Connect with us

Big Tech

FCC Commissioner Carr Argues For Big Tech Contribution To Broadband

Brendan Carr said big tech companies have benefitted from the internet — so they should contribute.

Published

on

May 25, 2021 – Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr wrote in an op-ed in Newsweek on Monday that tech firms that benefit from the internet should contribute to it.

It is what Carr calls a fundamental rethink in the way the country finances broadband infrastructure programs and closes the digital divide, which is increasingly reliant on a broadband fund that obtains contributions from voice services.

Carr argues that Congress should seek to pass legislation that “ensures Big Tech contributes an equitable amount.” He offers a variety of revenue streams that could sufficiently provide the needed funds, including video streaming services, online advertising agencies like Google and Facebook and online gaming platforms like Microsoft’s Xbox Live gaming service.

He also believes the FCC should aim to end its tax on monthly telephone bills.

“Ending Big Tech’s free ride on the internet would represent a long-overdue return to the historic compact under which the businesses that benefit from a network pay their fair share for it,” Carr says.

“It would lower monthly bills for millions of Americans. And it would secure a funding model that can support the long-term investments needed to close the digital divide—a result that will allow businesses and consumers alike to prosper.

The debate on contribution to broadband funding

Experts have debated the merits of possible avenues for broadband funding to expand basic telecommunications services to all Americans. A recommendation that is picking up steam is to draw the funding from general taxes, which Carr calls antiquated.

A better option, he says, is to shift the costs onto private entities profiting off of the provided infrastructure, such as large technology companies.

AT&T’s assistant vice president of regulatory affairs said at a debate earlier this year that while the company prefers general taxation for broadband funding, expanding the base to include other technology companies would reduce the contribution burden on individual companies.

The present method, which draws $10 billion a year, used by the FCC to finance the Universal Service Fund — which provides money to connect Americans in un(der)connected areas like rural territories — is through telephone service providers, who either pay the amount from their own reserves or pass on the cost to customers as a line item on their monthly bill.

Revenues associated with traditional telephone services have fallen sharply from around $80 billion in the 2000s to less than 30$ billion today as more and more services, such as Facebook’s WhatsApp, are delivered over the internet. Still, the FCC relies on revenues of the shrinking market to fund its current internet projects. That contribution rate has surged above a record-setting 30 percent of voice revenues.

“This is like taxing horseshoes to pay for highways,” Carr says. “This is not sustainable; relying on this model to fund additional infrastructure would strain the system well past its breaking point.”

Shifting the Burden Away from Taxpayers

“Big Tech has been enjoying a free ride on our internet infrastructure while skipping out on the billions of dollars in costs needed to maintain and build that network.”

Imagine a business charging clientele for its services while the clients are also taxed in order to provide the physical capital needed for the business to operate. That’s how the current system of broadband deployment operates.

Carr says that 75 percent of all traffic on rural broadband networks are directed to just five companies—Netflix, YouTube, Amazon Prime, Disney+, and Microsoft. Similarly, he added, approximately 77-94 percent of total network costs are related to supporting the delivery of those streaming services.

Big Tech collects great value from these publicly provided services, having generated nearly $1 trillion in revenues in 2020 alone. It would take just 0.009 percent of that revenue to eliminate the current 30-plus percent contribution levied by the FCC on service providers, who then pass that on to consumers.

Support

In a series of tweets responding to Carr’s op-ed, the conservative think tank Free State Foundation said Carr has presented a “persuasive case” for big tech contributions. It said the old system of taxation was rationally applicable to the market 20 years ago, when these big technology companies were “infants.”

They needed protection and couldn’t be expected to front the burden of providing infrastructure themselves, the FSF said, adding that decades later, they are hardly infants anymore.

Editor’s Note: A prior version of this story stated that the Free State Foundation was a “political” think tank. Rather, Free State Foundation is a non-partisan, conservative-oriented think tank under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The story has been updated.

Reporter Tyler Perkins studied rhetoric and English literature, and also economics and mathematics, at the University of Utah. Although he grew up in and never left the West (both Oregon and Utah) until recently, he intends to study law and build a career on the East Coast. In his free time, he enjoys reading excellent literature and playing poor golf.

Section 230

Repealing Section 230 Would be Harmful to the Internet As We Know It, Experts Agree

While some advocate for a tightening of language, other experts believe Section 230 should not be touched.

Published

on

Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., speaking on the floor of the House

WASHINGTON, September 17, 2021—Republican representative from Colorado Ken Buck advocated for legislators to “tighten up” the language of Section 230 while preserving the “spirit of the internet” and enhancing competition.

