WASHINGTON, January 21, 2010 – The Federal Communications Commission in a Tuesday workshop explored consumer choice, user control of their online experience and the importance of transparency.
The agency’s fourth Open Internet Workshop on Consumers, Transparency and the Open Internet focused on the sixth principle of network neutrality – transparency.
That principle states: “subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband internet access service must disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this part.”
In opening remarks, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said that the sixth principle was most important because it provides consumers with the most information possible to make the best decisions and it also reduces government involvement in dispute by creating direct access to more publicly available information.
“When we talk about internet consumer and users, we mean not only an individual consumer subscribing to a fixed or mobile broadband service, but also an engineer in a garage or at a start up company who is developing and deploying a new application over the internet,” Genachowski said.
Approximately 120,000 people and organizations submitted filings on FCC’s notice of a proposed rulemaking on its “open Internet” policy.
Workshop moderators – Joel Gurin, the FCC’s head of its Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau, and Julius Knapp chief of the agency’s Office of Engineering and Technology – framed the discussion by asking about the kind of information consumers might need about network management practices, tools they have, how to present the information and the appropriate role for the public in disclosing policies and practices.
A commenter said: “A large and diverse group believe that transparency can go far to preserve the Internet’s openness.” He commended the variety of stakeholders that weighed in with positive comments on transparency and highlighted the constructive joint filing of Google and Verizon.
Agency Commissioner Michael Copps said he was happy to see that the FCC was returning to its role as a consumer protection agency.
Commissioner Mignon Clyburn asked whether service providers are providing consumers with services and plans most beneficial to them. She was not convinced that consumers as well as content and application developers receive the information they need. She brought up concerns of actual speeds being a fraction of advertised speeds and service providers not disclosing when they block IT traffic.
“Once there is disclosure of all plans and services only then can there be a thriving market place,” she said.
Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker said that “while there was divergence in the best way to keep IT open, transparency is a path of more common ground.”
Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz described the need for FCC involvement in promoting transparency and nondiscrimination.
“Transparency and an open internet are critical for consumers and innovation,” he said, but cautioned that “absent effort by the FCC, the open internet will not be a given.”
He reiterated that transparency and disclosure will enable consumers to pick affordable technology that fits their needs.
Konrad Finkenstein from the Canadian Radio-telephone and Telecommunications Commission spoke about his experiences leading to CRTC’s decision in October to create net neutrality rules based partly on the FCC’s principles.
Finkenstein defined two separate network management practices: economic practices based on regulation of use and technical practices like deep packet inspections, or DPI.
If the CRTC receives a complaint about a service provider, it must assess it based on the following criteria:
- Is the network management technique designed to prevent a certain practice?
- Is it narrowly tailored?
- Does it cause as little harm as possible to the customer?
- Is there any less intrusive way to achieve the same result?
- The technique must be advertised 30 days in advance, and must be explained so that the average customer can understand. For example, why will it be used, when will it occur, what type of traffic is subject and how will it affect the users internet experience including the effect on speed?
If the service provider knows that the content will be degraded the company must come and get prior approval from the commission.
Finkenstein added that Canada also has required that data gained from administering a network management practice must be destroyed as soon as it is not needed to preserve customer privacy.
Sascha Meinrath, director of the Open Technologies Initiative at the New America Foundation, said that since 1995 with the onset of network privatization there has been a steady removal of information and data from the public domain.
“Data collection and transparency has disappeared…willful ignorance has led to bad policy actions and inaction…disempowered users allowed for a dysfunctional market,” he said.
He believes that the FCC has a responsibility to fix this problem and pointed the agency and others to New America’s Measurement Lab platform to deploy internet research tools.
Jay Monahan, vice president and general counsel of Vuze, said if a content provider were to block peer-to-peer traffic or label it “non time sensitive” that would seriously affect his legitimate business interests. He says that without full disclosure from providers, consumers assume that it’s his company’s fault, for example, rather than the provider’s problem.
Monahan believes that transparency must be backed by network management principles and any technique used to slow or delay network traffic must be disclosed.
Parul Desai, vice president of the Media Access Project, argued that transparency rules are necessary because disclosure of network management practices are critical for allowing users and innovators to have realistic expectations from their internet experience.
She said disclosure is necessary to determine whether a particular management practice is designed to address legitimate congestion and traffic management issues.
“We need clear and conspicuous rules,” said Desai, adding that the CRTC model for addressing consumer complaints is a good model to follow.
