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

Days After FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly Suggests Trump's Section 230 Exec Order Is Unconstitutional... His Renomination To The FCC Is Withdrawn

from the petty-shit dept

Earlier today we wrote about how Ajit Pai was pushing ahead with the Commerce Department's silly FCC petition regarding a re-interpretation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. We noted that it wouldn't actually be that hard to just say that the whole thing is unconstitutional and outside of the FCC's authority (which it is). Some people have pushed back on us saying that if Pai didn't do this, Trump would fire him and promote some Trump stan to push through whatever unconstitutional nonsense is wanted.

Well, now at least there's some evidence to suggest that Trump also views the FCC -- a supposedly "independent" agency -- as his personal speech police. Of the Republican Commissioners, Brendan Carr has been quite vocal in his Trump boot-licking, especially with regards to Section 230. He's been almost gleeful in his pronouncements about how evil "big tech" is for "censoring conservatives," and how much he wants to chip away at Section 230. Pai has been pretty much silent on the issue until the announcement today. But the other Republican Commissioner, Mike O'Rielly, has at least suggested that he recognizes the Trump executive order is garbage. Six weeks ago he said he hadn't done his homework yet, but suggested he didn't think Congress had given the FCC any authority on this matter (he's right).

Just last week, during a speech, he made it pretty clear where he stood on this issue. While first saying he wasn't necessarily referencing the Trump executive order, he said the following:

Today, I would like to address a particularly ominous development in this space. To be clear, the following critique is not in any way directed toward President Trump or those in the White House, who are fully within their rights to call for the review of any federal statute's application, the result of which would be subject to applicable statutory and constitutional guardrails. Rather, I am very troubled by certain opportunists elsewhere who claim to be the First Amendment’s biggest heroes but only come to its defense when convenient and constantly shift its meaning to fit their current political objectives. The inconsistencies and contradictions presented by such false prophets would make James Madison’s head spin, were he alive to witness them.

The First Amendment protects us from limits on speech imposed by the government—not private actors—and we should all reject demands, in the name of the First Amendment, for private actors to curate or publish speech in a certain way. Like it or not, the First Amendment’s protections apply to corporate entities, especially when they engage in editorial decision making. I shudder to think of a day in which the Fairness Doctrine could be reincarnated for the Internet, especially at the ironic behest of so-called free speech “defenders.” It is time to stop allowing purveyors of First Amendment gibberish to claim they support more speech, when their actions make clear that they would actually curtail it through government action. These individuals demean and denigrate the values of our Constitution and must be held accountable for their doublespeak and dishonesty. This institution and its members have long been unwavering in defending the First Amendment, and it is the duty of each of us to continue to uphold this precious protection.

To be clear: I agree 100% with that statement, and am glad that O'Rielly was willing to stand up on principle to defend it.

And then, today, it was announced that the White House is pulling his renomination to the FCC. In other words, the White House is being a petty asshole, again, and firing anyone for not being in lockstep with the President's ridiculous unconstitutional whims.

There was some talk last week about how Senator James Inhofe's office was blocking O'Rielly's renomination over a different issue: the approval of L-Band spectrum for use by Ligado (formerly LightSquared). A variety of government organizations had opposed the use of this spectrum, fearing that it might interfere with GPS systems. However, the Ligado deal was unanimously approved by all five commissioners, so it's difficult to see why O'Rielly would be singled out, other than his nomination was up. The Inhofe/Ligado thing feels like a smokescreen for the 230 issue.

The question now is whether or not O'Rielly will serve out his term, or if he'll leave now that his renomination is not being considered. One hopes that he'll at least stick it out long enough to vote down the Petition on 230. Even if he did leave, it's unclear if a new Commissioner would get through any confirmation process prior to the election. Either way, at least it's nice to see one Republican Commissioner willing to stand up to Trump. We've criticized O'Rielly plenty of times in the past, but at least he's not taking the path of Carr (and even Pai) in dealing with this nonsense.

Filed Under: 5g, donald trump, fcc, free speech, gps, james inhofe, mike o'rielly, networks, renomination, section 230, speech police
Companies: ligado

Netflix, Disney Throttle Video Streams In Europe To Handle COVID-19 Internet Strain

from the throttle-me dept

Netflix, Disney, YouTube, and Instagram have all announced they're temporarily throttling their video streams in Europe to help mitigate the bandwidth strain created by COVID-19, as millions hunker down to slow the spread of the pandemic. In a blog post, Netflix stated the company was throttling back the streaming quality of its titles by around 25% for 30 days after European regulators asked the company to do so to handle the pandemic-driven bandwidth surge:

"We immediately developed, tested and deployed a way to reduce Netflix’s traffic on these networks by 25% - starting with Italy and Spain, which were experiencing the biggest impact. Within 48 hours, we’d hit that goal and we’re now deploying this across the rest of Europe and the UK."

