As Expected, FCC Passes Modest Privacy Rules For Broadband Providers, ISPs Act Like World Has Ended

from the just-be-a-little-transparent-dammit dept

Over the past week, we've been talking a lot about the need for more transparency and user control for privacy on the internet, so it's only fitting that the FCC has officially adopted its new privacy rules for ISPs that will require broadband providers to be much more explicit concerning what information it collects and shares with others, and provide (mostly) clear "opt-in" requirements on some of that data collection. This isn't a surprise. It was pretty clear that the FCC was going to approve these rules that it announced earlier this year. And, of course, the big broadband providers threw a giant hissy fit over these rules that just ask them to be more transparent and give users at least a little bit of control over what data is collected.

Comcast has caused these proposals "irrational" and various think tankers paid for by the broadband providers tried to tell the world that poor people benefit from a lack of privacy. And magically new studies came out claiming that broadband providers are cuddly and lovable, rather than snarfing up everyone's data.

And, of course, the various broadband providers want to blame Google for the rules, because everyone wants to blame Google for everything. The issue here is that the broadband access providers have these rules, while online service providers, like Google and Facebook do not. There are, of course, a few responses to this. The first, is that the FCC doesn't have authority over those sites, like it does have over the access providers under the Telecom Act. The second is that users are much more locked in to their broadband access provider, and there is much less competition. Switching is much more difficult. The third argument is, basically, that Google and Facebook don't have nearly the same history as the broadband access providers of really nasty privacy violations. Hell, just as these new rules were coming, Verizon was being fined for stealth zombie cookies. Finally, the simple fact is that broadband access providers have the power to spy on a lot more internet activity than Google or Facebook. Yes, those other services are in more and more places, but it's not difficult to block them. With your ISP everything goes through their pipes, and unless you carefully encrypt your traffic via a VPN, they get to see everything.

Frankly, the new rules are not that crazy and shouldn't be controversial at all. Here's how the FCC explains them: This isn't that complicated, and should move broadband providers towards being more transparent and open. And if what they're offering is truly beneficial then why should they complain about that? It's only when what they're doing is sneaky and underhanded and they know they can't convince people it's worthwhile that they might have a problem. So, yeah, guess why they were so opposed to these rules?

Filed Under: broadband, fcc, information sharing, privacy

Google Fiber Announces Layoffs & Deployment Pause, Will Likely Pivot To Wireless

from the build-it-and-they-won't-come dept

Back in August a report emerged claiming that Google Fiber executives were having some second thoughts about this whole "building a nationwide fiber network from the ground up" thing. More specifically, the report suggested that some executives were disappointed with the slow pace of digging fiber trenches, and were becoming bullish on the idea of using next-gen wireless to supplement fiber after acquiring fixed wireless provider Webpass. As such, the report said the company was pondering some staff reductions, some executive changes, and a bit of a pivot.

Fast forward to this week when Access CEO Craig Barrett posted a cheery but ambiguous blog post not only formally announcing most of these changes, but his own resignation as CEO. According to Barrett, Google will continue to serve and expand Google Fiber's existing markets (Austin, Atlanta, Charlotte, Kansas City, Nashville, Provo, Salt Lake City, and The Triangle in North Carolina), and will also build out previously-announced but not yet started efforts in Huntsville, Alabama; San Antonio, Texas; Louisville, Kentucky; and Irvine, California.

From there, the direction Google Fiber will be headed gets murky. According to Barrett, Google has paused (read: killed) potential deployments in cities where Google Fiber had been having conversations, but hadn't yet given the green light for full deployment (Portland, Chicago, Jacksonville, Los Angeles, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, San Diego, San Jose, and Tampa). Most of the layoffs will be in these cities, notes Barrett:

"For most of our “potential Fiber cities” — those where we’ve been in exploratory discussions — we’re going to pause our operations and offices while we refine our approaches. We’re ever grateful to these cities for their ongoing partnership and patience, and we’re confident we’ll have an opportunity to resume our partnership discussions once we’ve advanced our technologies and solutions. In this handful of cities that are still in an exploratory stage, and in certain related areas of our supporting operations, we’ll be reducing our employee base."