There is common ground in supporting efforts to minimize speech advocating for imminent harm, said Buck, even though he noted that Republican and Democratic critics tend to approach the issue of changing Section 230 from vastly different directions

“Nobody wants a terrorist organization recruiting on the internet or an organization that is calling for violent actions to have access to Facebook,” Buck said. He followed up that statement, however, by stating that the most effective way to combat “bad speech is with good speech” and not by censoring “what one person considers bad speech.”

Antitrust not necessarily the best means to improve competition policy

For companies that are not technically in violation of antitrust policies, improving competition though other means would have to be the answer, said Buck. He pointed to Parler as a social media platform that is an appropriate alternative to Twitter.

Though some Twitter users did flock to Parler, particularly during and around the 2020 election, the newer social media company has a reputation for allowing objectionable content that would otherwise be unable to thrive on social media.

Buck also set himself apart from some of his fellow Republicans—including Donald Trump—by clarifying that he does not want to repeal Section 230.

“I think that repealing Section 230 is a mistake,” he said, “If you repeal section 230 there will be a slew of lawsuits.” Buck explained that without the protections afforded by Section 230, big companies will likely find a way to sufficiently address these lawsuits and the only entities that will be harmed will be the alternative platforms that were meant to serve as competition.

More content moderation needed

Daphne Keller of the Stanford Cyber Policy Center argued that it is in the best interest of social media platforms to enact various forms of content moderation, and address speech that may be legal but objectionable.

“If platforms just hosted everything that users wanted to say online, or even everything that’s legal to say—everything that the First Amendment permits—you would get this sort of cesspool or mosh pit of online speech that most people don’t actually want to see,” she said. “Users would run away and advertisers would run away and we wouldn’t have functioning platforms for civic discourse.”

Even companies like Parler and Gab—which pride themselves on being unyielding bastions of free speech—have begun to engage in content moderation.

“There’s not really a left right divide on whether that’s a good idea, because nobody actually wants nothing but porn and bullying and pro-anorexia content and other dangerous or garbage content all the time on the internet.”

She explained that this is a double-edged sword, because while consumers seem to value some level of moderation, companies moderating their platforms have a huge amount of influence over what their consumers see and say.

What problems do critics of Section 230 want addressed?

Internet Association President and CEO Dane Snowden stated that most of the problems surrounding the Section 230 discussion boil down to a fundamental disagreement over the problems that legislators are trying to solve.

Changing the language of Section 230 would impact not just the tech industry: “[Section 230] impacts ISPs, libraries, and universities,” he said, “Things like self-publishing, crowdsourcing, Wikipedia, how-to videos—all those things are impacted by any kind of significant neutering of Section 230.”

Section 230 was created to give users the ability and security to create content online without fear of legal reprisals, he said.

Another significant supporter of the status quo was Chamber of Progress CEO Adam Kovacevich.

“I don’t think Section 230 needs to be fixed. I think it needs [a better] publicist.” Kovacevich stated that policymakers need to gain a better appreciation for Section 230, “If you took away 230 You would have you’d give companies two bad options: either turn into Disneyland or turn into a wasteland.”

“Either turn into a very highly curated experience where only certain people have the ability to post content, or turn into a wasteland where essentially anything goes because a company fears legal liability,” Kovacevich said.

Continue Reading

Big Tech

Amy Klobuchar Reiterates Need for Funding Agencies to Handle Big Tech

‘These companies know how many resources they [agencies] have,’ Klobuchar said.

Published

on

Senator Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota

WASHINGTON, September 16, 2021 – At a virtual conference hosted by Politico on Wednesday, Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, repeated what she sees as a need to equip federal agencies with adequate resources to deal with privacy issues related to Big Tech – even as it battles on parallel issues like antitrust.

Klobuchar and Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, introduced bipartisan legislation in May that would “ensure that antitrust authorities have the resources they need to protect consumers.” The Democrats also introduced funding avenues in their reconciliation bill for the Federal Trade Commission to tackle the myriad of issues related to Big Tech, including data privacy concerns and big mergers.

“It is a major priority and has been of mine to get privacy money into the FTC,” Klobuchar said Wednesday. “That should not come at the expense of the major case they just refiled against Facebook and the antitrust work that has to be done.

Last month, the FTC, under chair Lina Khan, filed an amended complaint against Facebook for alleged anticompetitive behavior, arguing that Facebook “holds monopoly power” and engaged in “anticompetitive acquisitions.”

And earlier this month, four members of Congress asked the Department of Justice to dig into allegations that Facebook and Google colluded to ensure that neither hindered each other’s performance in the digital advertising space, which both combined dominate.