Ron Dicklin, co-founder and CTO of Root Wireless, said consumers make educated decisions on their wireless services. He added that most of today’s frustration is due to mismatched expectations.
Former FCC Chief Economist Gerald Faulhaber reminded the agency that the current market is consumer-centric where consumers drive decisions. He explained that consumer-centric markets have three features: competition, transparency and judicious antitrust protection.
Faulhaber added that “successful competition requires transparency from all sides of the market including ISPs, application and content providers and backbone developers.” He warned that information asymmetry could lead to potential market failure, and regulation will be required to ensure transparency if a market failure occurs.
Faulhaber defined transparency as credible information, immediately available at the time of purchase – it must be easy to understand and not buried on a web site or label. He likened the form of the information to a nutrition label or a Food and Drug Administration prescription label.
Nicholas Weaver from the International Computer Science Institute at University of California, Berkley, demonstrated the broadband survey tool Netalyzr, which aids individuals in finding out more about their network. He explained the results of his tests in Starbucks versus his test in the commission. The results tell the users about bugs, latency, bandwidth buffering and other potential issues with the network.
David Young, vice president of regulatory affairs at Verizon, agreed with other panelists that robust transparency and disclosure is essential to increase the end user’s experience.
He said Netalyzer was a great detailed tool, but simpler tools are available too. Third party evaluation that can do a side by side comparison of services would be useful, but no one has yet performed a real technical analysis.
Young suggested that the North American Network Operators Group should be tasked with creating a sounding board for the best practices when it comes to disclosure and network management. He thinks that NANOG and not the FCC should determine what is best to disclose to consumers and how to disclose it.
Network operator executive Fernando Laguarda echoed the idea that the success of the company depends on customer satisfaction. LgGuarda, a vice president with Time Warner Cable, said that Time Warner gives its customers very clear information regarding its plans, billing and termination, additionally they provide web assistance, local offices and 24 hour telephone service centers for their customers. LaGuarda does not believe that the transparency principle needs to be codified.
LaGuarda cautioned that if the agency did mandate disclosure it should allow for flexibility and give users as much information as possible.
He said there has been too much focus on disclosure instead of information to customers.
“There are unfortunate consequences if the companies make too much detail available,” he said.
Joel Kelsey, policy analyst for Consumers Union, said he was pleased with the FCC’s comprehensive approach toward improving wireline and wireless disclosure.
Kelsey said the disclosure of network management practices were particularly important in providing consumers with an accurate representation of the internet service they can expect, and in ensuring that network management practices are narrowly tailored to address a legitimate purpose and not interfere with consumer access to a best efforts network.
“As a matter of good consumer disclosure policy, the FCC should stop ISPs from describing binding terms and conditions within a multi-page legal document in eight point font,” he said.
His also stressed the need for clarity versus detail: “Clarity of information on network practices is a function of information design.”
Kelsey said consumers have the ability to learn and understand more sophisticated terms such as octane levels, caloric intake or credit scores) as soon as the government provides an industry standard and mandates consistent disclosure of information.
Kelsey ended his testimony with a couple of examples of what a government mandate for meaningful network management disclosure should look like:
1. Any limits imposed on a subscriber’s upstream or downstream traffic. This includes blocking, delaying, de-prioritzing or prioritizing, or inserting traffic into the stream;
2. Technical details of the methods used;
3. Thresholds that trigger certain network management practices, an estimate of the percentage of users affected, and the duration of the practice. Examples include time of day, network congestion levels, user bandwidth consumption;
4. Any technology that inspects the content of Internet traffic, other than the processing of basic addressing information;
5. Differences in how the network is being allocated to different uses, including “managed services”. This includes the amount of capacity dedicated to Internet traffic, and if shared capacity, how it is shared’
The panelists continued to tackled issues surrounding the concept of “transparency.”
Weaver stressed the point that there should be two levels of disclosure, “a high level and a lower level.”
Meinrath said: “Security through obscurity is a great way to undermine the security of networks.” He believes that there is almost nothing that should not be disclosed. Weaver disagreed by saying that he did not believe that ISPs should be forced to expose certain detailed algorithms and techniques.
Kelsey asked the agency to focus on disclosure, saying what is reasonable versus unreasonable network management practices could differ between wireless and wireline providers. Kelsey also agreed with the idea of having two levels of disclosure.
There was disagreement over when and if Deep Packet Inspections should be used.
