Category Archives: FCC

Net neutrality 2.0: Perspectives on FCC regulation of internet service providers

By Stuart N. Brotman – The final outcome of this high-profile, high-impact proceeding will not be apparent until sometime late in 2017, at the earliest. Congress may also become more seriously involved at some point on the legislative front.

But without a doubt, as Chairman Pai noted in his Newseum speech, a “fierce debate” lies ahead for a number of months at least. And if past is prologue, the FCC may well receive an avalanche of comments in response to these proposed changes; the record in the Title II Order shows that over four million comments were filed by interested parties and the general public combined.

There will be no lack of political discourse, to be sure.

As we move into 2016, an unresolved national communications policy dilemma remains: whether the public-switched telephone network and the internet are parallel systems or parts of a larger ubiquitous network environment. Determining which characterization will be followed has profound consequences for regulatory treatment.

Given the emerging dominance of mobile over fixed service, if the FCC can’t regulate both, it may win the battle but lose the war. Given that a further appeal is likely regardless of which side prevails, including possible review by the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress may find itself re-emerging as the best source of guidance for the FCC. Legislative action can definitively clarify whether Congress intends for the telephone network and internet to be joined at the hip, or should continue to function in parallel with differing regulatory treatment. more> https://goo.gl/f4x8Uh

Related>

All The Things Wrong With the Web Today, According to its Inventor

By Joon Ian Wong – Tim Berners-Lee isn’t particularly pleased with the way things have gone with his creation.

Advertising’s pernicious effect on the news. The web is cleaving into the haves and have-nots of news readership. Wealthy readers will pay to opt out of advertising; less privileged readers will have to stick with news that’s ad-supported,

Social networks are ignoring their responsibility to the truth. Social networks absorb their users’ personal data, but wind up “disempowering” those same users by isolating them from the wider web,

Online privacy is a “human right” that’s being trampled. Government surveillance and corporate monetization of personal data threaten web users’ right to privacy. more> https://goo.gl/kqgTNp

What’s Wrong With America’s Current Approach to Cybersecurity?

By Gregory Michaelidis – Go behind the headlines of the latest megahack, and what you’ll find is a growing public-safety and national-security crisis.

We are barely discussing how to help people help themselves in the digital world, let alone do their part in protecting our major networks and critical infrastructure.

Until we embrace a vision of public cybersecurity that sees people, at all ranges of skill, as essential to our collective security, there will be no widespread cybersecurity.

Right now, America’s collective cybersecurity effort is headed toward near-certain failure for reasons within our own control. In less than a decade — thanks to the influx of dollars and high-level policy and press attention — cybersecurity has transformed what is actually a “people problem with a technology component” into its exact opposite.

Official Washington and Silicon Valley have adopted a set of faulty assumptions about cybersecurity and internalized them to such a degree it’s practically a new religion, somewhere between late-19th-century technological determinism and medieval alchemy. more> https://goo.gl/elH8r2

90 years later, the broadcast public interest standard remains ill-defined

By Jack Karsten – The public interest standard has governed broadcast radio and television since Congress passed the Radio Act of 1927. However, decades of successive court cases and updated telecommunications laws have done little to clarify what falls into the public interest.

Prior to the public interest standard, free speech advocates argued with the broadcasting industry over who should have editorial control over content. Industry groups opposed a common carrier approach that would have allowed anyone to buy airtime. The resulting compromise established a short-term renewable licensing regime, overseen by the Federal Communications Commission since 1934, which required broadcasters to act on behalf of all others who did not receive a license. Congress granted the FCC the flexibility to revise its interpretation of the public interest standard to reflect changing circumstances. Since its founding, the FCC has repeatedly refused to set forth its own concrete definition of the public interest.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 updated the 1934 Communications Act, but did not address the public interest standard beyond maintaining the status quo. more> https://goo.gl/AfmULj

The future of the open internet — and our way of life — is in your hands

By Quincy Larson – So far, the story of the internet has followed the same tragic narrative that’s befallen other information technologies over the past 160 years:

  • the telegram
  • the telephone
  • cinema
  • radio
  • television

Each of these had roughly the same story arc:

  1. Inventors discovered the technology.
  2. Hobbyists pioneered the applications of that technology, and popularized it.
  3. Corporations took notice. They commercialized the technology, refined it, and scaled it.
  4. Once the corporations were powerful enough, they tricked the government into helping them lock the technology down. They installed themselves as “natural monopolies.”
  5. After a long period of stagnation, a new technology emerged to disrupt the old one. Sometimes this would dislodging the old monopoly. But sometimes it would only further solidify them.

And right now, we’re in step 4 the open internet’s narrative. We’re surrounded by monopolies.