“These companies know how many resources they [agencies] have,” Klobuchar added. “We’re in a merger mania right now, both with the DOJ antitrust and the FTC. And they even in the past had to pause some of their review of mergers because of resource issues. And they can’t just take on all tech and not do anything else when it comes to antitrust, and that’s why I’m such a big believer that we must better fund that part of both of these agencies or we are going to make a mockery of our antitrust laws.”

Klobuchar also said the big technology companies have also put up resistance to calls for national privacy legislation, and only came around when the states began implementing their own rules. She noted that they don’t want a “patchwork quilt” of different laws, which would make it too complex to follow.

Klobuchar’s track record

Klobuchar has introduced, and has supported, a number of bills that would target big technology companies. In July, she introduced a bill that would remove Section 230 liability protections from social media platforms if they allow misinformation on vaccines to permeate. She also helped introduce legislation that would amend Section 230 to hold companies accountable for information on their platform that they get paid for.

Klobuchar was among three Democratic lawmakers who also introduced legislation that would ban app store operators from requiring app providers to use their in-app payment systems. That was before a U.S. district judge handed down a judgment that found Apple committed no anticompetition violations against the giant, after it banned Epic Games’ Fortnite from its app store because it circumvented the app store’s fees.

Continue Reading

Social Media

Members of Congress Request Facebook Halt ‘Instagram For Kids’ Plan Following Mental Health Research Report

Letter follows Wall Street Journal story that reports Facebook knew about mental health damage Instagram has on teens.

Published

on

WASHINGTON, September 15, 2021 – Members of Congress have sent a letter Wednesday to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg urging the company to stop its plan to launch a new platform for kids, following a report by the Wall Street Journal that cites company documents that reportedly shows the company knows its platforms harm the mental health of teens.

The letter, signed by Edward Markey, D-Massachusetts, Kathy Castor, D-Florida, and Lori Trahan, D-Massachusetts, also asks Facebook to provide answers by October 6 to questions including whether the company has, and who, reviewed the mental health research as cited in the Journal report; whether the company will agree to abandon plans to launch a new platform for children or teens; and when the company will begin studying its platforms’ impact on the kids’ mental health.

The letter also demands an update on the company’s plans for new products targeting children or teens, asks for copies of internal research regarding the mental health of this demographic, and copies of any external research the company has commissioned or accessed related to this matter.

The letter cites the Journal’s September 14 story, which reports that the company has spent the past three years conducting studies into how photo-sharing app Instagram, which Facebook owns, affects millions of young users, and found that the app is “harmful for a sizable percentage of them, most notably teenage girls.” The story uses the story of a teen who had to see a therapist due to an eating disorder due to exposure to images of other users’ bodies.

The story also cites a presentation that said teens were blaming Instagram for anxiety, depression, and the desire to kill themselves.

The head of Instagram, Adam Mosseri, told the Journal that research on mental health was valuable and that Facebook was late to realizing the drawback of connecting large swatch of people, according to the story. But he added that there’s “a lot of good that comes with what we do.”

Facebook told Congress it was planning ‘Instagram for kids’

Back in March, during a congressional hearing about Big Tech’s influence, Zuckerberg said Instagram was in the planning stages of building an “Instagram for kids.” Instagram itself does not allow kids under 13 to use the app.

On April 5, Markey, Castor and Trahan penned their names on another letter to Zuckerberg, which expressed concerns about the plan. “Children are a uniquely vulnerable population online, and images of kids are highly sensitive data,” the April letter said. “Facebook has an obligation to ensure that any new platforms or projects targeting children put those users’ welfare first, and we are skeptical that Facebook is prepared to fulfil this obligation.”

The plan was also met with opposition from the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, the Center for Humane Technology, Common Sense Media, and the Center for Digital Democracy, who said the app “preys on their fear of missing out as their ravenous desire for approval by peers exploits their developmental growth.

“The platform’s relentless focus on appearance, self-presentation, and branding presents challenges to adolescents’ privacy and well-being,” the opponents said. “Younger children are even less developmentally equipped to deal with these challenges, as they are learning to navigate social interactions, friendships, and their inner sense of strengths during this crucial window of development.”

At the March hearing, Zuckerberg, however, claimed that social apps to connect other people can have positive mental health benefits.

And then in August, Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tennessee, sent a letter to Zuckerberg asking for their research on mental health. Facebook responded without the company’s research, but said there are challenges with doing such research, the Journal said. “We are not aware of a consensus among studies or experts about how much screen time is ‘too much,’” according to the Journal, citing the response letter to the senators.

Continue Reading

Recent

Signup for Broadband Breakfast

Get twice-weekly Breakfast Media news alerts.
* = required field

Trending