Weaver said that DPI is more appropriate on some networks than on others, adding that it’s acceptable for an ISP to use DPI to cut out spam. Meinrath countered by stating that DPI is almost never a good idea, and he believes that till we can define what spam is he does not want anyone else to filter his e-mails.
Faulhaber stated that throughout the history of telecom, networks have been subject to variability. He would like to see providers release information that says “in your neighborhood, at your service tier, customers have received at least X levels of service during the busiest hours of the week.”
Dicklin and Desai liked the idea of progressive disclosure where consumers can dive into more detailed layers if they want to.
Young and Laguarda spoke for the providers and agreed on the need for collaboration to come up with a set of best practices.
Finally the panelists were asked about how they should think about wireless networks in terms of disclosure. Can the labels look the same?
Young, speaking for Verizon believed that consumer should expect similar disclosure principles for wireline and wireless. Dicklin added that there needs to be a distinction made between fixed and mobile wireless. There are different expectations from mobile.
Kelsey pointed out that some major issues with wireless providers are the blocked costs and switching fees all of which must be clearly disclosed to consumers before the purchase.
Weaver felt that when it came to wireless providers, pricing per usage should have a default total cost per month and when the ceiling is exceeded service should be cut off instead of running up the bill.
Meinrath ended by saying that consumer empowerment can only be achieved through government oversight. The oversight must include disclosure, documentation of real speeds and practices and providers must be held accountable for the information they provide.
TPRC Conference to Discuss Definition of Section 230, Broadband, Spectrum and China
Broadband Breakfast briefly breaks down the topics to be discussed at the TPRC conference.
WASHINGTON, September 17, 2021 – The TPRC research conference on communication, information, and internet policy is right around the corner and it is set to address some of the most pressing issues facing Big Tech, the telecom industry, and society at large. We cover some topics you can expect to see covered during the conference on September 22 to 24.
If the recent election cycle and the Covid-19 pandemic have taught us anything, it is that the threat of misinformation and disinformation pose a greater threat than most people could have imagined. Many social media platforms have attempted to provide their own unique content moderation solutions to combat such efforts, but thus far, none of these attempts have satisfied consumers or legislators.
While the left criticizes these companies for not going far enough to curtail harmful speech, the right argues the opposite— that social media has gone too far and censored conservative voices.
All this dissent has landed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996—once a staple in the digital landscape—in the crosshairs of both Democrats and Republicans, as companies still scramble to strike a compromise to placate both sides of the aisle.
Definition of broadband
The future of broadband classifications is another topic that will also be touched on during the conference. This topic quickly became relevant at the outset of the pandemic, as people around the country began to attend school and work virtually.
It became immediately clear that for many Americans, our infrastructure was simply insufficient to handle such stresses. Suddenly, legislators were rushing to reclassify broadband. Efforts in Washington, championed primarily by Democrats, called for broadband standards to be raised.
The Federal Communications Commission’s standing definition of 25 Megabits per second (Mbps) download and 3 Mbps upload appeared to become unpopular overnight, as calls for symmetrical service, like 100 x 100 Mbps speeds, and even gigabit speeds became a part of the conversation.
Many experts were quick to strike back, particularly those operating in the wireless community, arguing that the average consumer does not need 100 Mbps symmetrical speeds, let alone one gigabit, and such efforts only amounted to fearmongering that would hurt the deployment of broadband infrastructure to unserved communities.
These experts contend that shifting the standards would diminish the utility and viability of any technology other than fiber, as well as delaying when unserved communities (as they are currently defined) can expect to be served. Broader topics surrounding rural broadband and tech-equity will also be prominently featured—addressing many of the questions raised by Covid-19 across the last year and a half.
Future of spectrum
Finally, the quest for spectrum will be discussed at the conference.
As ubiquitous 5G technology continues to be promised by many companies in the near future, the hunt is on to secure more bandwidth to allow their devices and services to function. Of course, spectrum is a finite resource, so finding room is not always easy.
Indeed, spectrum sharing efforts have been underway for years, where incumbent users either incentivized or are compelled to make room for others in their band—just like we saw the military in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service band, and more recently between the Department of Defense and Ligado in the L band.
Even though these efforts are ongoing, there is still disagreement in the community about how, if at all, sharing spectrum will impact users in the band. While some argue that spectrum can be shared with little, if any, interference to incumbent services, others firmly reject this stance, maintaining that sharing bandwidth would be catastrophic to the services they provide.