The problem is that we’ve been in step 4 for decades now. And there’s no step 5 in sight. The creative destruction that the Economist Joseph Schumpeter first observed in the early 1900s has yet to materialize. more> https://goo.gl/dFd7MK

Proper fiber broadband is not a waste, but you need a little socialism to do it properly

By Chris Duckett – To overcome the lust of corporations to hit the next quarterly target by squeezing the very last dollar from aging assets and instead roll out more future-proof technologies, a little government encouragement is needed in the form of monetary incentives or legislation.

There is no point in running down the path of smart infrastructure and digital interactions with authorities if the rural section of the community is stuck on outmoded systems, and governments can also enforce another important aspect to dealing with broadband on a societal level: Universality.

Broadband is a paradoxical beast once baseline speeds in double digits are attained as the benefits it can provide to society become proportional to the difficulty in reaching them, and this inversely impacts profitability.

Consequently, users end up in a situation where those who need it most often have to go without, or live with poor connections because it doesn’t make economic sense to service them. Private companies will not willingly enter regional areas, because even if there is a very slim profit margin, it could take decades before the investment paid for itself. more> https://goo.gl/wZTkjB

Only governments can safeguard the openness of the internet

By Rufus Pollock – On 6 October 1536, in the prison yard of Vilvoorde castle near modern-day Brussels, a man named William Tyndale was strangled then burnt at the stake. His crime? To translate the Latin Bible into English, his native tongue.

A priest and scholar, Tyndale was an information freedom-fighter, whose mission was to open up the scripture for ordinary men and women.

The internet’s low-cost transmission can just as easily create information empires and robber barons as it can digital democracy and information equality. The growing value of being able to mine and manipulate huge data-sets, to generate predictions about consumers’ behaviour and desires, creates a self-reinforcing spiral of network effects. Data begets more data, locked down behind each company’s walls where their proprietary algorithms can exploit it for profit.

But in an alternative, more open world, how would we pay to create information in the first place? After all, it costs real money and real resources to make new software, movies or drugs.

What matters is who owns information, not just the infrastructure by which it is distributed. Digital technology must be combined with concrete actions that protect openness across the spectrum, from maps to medicines, from software to schools.

Better that we do it through public institutions, instead of relying on mavericks and martyrs. more> https://goo.gl/hBYcS6

Why Depth Sensing Will Proliferate

By Jeff Bier – When we think about embedded vision (or, more generically, computer vision), we typically think about algorithms for identifying objects: a car, a curb, a pedestrian, etc. And, to be sure, identifying objects is an important part of visual intelligence. But it’s only one part.

Particularly for devices that interact with the physical world, it’s important to know not only what objects are in the vicinity, but also where they are.

Knowing where things are enables a camera to focus on faces when taking a photo, a vacuum cleaning robot to avoid getting wedged under the sofa, and a factory robot to safely collaborate with humans. Similarly, it’s often useful to know the size and shape of objects – for example, to enable a robot to grasp them.

Historically, depth sensors have been bulky and expensive, like the LiDAR sensors seen on top of Google’s self-driving car prototypes. But this is changing fast. The first version of the Microsoft Kinect, introduced in 2010, showed that it was possible – and useful – to incorporate depth sensing into a consumer product.

Since then, many companies have made enormous investments to create depth sensors that are more accurate, smaller, less expensive and less power hungry. Other companies (such as Google with Project Tango and Intel with RealSense) have invested in algorithms and software to turn raw depth sensor data into data that applications can use. And application developers are finding lots of ways to use this data. more> https://goo.gl/AhMCOe

A neat trick that makes political ads more effective

By Meredith McGehee – Why do supporters go to the trouble of creating innocuous-sounding groups that fund all the ads? Because it works.

Viewers are more likely to be persuaded by political TV ads, several recent studies reveal, when the groups behind them are undisclosed. The studies help explain why ads by secret independent groups have become the vehicle of choice in the 2016 presidential election.

Recognizing that it makes a big difference when a viewer or listener knows the actual sponsor behind an ad can help build a strong case for why the Federal Communications Commission needs to enforce on-air sponsorship requirements.

Even in the age of social media, television continues to stand out as “the most influential medium when it comes to voting behavior among all age groups and political affiliations,” according to a new study. So U.S. voters need to know who is behind the political ads broadcast on television. more> http://goo.gl/4L2t1O

“Nailing Jell-O To The Wall”: How China Shut Down The Open Internet

By Steven Melendez – Not so long ago, techno-utopians and mainstream politicians agreed that trying to censor the Internet was essentially impossible.

China’s government, in particular, realized early on that the Internet was both vital to the country’s economic growth—and a threat to the stability of the Communist regime, says Adam Segal, director of the digital and cyberspace policy program at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“Once you actually instill a bit of uncertainty in users, they begin to self-censor,” Segal says.

“I just think a lot of people really thought about the implications of technology but didn’t really think about how all of these things are still rooted in a place and [there’s still] a jurisdiction and sovereignty over them,” he says.

“Companies still had people that could be arrested, and users still could be arrested.” more> http://goo.gl/oPr9s9