A report over at Bloomberg notes that about 9% of employees at Access (which covers multiple projects, not just Google Fiber) will be let go, which is notably fewer staff reductions than last summer's report had suggested. Bloomberg's insiders also claim that there have been some rifts among executives at Google/Alphabet/Access over whether to remain dedicated to the laborious process of fiber installations, or to pivot more completely to wireless:

"Moving into big cities was a contentious point inside Google Fiber, according to one former executive. Leaders like Barratt and Dennis Kish, who runs Google Fiber day-to-day, pushed for the big expansion. Others pushed back because of the prohibitive cost of digging up streets to lay fiber-optic cables across some of America’s busiest cities."

That there's some hesitation isn't surprising. Not only is building a fiber network from the ground up incredibly hard, expensive, and time consuming, the telecom industry is awash with deep pocketed incumbents intent on making things as difficult as possible for competitors like Google Fiber (and downright impossible for smaller ISPs). From AT&T suing cities to thwart attempts to streamline utility pole attachments, to incumbent ISPs writing awful state law prohibiting public/private partnerships, telecom can certainly be a cesspool of protectionism of the worst sort.

While these incumbent ISPs (and their armies of paid policy mouthpieces) will likely spend the next few weeks celebrating the "death of Google Fiber," there's nothing stopping the company from pivoting to next-generation wireless. Google has filed applications with the FCC to conduct trials in the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz millimeter wave bands, and is also conducting a variety of different tests in the 3.5 GHz band, the 5.8 GHz band and the 24 GHz band. That said, it certainly remains possible that at some point Google gets tired of ramming its head against VerizoCasT&T and sells the project off in a few years, leaving us with another sad historical footnote in the often pitiful national quest for something vaguely resembling broadband competition.

Filed Under: access, broadband, competition, fiber, wireless
Companies: access, alphabet, google

Netflix Urges FCC To Crack Down On Broadband Usage Caps

from the pay-more,-get-less dept

We've long pointed how how broadband usage caps (especially on fixed-line networks) are arbitrary, punitive and confusing. In addition to being totally unnecessary, broadband caps open the door to anti-competitive behavior (like zero rating a company's own content but not a competitor's). The idea that caps are necessary to manage the network has long been debunked, and even the ISPs themselves have admitted that caps have nothing to do with congestion. Broadband caps are little more than glorified price hikes on captive markets, useful to protect legacy TV revenues from streaming video.

Despite the profoundly negative impact of usage caps, most Silicon Valley companies remain mute on the subject. One of the few exceptions is Netflix, which not only has been a vocal opponent of caps, but has often taken steps to try and help consumers navigate them. Now the company is once again pushing the FCC to take action in a new filing (pdf), urging the agency to use its authority under Section 706 of the Communications Act to crack down on caps and overage fees:

Data caps (especially low data caps) and usage based pricing ("UBP") discourage a consumer's consumption of broadband, and may impede the ability of some households to watch Internet television in a manner and amount that they would like. For this reason, the Commission should hold that data caps on fixed line networks and low data caps on mobile networks may unreasonably limit television viewing and are inconsistent with Section 706.

From there, Netflix is quick to reiterate that even ISPs have admitted that caps have no actual technical purpose when it comes to managing the network:

"Data caps on fixed line networks do not appear to serve a legitimate purpose: they are an ineffective network management tool. Fixed line BIAS providers have stated that data caps on fixed line networks to not serve a traffic management function. They have been described alternatively as a way to align customers' use of the network with what they pay. As a method of price discrimination however, data caps and UBP are redundant to the speed tiers that consumers are used to. Data caps and UBP raise the cost of using the connections that consumers have paid for, making it more expensive to watch Internet television. The Commission should recognize that data caps and UBP on fixed line networks are an unnecessary constraint on advanced telecommunications capability.