China is also going to be a significant topic at the conference. Due to the competitive nature of the U.S.-China relationship, many regard the race to 5G as a zero-sum game, whereby China’s success is our failure.
Furthermore, security and competition concerns have led the U.S. government to institute a “rip and replace” policy across the country, through which Chinese components—particularly those from companies such as Huawei—are torn out of existing infrastructure and substituted with components from the U.S. or countries we have closer economic ties with. The conference will feature several sessions discussing these topics and more.
Broadband Breakfast on Wednesday, September 15, 2021 — A ‘Consumer Confidence’ Survey for Broadband
BroadbandNow launches a “consumer confidence” survey.
Our Broadband Breakfast Live Online events take place every Wednesday at 12 Noon ET. You can watch the September 15, 2021, event on this page. You can also PARTICIPATE in the current Broadband Breakfast Live Online event. REGISTER HERE.
Wednesday, September 15, 2021, 12 Noon ET — BroadbandNow Presents a ‘Consumer Confidence’ Survey for Broadband
As part of its efforts to provide the latest research on the social, economic and political issues contributing to the digital impact and the impact of broadband on everyday life, BroadbandNow is launching a new survey among broadband leaders enthusiasts. Think of this as a “consumer confidence” survey for broadband.
Recently, there have been many changes regarding broadband at the federal, state, local and industry levels. BroadbandNow and Broadband Breakfast aim to launch the survey at a presentation during Digital Infrastructure Investment 2021, a mini-conference at the Broadband Community Summit in Houston, Texas, from September 27-30, 2021.
Join us on September 15, 2021, for this special Broadband Breakfast Live Online preview of the survey with John Busby, Managing Director of BroadbandNow, and Drew Clark, Editor and Publisher of Broadband Breakfast.
Panelists for the event:
- John Busby, Managing Director of BroadbandNow
- John B. Horrigan, Senior Fellow, Benton Institute on Broadband & Society
- Drew Clark (moderator), Editor and Publisher of Broadband Breakfast
- “Access and Impacts: Exploring how internet access and home and online training shape people’s online behavior and perspectives about their lives,” by John Horrigan
- For BroadbandNow’s open data set on availability, affordability and speed: https://github.com/broadbandnow
- To contribute or to ask questions about the BroadbandNow survey, please reach out to firstname.lastname@example.org.
- John Busby is the Managing Director of BroadbandNow.com, where millions of consumers find and compare local internet options and independent research is published about the digital divide. Prior to BroadbandNow, John held senior leadership positions at Amazon and Marchex. John holds a Bachelor’s Degree from Northwestern University.
- John B. Horrigan, Ph.D., is Senior Fellow at the Benton Institute on Broadband & Society, with a focus on technology adoption and digital inclusion. Horrigan has served as an Associate Director for Research at the Pew Research Center and Senior Fellow at the Technology Policy Institute. During the Obama Administration, Horrigan was part the leadership team at the Federal Communications Commission for the development of the National Broadband Plan (NBP).
- Drew Clark, Editor and Publisher of Broadband Breakfast, also serves as Of Counsel to The CommLaw Group. He has helped fiber-based and fixed wireless providers negotiate telecom leases and fiber IRUs, litigate to operate in the public right of way, and argue regulatory classifications before federal and state authorities. He has also worked with cities on structuring Public-Private Partnerships for better broadband access for their communities. As a journalist, Drew brings experts and practitioners together to advance the benefits provided by broadband, and – building off his work with Broadband Census – was appointed Executive Director of the Partnership for a Connected Illinois under Gov. Pat Quinn. He is also the President of the Rural Telecommunications Congress.
BroadbandNow is a data aggregation company helping millions of consumers find and compare local internet options. BroadbandNow’s database of providers, the largest in the U.S., delivers the highest-value guides consisting of comprehensive plans, prices and ratings for thousands of internet service providers. BroadbandNow relentlessly collects and analyzes internet providers’ coverage and availability to provide the most accurate zip code search for consumers.
- Broadband Breakfast Interview with Tyler Cooper and Jenna Tanberk about Open Data Set from Broadband Now, November 20, 2020
- Broadband Breakfast Interview with BroadbandNow about Gigabit Coverage and Unreliable FCC Data, December 27, 2020
- Broadband Breakfast Interview with BroadbandNow about Lower Costs and Lower Latency, February 25, 2021
- Broadband Breakfast Interview with John Busby of BroadbandNow About FCC Data Errors, July 1, 2021
As with all Broadband Breakfast Live Online events, the FREE webcasts will take place at 12 Noon ET on Wednesday.
