many other cases -- and a big one may be the ongoing attempts right now by the legacy entertainment industry to force ISPs to kick people off of their service based on accusations (not convictions) of infringement. Those cases, like this Packingham case, involve using a law to claim that people should be blocked from using the internet. And based on the quotes above, it seems quite likely that parts of the DMCA are clearly unconstitutional. The lawsuits -- mainly the BMG v. Cox ruling which is currently on appeal, and the more recent UMG v. Grande Communications (which follows the same basic outlines of the Cox case) -- involve arguing that 512(i) of the DMCA requires ISPs to kick users off their service entirely based on accusations of infringement. As we've explained, this already appears to be a twisted interpretation of 512(i), but now it appears there's a very reasonable chance that the Supreme Court could find 512(i) outright unconstitutional under the First Amendment for broadly blocking internet access in a way that harms free speech rights.

It appears we're starting down the road of finding out exactly what the court's answer to this question will be, as Cox recently filed an appeal and has now referenced the SCOTUS decision in its written arguments.

Packingham is directly relevant to what constitute ‘appropriate circumstances’ to terminate Internet access to Cox’s customers. The decision emphatically establishes the centrality of Internet access to protected First Amendment activity.

As the Court recognized, Internet sources are often ‘the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge’.

The filing goes on to note that the government is not allowed to infringe on free speech in order to prohibit unlawful speech. If ever there were an example of that very thing, it certainly would be accused pirates being disconnected from what has now been cited as a speech medium in the internet. I'm genuinely looking forward to hearing oral arguments from the legal staff of the movie and record labels that those accused of piracy, typically on flimsy at best evidence, ought to be afforded less rights than convicted sex offenders. We've seen much demonizing of the internet in general and piracy in particular, but I'm having a hard time conjuring up the images of those lawyers managing to go that far. That's an argument that's going to need to be made, however, given the contention of Cox's latest filing.

And if it offends the Constitution to cut off a portion of Internet access to convicted criminals, then the district court’s erroneous interpretation of Section 512(i) of the DMCA — which effectively invokes the state’s coercive power to require ISPs to terminate all Internet access to merely accused infringers — cannot stand.

A win for Cox would mean much for the free speech rights of everyone in regards to internet access. A loss would mean this country's court system has some seriously skewed priorities for who should and should not be allowed access to the web.

Filed Under: copyright, disconnection, dmca, first amendment, free speech, internet access, packingham, rights, scotus
Companies: bmg, cox, rightscorp