Netflix had already integrated settings that let users on slower or capped broadband plans manage their bit rate and stream quality. According to the company, the impact on visual quality should be minor (for everybody but videophiles, anyway):

"In normal circumstances, we have many (sometimes dozens) of different streams for a single title within each resolution. In Europe, for the next 30 days, within each category we’ve simply removed the highest bandwidth streams. If you are particularly tuned into video quality you may notice a very slight decrease in quality within each resolution. But you will still get the video quality you paid for."

So far, Netflix has yet to indicate that similar measures will be coming to the United States, though it's certainly possible as more and more locations engage in everything from voluntary self-quarantines to mandatory shelter in place requirements. Disney's Disney+ service, which launches across Europe on Tuesday, will similarly incorporate a bitrate throttling scheme for the foreseeable future. The company's launch of Disney+ in France has been delayed until April 7 at the request of the French government.

Many telecom executives and experts I've spoken to about the strain COVID-19 will place on U.S. networks have remained largely optimistic the U.S. internet will be able to handle the load, though many are quick to point out that it's hard to make predictions given the unprecedented nature of the pandemic--and the US' historic inability to craft accurate broadband speed and availability maps:

"Blair Levin was a former FCC chief of staff and co-author of the agency’s 2010 “National Broadband Plan."...

“I don't think anyone knows,” Levin said. “First, the FCC has done such a poor job of collecting data that we don't know where we are on many points. Second, we really don't know how much bigger the bandwidth demands will be. So this situation will be a stress test and show us where we are strong and where we are weak."

Most of those weaknesses shouldn't be particularly surprising for Techdirt readers. The central transit core of the US internet shouldn't have problems; it's the spotty, expensive, and slow "last mile" where a lot of headaches will pop up. US telcos, who've neglected their infrastructure for years, have refused to upgrade (or in some instances even repair) the nation's aging DSL lines. As entire families attempt to use sluggish era-2003 speeds to teleconference and stream video, games, and music, problems will inevitably arise (especially on the upstream side). VPNs could also be another congestion point.

But the biggest problem remains affordability and availability. For years, arguments that broadband should be seen as an essential utility were brushed aside, and now the "digital divide" could easily become a matter of life and death. Some 44 million Americans can't get any kind of broadband whatsoever, and thanks to limited U.S. competition (especially at faster speeds), many more can't afford a decent connection. This patchy, expensive, barely competitive nature of US telecom networks is something the industry's biggest players have lobbied to perpetuate for years, and now the check is likely coming due for many.

Filed Under: bandwidth, covid-19, europe, networks, streaming, throttling, video streams
Companies: disney, instagram, netflix, youtube

Data From Italy, China Suggests The US Internet Isn't Likely To Choke On COVID-19 Broadband Usage Spike

from the spiking-demand dept

As millions of Americans begin to work and learn from home in a bid to slow the spread of COVID-19, America's patchy and expensive broadband networks are likely to get a workout. To be clear, the shift will certainly highlight the broken US telecom market, at least in terms of patchy availability, limited competition, and high prices. But most experts say US networks should be able to shoulder the load without too much difficulty.

As of last week, giants like AT&T and Verizon say they hadn't seen a massive surge in internet usage yet, and insisted they'd be able to shoulder any load once usage ramps up further:

"Verizon, which runs both wired and wireless networks, said it had not seen a "measurable increase in data usage" since the outbreak but that it was prepared to handle potential increases. “Verizon operates its networks every day as though it’s a snow day," Kyle Malady, Verizon’s chief technology officer, said in a statement. "While it is not clear yet how having millions of additional people working from home will impact usage patterns, we are ready to address changes in demand, if needed."

Most ISPs have taken numerous measures to make sure users can remain online, such as waiving all late fees and promising not to kick people offline if they can't pay their bill due to Coronavirus-related difficulty. They've also indicated they're going to be eliminating all usage caps and overage fees, making it clear that such restrictions -- as countless experts had long argued -- didn't actually help them manage congestion, and were little more than a tax on captive broadband customers in uncompetitive markets.