Netflix (now technically the world's biggest pay TV company) notes that in addition to being unnecessary, punitive, and potentially anti-competitive, usage caps are simply confusing. The majority of consumers don't know what a gigabyte even is, and by nature will tend to pay for higher tiers of service they don't need just to avoid being penalized (something that's quite easy by ISP design). Netflix is also quick to note that even higher caps may not be sufficient as consumers slowly shift to 4K streaming (not to mention other bandwidth-intensive applications we haven't even invented yet).

The problem for Netflix (and any consumer who cares about usage caps) is that the FCC's enforcement or interest in this subject has historically been inconsistent at best. While the agency did manage to prevent Charter from imposing caps for seven years as a recent merger condition, the agency has consistently turned a blind eye while companies like AT&T and Comcast expand their own usage restrictions and overage fees. And while Comcast and AT&T may have recently raised their own caps to 1 terabyte to fend off possible regulatory action, there's no real indication that any broader FCC action is forthcoming.

While the FCC has hinted that it may include usage caps as part of a voluntary push for broadband "nutrition labels", it's not likely the commission will do much more than that (even though nobody is confirming meter accuracy). Whether it's the FCC's $300 million broadband availability map that intentionally omits price data, or the agency's failure to even mention the ISP practice of using bogus fees to covertly jack up advertised broadband rates, punishing or even highlighting the price gouging that goes on in the broadband industry on a daily basis has never been the FCC's strong suit.

Filed Under: broadband, fcc, net neutrality, usage caps
Companies: netflix

AT&T, Poster Child For Government Favoritism, Mocks Google Fiber For Government Favoritism

from the glass-mansions dept

You'd be hard pressed to find a better example of government-pampered mono/duopoly than AT&T. For years, the ISP has all but bought state laws protecting it from broadband competition. When simply buying awful state laws proves too cumbersome or obvious, it often tries to use poison pills in unrelated legislation (like traffic laws) to hinder competitors. The end result is a laundry list of states like Tennessee that remain broadband backwaters, quite by AT&T design, as the company uses state legislatures as glorified marionnettes, all marching in line to protect the status quo.

That's why it's more than a little amusing to see AT&T pen a new blog post that mocks Google Fiber's lack of progress (in part thanks to AT&T), while maligning the upstart ISP for "seeking out government favoritism at every level":

"Google Fiber will no doubt continue its broadband experiments, while coming up with excuses for its shortcomings and learning curves. It will also no doubt continue to seek favoritism from government at every level. Just last week Google Fiber threatened the Nashville City Council that it would stop its fiber build if an ordinance Google Fiber drafted wasn’t passed. Instead of playing by the same rules as everyone else building infrastructure, Google Fiber demands special treatment and indeed in some places is getting it, unfairly."

First, let's just get out of the way that the idea of AT&T, now bone-grafted to our intelligence agencies' domestic surveillance efforts, giving anybody a lecture on government favoritism deserves a major hypocrisy award.

What's AT&T actually upset about? Google Fiber has been pushing to reform utility pole attachment rules, one of several layers of regional bureaucracy telecom monopolies used to slow broadband competitors from coming to market. Google Fiber's been pushing cities like Louisville and Nashville for "one touch make ready" laws that let a single, insured contractor move any ISPs' hardware -- often reducing installation from half a year to just a month. AT&T's response? To sue cities like Louisville for overstepping their authority. Such decisions, AT&T argues, should be left up to the state regulatory bodies that AT&T all but owns.

AT&T's taking the opportunity to kick Google Fiber while it's down, the company plagued by recent rumors that it's pausing a handful of unannounced cities to consider supplementing fiber service with wireless broadband. Sources with knowledge of Google Fiber's plan tell me many of the reports about Google Fiber hitting deployment "snags" have been either overstated or in error, but the fact that Google Fiber hasn't publicly clarified its dedication to expansion suggests there likely is some possible restructuring going on as the company takes stock of its recent Webpass acquisition and eyes wireless as a way to supplement fiber.