New Broadband Mapping Fabric Will Help Unify Geocoding Across the Broadband Industry, Experts Say
March 11, 2021 – The Federal Communications Commission’s new “fabric” for mapping broadband service across America will not only help collect more accurate data, but also unify geocoding across the broadband industry, industry experts said during a Federal Communications Bar Association webinar Thursday.
Broadband service providers are not geocoding experts, said Lynn Follansbee of US Telecom, and they don’t know where all the people are.
The new fabric dataset is going to be very useful to get a granular look at what is and what is not served and to harmonize geocoding, she said.
AT&T’s Mary Henze agreed. “We’re a broadband provider, we’re not a GIS company,” she said. Unified geocode across the whole field will help a lot to find missing spots in our service area, she said.
The new Digital Opportunity Data Collection fabric is a major shift from the current Form 477 data that the FCC collects, which has been notoriously inaccurate for years. The effort to improve broadband mapping has been ongoing for years, and in 2019 US Telecom in partnership with CostQuest and other industry partners created the fabric pilot program.
That has been instrumental in lead to the new FCC system, panelists said. It is called a “fabric” dataset because it is made up of other datasets that interlace like fabric, Follansbee explained.
The fabric brings new challenges, especially for mobile providers, said Chris Wieczorek of T-Mobile. With a whole new set of reporting criteria to fill out the fabric, it will lead to confusion for consumers, and lots of work for the new task force, he said.
Henze said that without the fabric, closing the digital divide between those with broadband internet and those without has been impossible.
Digital Opportunity Data Collection expected to help better map rural areas
The new mapping can help in rural areas where the current geolocation for a resident may be a mailbox that is several hundred feet or farther away from the actual house that needs service, Follansbee said.
Rural areas aren’t the only places that will benefit, though. It can also help in dense urban areas where vertical location in a residential building is important to getting a good connection, said Wieczorek.
The fabric will also help from a financial perspective, because of the large amount of funding going around, said Charter Communications’ Christine Sanquist. The improved mapping can help identify where best to spend that funding for federal agencies, providers, and local governments, she said.
There is now more than $10 billion in new federal funding for broadband-related projects, with the recent $3.2 billion Emergency Broadband Benefit program as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act in December 2020 and the new $7.6 Emergency Connectivity Fund part of the American Rescue Plan that President Joe Biden signed into law Thursday.
The new FCC task force for implementing the new mapping system was created in February 2021, and is being led by , led by Jean Kiddoo at the FCC. No specific dates have been set yet for getting the system operational.
- Christopher Ali: Is Broadband Like Getting Bran Flakes to the Home?
- Lack of Public Broadband Pricing Information a Cause of Digital Divide, Say Advocates
- Christopher Ali’s New Book Dissects Failures of Rural Broadband Policy and Leadership
- Washington’s Antitrust Push Could Create ‘Chilling Effect’ on Startups, Observers Say
- Apple Blacklists Fortnite, T-Mobile Expands Home Internet, Ajit Pai Reflects on Virginia’s Broadband Leadership
- Topic 4 at Digital Infrastructure Investment 2021: The Future of Shared Infrastructure
Signup for Broadband Breakfast
Broadband Roundup1 month ago
Senators Intro App Bill, Groups Drop TracFone Buy Complaint, States Want Shorter Robocall Deadline
Infrastructure4 months ago
AT&T CEO Says $60-$80 Billion in Federal Dollars Should Suffice to Bridge Digital Divide
Antitrust3 months ago
Experts Disagree Over Need, Feasibility of Global Standards for Antitrust Rules
Infrastructure2 months ago
Lumen Responds to Allegations it Underbuilds While Collecting Public Funds
#broadbandlive4 months ago
Broadband Breakfast Live Online Wednesday June 2, 2021 — Rural Roll-Ups: Has the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Accelerated Mergers & Acquisitions?
Artificial Intelligence4 months ago
Deepfakes Could Pose A Threat to National Security, But Experts Are Split On How To Handle It
Broadband Roundup1 month ago
Mapping Comment Deadline Extended, AT&T Gets Federal Contract, 5G and LTE Drive Microwave Demand
Broadband Roundup3 months ago
AT&T Labelling Over 1B Robocalls, NTIA Updates Broadband Guide, Fiber Assoc. Says Current Speeds Inadequate