So far, data from the US, China, and Italy would seemingly suggest that while overall speeds may slow slightly, the internet itself should be able to handle the load:

"Ookla analyzed internet performance data in China, Italy, and the US over the past several weeks. In Hubei, China, the population was locked down on Jan. 22-23, but internet speeds began to decline the week of Jan. 13. In Italy, lockdowns started on March 9, and Ookla saw notable speed declines in both the province of Lombardy and in Italy as a whole that week.

These are speed declines, though, not crashes. The networks are holding up, they're just under a bit of strain. That bodes well for US networks.

Granted, things could change substantially if supply chains and network engineer and support staffs become shorthanded. Satellite broadband (which is heavily capped and throttled) may be particularly susceptible to strain. But by and large by most indications the US internet should be able to handle the pandemic.

Filed Under: broadband, congestion, covid-19, networks

US Takes Baby Steps Toward Providing Actual Public Evidence Of Huawei Spying

from the ill-communication dept

We've noted a few times now how US claims that Huawei routinely spies on Americans haven't been supported much in the way of actual public evidence, a bit of a problem given that's the primary justification for the country's global blackballing efforts. Previous White House investigations 18 months in length couldn't find evidence of said spying, and many US companies have a history of ginning up security fears simply because they don't want to compete with cheaper Chinese kit.

The US has been making its blacklisting case for much of the last year, but had been criticized previously by Germany and the UK for being a bit light on actual evidence. That shifted slightly this week courtesy of a report in the Wall Street Journal (paywalled, here are Ars Technica and Gizmodo alternatives), which quoted US National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien as saying the US has hard evidence that Huawei has backdoor access to mobile-phone networks around the world:

"We have evidence that Huawei has the capability secretly to access sensitive and personal information in systems it maintains and sells around the world."

Again, this is a step up from previous US claims that it didn't actually need to provide public evidence to justify a massive global blackballing effort that's been debated and discussed for more than a decade:

"The US kept the intelligence highly classified until late last year, when American officials provided details to allies including the UK and Germany, according to officials from the three countries. That was a tactical turnabout by the US, which in the past had argued that it didn't need to produce hard evidence of the threat it says Huawei poses to nations' security."

US officials quoted in the piece say they've known about the backdoors "since observing it in 2009 in early 4G equipment," though officials declined to say whether the US has actually observed Huawei using this access. The Journal notes how telecom operators are required by law to build backdoors for authorities to access the networks "for lawful purposes," but they "are also required to build equipment in such a way that the manufacturer can't get access without the consent of the network operator," restrictions the US claims Huawei is violating in several countries:

"US officials say Huawei has built equipment that secretly preserves the manufacturer's ability to access networks through these interfaces without the carriers' knowledge. The officials didn't provide details of where they believe Huawei is able [to] access networks. Other manufacturers don't have the same ability, they said."

Still, some were quick to note that claims of evidence isn't the same as public evidence, while some infosec reporters lamented the report for being a bit vague:

Again, there are certainly plenty of valid security concerns about both China and Huawei. Huawei is certainly no saint, and like so many telecom giants has some truly grotesque and greasy habits. But a healthy chunk of the hand-wringing over China and Huawei is the product of competitors like Cisco, who adore over-hyping Huawei's issues in DC for competitive gain. Without public, verifiable evidence, it remains difficult to assess what percentage of the US hand-wringing is valid cybersecurity concern, and what percentage is just K Street bullshit (see: the "race to 5G").

There's also the fact that the United States continues to dole out surveillance ethics lectures despite having an abysmal track record on the subject. Recall the NSA broke into Huawei as early as 2009 to install its own backdoors, and has also been busted intercepting Cisco products in transit to embed them with surveillance tech. There was also this blockbuster Washington Post story this week highlighting how the US bought cryptography company Crypto AG, then abused that ownership for decades to weaken encryption and spy on its allies.

The US of course absolutely loves backdoors. And the US loves using companies like AT&T as an extension of its global surveillance efforts, to the point where you truly can't tell where the NSA ends and AT&T begins. But were foreign companies to then suggest that AT&T should be banned from doing business worldwide, the backlash and demands for transparent and open evidence from these exact same sources would register on the Richter scale. This "do as we say, not as we do" logic only has the effect of making it harder to take the US seriously when it suddenly expresses concern about rampant surveillance.

In short if the US truly wants to convince the world to not only ban Huawei, but to also spend the money needed to rip its equipment out of every network on Earth, (a particular issue for cash-crunched rural operators) it's going to need to provide more than some unverified claims in the Wall Street Journal.