Regardless, AT&T's blog post goes to great lengths to lecture Google Fiber about the limited impact of its gigabit fiber to the home deployments. This, despite the fact we've highlighted time and time again how AT&T's own gigabit deployments are dramatically and misleadingly overstated (something I affectionately refer to as "fiber to the press release."). Amusingly, AT&T's Joan Marsh also goes out of her way to mock Google Fiber for recently saying it might have to abandon Nashville as a launch market if AT&T and friends don't get out of the way:

"Meanwhile, without excuses or finger-pointing, and without presenting ultimatums to cities in exchange for service, AT&T continues to deploy fiber and to connect our customers to broadband services in communities across the country. Welcome to the broadband network business, Google Fiber. We’ll be watching your next move from our rear view mirror. Oh, and pardon our dust."

Right, like that time AT&T falsely threatened to withhold all fiber deployments if the government passed net neutrality rules?

There are plenty of things AT&T is perfectly suited to give lectures on. How to buy state legislatures and laws? Sure. How to help government tap dance around the law to spy on Americans? Yup. How to turn the other cheek while scammers rip off your customers and the hearing impaired? Sure tootin'. But AT&T giving lectures on government favoritism, integrity and level playing fields is kind of like receiving lectures on halitosis from twelve-day-old road kill.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, favoritism, google fiber, lobbying
Companies: at&t, google

FCC Gives Up On Municipal Broadband Fight

from the knocked-out-in-the-first-round dept

While over-shadowed by the net neutrality vote the same day, the FCC's decision last year to protect municipal broadband was potentially more important. For more than fifteen years incumbent ISPs have quite literally been allowed to buy state laws that hinder communities from improving their broadband networks, or even in some instances from striking public/private partnerships with the likes of Google Fiber. These protectionist laws, passed in nineteen different states, are a huge reason why you currently only have the choice of one shitty cable provider and one shitty telco for broadband service (if you're lucky).

The FCC originally believed it could use its Congressional mandate to ensure "even and timely broadband deployment" to strike down the most restrictive portions of these laws. But as we noted earlier this month, an appeals court ruled that the FCC doesn't have this authority under Section 706 of the Communications Act. And in speaking with the New York Times this week, the agency stated for the first time publicly that this is a fight it won't be pursuing further:

"The F.C.C. does not plan to appeal the federal court’s decision “after determining that doing so would not be the best use of commission resources,” Mark Wigfield, a spokesman for the agency, said in a statement. That means municipalities that want to keep expanding their municipal broadband networks will have to fight to overturn state laws on their own."

Easier said than done. Telecom incumbents, like so many large players, have an absolute chokehold over state legislatures. So much so that ISPs like AT&T continue to have success passing new laws of this type despite growing, significant bipartisan public opposition to them. For years ISPs quickly passed these laws by framing this as a partisan issue of government "competing with the free market." But as Comcast and AT&T consumers get an ongoing master class in how broken and not free the telecom market is, members of both parties have grown increasingly hostile toward protectionism of this type.

What happens now? In a statement (pdf), FCC boss Tom Wheeler proclaimed that he would happy to testify on the behalf of municipal broadband ISPs and their supporters, should they try to push this issue further:

"Should states seek to repeal their anti-competitive broadband statutes, I will be happy to testify on behalf of better broadband and consumer choice. Should states seek to limit the right of people to act for better broadband, I will be happy to testify on behalf of consumer choice."

Some members of Congress are pushing a law that would repeal state laws that curtail local broadband rights, but it has virtually no chance of passing in a Senate equally beholden to AT&T, Charter, Verizon and Comcast campaign contributions. A group of 42 mayors and local government officials have also fired off a letter (pdf) to muni-broadband deployments in North Carolina and Tennessee, expressing "solidarity" in the face of the FCC's court loss:

"While our paths vary, we are united by our commitment to competition and the right of self-determination for all our communities, free from interference," states the letter. "The recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was a disappointing reminder that the ability of local communities to make our own internet decisions remains at risk."

So despite the court loss, there is a critical mass of people, activists, and small providers trying to do something about ISPs writing protectionist state law. But without some federal help and laser-like focus, their ability to magically fix the pay-to-play state legislative process remains a tall order.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, fcc, muni broadband, municipal broadband