Filed Under: china, networks, surveillance, us
Companies: huawei

FCC May Finally Act To Ease The Pain Of Stupid Cable TV Content Negotiation Blackouts

from the dig-your-own-grave dept

"The NPRM currently before the Commission undertakes a robust examination of practices used by parties in retransmission consent negotiations, as required by Congress. The goal of the proposed rulemaking is to ensure that these negotiations are conducted fairly and in a way that protects consumers."

Filed Under: blackouts, cable tv, fcc, fights, networks, retransmission, satellite tv, transmission, tv, tv content

Broadcasters And Cable Companies Trying Harder Than Ever To Annoy Paying Customers With Ugly Public Contract Disputes

from the everybody-loses dept

During the Nov. 2 premiere episode of The Walking Dead, AMC began alerting DirecTV subscribers via commercials and graphic snipes that their ability to watch cable's top series, and TV's leader among persons 18 to 49, could be compromised..."DirecTV has not engaged in meaningful negotiations with us, which leaves us to doubt whether a timely renewal is possible," (a statement declares).

Viacom has enlisted Nickelodeon’s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles to help reunite Suddenlink customers with some of the characters they might be missing since losing access to Viacom channels in early October. The turtles were scheduled to make an appearance at Capital High School’s homecoming game Friday night at University of Charleston Stadium. The move, Viacom spokesman Mark Jafar said, is intended to let area customers know the company is still thinking of them.

Filed Under: broadcasters, cable, customers, fights, networks, retransmission, tv, walking dead
Companies: amc, viacom

Stupid WiFi Hotspot Name Gets American Airlines Flight Grounded

from the because-terrorists-would-name-their-terrorist-network-something-terroristic dept

America: land of the ass coverage policy and home of "better safe than sorry." Free and brave? Not so much. If anyone wants to know if the terrorists have won, here's another one to file under "Exhibit A: Yes, At Least A Sizable Partial Victory."

When some dumbass can keep planes from flying simply by renaming a WiFi hotspot, we as a nation cannot claim to have won the War on Terror, much less to be picking up some easy points during "trash time."

An American Airlines flight from Los Angeles International Airport to London was delayed Sunday after concerns over the name of a WiFi hotspot.

A passenger saw the WiFi connection, named "Al-Quida Free Terror Nettwork," and expressed concern to a flight attendant.

Flight 136 was taken back to the gate and delayed until 1 p.m. Monday, American Airlines officials said.

Filed Under: airplanes, networks, terrorism, wifi
Companies: american airlines

Judge: The Supreme Court Has Said Aereo Must Die, So Go Die

from the bye-bye-aereo dept

To begin with, Aereo's argument suffers from the fallacy that simply because an entity performs copyrighted works in a way similar to cable systems it must then be deemed a cable system for all other purposes of the Copyright Act. The Supreme Court's opinion in Aereo III avoided any such holding.

[....]

the Supreme Court in Aereo III did not imply, much less hold, that simply because an entity performs publicly in much the same way as a CA TV system, it is necessarily a cable system entitled to a § 111 compulsory license.... Stated simply, while all cable systems may perform publicly, not all entities that perform publicly are necessarily cable systems, and nothing in the Supreme Court's opinion indicates otherwise.

Therefore, while Plaintiffs may have a viable argument that even Aereo's fully time-shifted retransmission of Plaintiffs' copyrighted works violates Plaintiffs' public performance right, the Court will not reach the issue at this preliminary stage of the litigation. Plaintiffs will be held to their earlier decision, strategic or otherwise, to seek a preliminary injunction limited in scope to enjoining retransmission of their copyrighted works while the works are still being broadcast.

Likewise, Aereo cannot limit the scope of the preliminary injunction to anything short of the complete airing of the broadcast despite its contention at oral argument that the Supreme Court intended "near-live retransmission" to mean something less than a ten-minute delay. See, e.g., 10/15/14 Tr. 27 :22-24 ("So that nothing is transmitted within ten minutes of the beginning of the program, for example. That would be one way theoretically to handle it."). The preliminary injunction that was before the Supreme Court contemplated enjoining retransmission of Plaintiffs' copyrighted works while the works are still being broadcast and that is the injunction that will issue now. The questions involving the scope of the permanent injunction that Plaintiffs seek in this litigation can be addressed quickly, and finally, by this Court in short order following the close of discovery. As a matter of sound case management, the Court declines to address the broader scope question now, before the factual record is closed, and without the benefit of fuller briefing on the matter.

Filed Under: alison nathan, cable, copyright, networks
Companies: aereo, fox