Tag: "ajit pai"

FCC Says Broadband Being Deployed on a Timely Basis, It’s Just Not Sure Where

Posted April 27, 2020 by Katie Kienbaum

The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the yawning gaps in broadband access throughout the country. Yet the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in its 2020 Broadband Deployment Report released on April 24, found that “advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed on a reasonable and timely basis,” in effect turning a blind eye to the students parked outside libraries to access Wi-Fi, housebound seniors cut off from telehealth services, and struggling businesses left behind by the economy’s move online.

The agency came to this conclusion despite years of concern over how the FCC’s flawed data collection method systematically overstates broadband coverage. “We need to do a better job collecting data,” FCC Chairman Ajit Pai admitted nearly three years ago, adding, “It’s often said that you can’t manage what you can’t measure.”

2020 Report Lacks 20/20 Vision

Every year, the FCC must report on the expansion of Internet access in the country and determine whether broadband is being deployed in a “reasonable and timely fashion.”

In this year’s report, the FCC said, “Given the compelling evidence before us, we find for the third consecutive year that advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed on a reasonable and timely basis.” As support, the FCC noted:

The number of Americans lacking access to fixed terrestrial broadband service at 25/3 Mbps continues to decline, going down by more than 14 percent in 2018 . . . The vast majority of Americans — surpassing 85 percent — now have access to fixed terrestrial broadband service at 250/25.

This is a bold claim, considering the FCC has a tenuous understanding of where broadband is actually available. Everyone, from Congress and state governments to FCC commissioners themselves, agrees that the agency’s current method of collecting coverage information, Form 477, routinely exaggerates broadband availability. Since access is reported by census block, an entire block is considered served if only one house has Internet access. Furthermore, companies self-report the data with limited oversight, which lets providers...

Top Experts Sound Off on Sprint and T-Mobile Merger - Community Broadband Bits Podcast 366

Posted July 23, 2019 by lgonzalez

The Sprint / T-Mobile merger has been in process for about a year now, with a series of odd, dramatic twists and turns. Recently, a group of state attorneys general sued to stop the transaction. This week, Christopher talks with telecom policy experts Gigi Sohn and Blair Levin to get their takes on the whole affair.

We originally recorded the interviews for the Institute for Local Self-Reliance’s Building Local Power podcast, but decided that we needed to share them with the Community Broadband Bits audience. Gigi Sohn is a Distinguished Fellow at the Georgetown Law Institute for Technology Law & Policy and Blair Levin is a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute. Both have been on the show before. You'll also hear Hibba Meraay, our Communications Manager, give Christopher a hand.

During their conversation, Christopher and his guests discuss how the T-Mobile and Sprint merger will likely end in higher rates, affecting low-income subscribers the most. They talk about the history of the companies' roles in the industry and how this merger, if it goes through, will shift the field. They also look back on precedent that provides a guidepost for blocking this merger, and compare the attitudes Wall Street and Washington take toward mergers.

You can download the report mentioned in the podcast, Cooperatives Fiberize Rural America: A Trusted Model for the Internet Era [PDF], here.

We want your feedback and suggestions for the show-please e-mail us or leave a comment below.

This show is 50 minutes long and can be played on this...

A Holiday Favorite: The Grinch Who Stole Network Neutrality

Posted December 21, 2018 by lgonzalez

As our readers begin their holiday celebrations, some may remember our spin on the classic Christmas tale, "How The Grinch Stole Christmas" by Dr. Seuss. Although several states have passed or are considering legislation to combat Grinchy-Pai and the other FCC Commissioners who erroneously repealed federal network neutrality protections in 2017, their decision has still left millions unprotected.

We decided to share the poem again this year in the hopes that, perhaps, it will be the last time! Enjoy!

The Grinch Who Stole Network Neutrality

A holiday poem in the style of "How The Grinch Stole Christmas" by Dr. Seuss.

Every American online liked network neutrality a lot

But the FCC’s Grinchy Pai, former lawyer for Verizon, did not!

Pai hated net neutrality! He despised it, he dreaded it!

And on December 14th, he and his cronies, they shredded it.

It could be, perhaps, that he wanted more dough.

ISPs could make more with lanes fast and lanes slow.

But whatever the reason, cash or prestige,

His choice pissed off subscribers by many degrees.

Americans cried out in anger and dismay!

“We like net neutrality! Don’t take it away!”

“It’s good for free speech and new businesses too! Selling, reporting, and artistic debut!

We need it for school kids who have tests to take.

We need it for far away doctors with prognoses to make.

We need it so businesses can hit the ground running.

We need it for working from home, for homework, for funning.

We need it to save money. To get good Internet service.

We don’t want ISPs to decide what to serve us.”

“You have market protection,” he said with a snort.

But ILSR elves proved there was nothing of the sort.

The elves showed very little, ...

Worth Reading: FCC Worsens Digital Divide

Posted October 5, 2018 by lgonzalez

For all their attempts to tout their accomplishments, the current FCC under Chairman Ajit Pai is failing miserably at the their promise to shrink the digital divide in America. In a recent commentary in The Hill, policy and program manager for Next Century Cities Cat Blake explains how, rather than reducing the gap between Internet haves and have-nots, policy changes under the new administration is making the problem worse. Cat offers a few specific examples of policies and actions taken by the current FCC that have not only aggravated the problem of digital inclusion, but masked the realities of its severity.

Lifeline Under Attack

The federal Lifeline Program offers subsidies for phone and Internet access connections for low-income folks. Blake writes that this tool, one of the most effective in allowing people to obtain access to the Internet, is one of Pai’s targets — a big target:

Pai’s proposed changes would cut off approximately 70 percent of the 10 million program participants — including approximately 44,000 individuals in DC alone — widening the digital divide among the country’s most vulnerable populations. Lifeline is the only federal program that provides subsidies to disadvantaged Americans for 21st century communications services and it is relied upon by victims of domestic violence, military veterans, homeless youth and others to stay connected.

Broadband Deployment

Pai has continuously claimed that the current FCC has “taken significant steps to expand broadband deployment in previously unserved parts of our country.” While the 2018 Broadband Deployment Report offered a six percent increase in the number of people with access to broadband — increasing to 95 percent — Blake notes that the increase wasn’t purely due to deployment:

That 95 percent, however, includes 10.5 million people who have access only to satellite service, which was not considered an adequate broadband connection under former FCC leadership….The agency’s documented expansion of broadband is actually the result of an explicit decision to lower federal standards of acceptable service, as opposed to a change in the amount of Americans actually served by high-speed internet….In...

No Protection From a Broken Market: Infographic Deja Vu

Posted June 19, 2018 by lgonzalez

As of June 11th, federal network neutrality protections formally expired, thanks to Chairman Ajit Pai and the other Republican Commissioners at the FCC. In the months leading up to the vote, Pai has continued to press the talking point that the market will protect consumers. Now is a good time to pull out our infographic from last year, "The Market Has Spoken. The Market Is Broken," to remind Chairman Pai that a broken market isn’t much protection.

Is a Broken Market Able to Protect Anyone?

If people Americans aren’t satisfied with their current ISP, they should just switch, right? That’s why we have a competitive market — so subscribers who are unhappy with one Internet service can switch to another, right? Sounds great, but when there is no competition where you live, “you’ll take what you git and you won’t throw a fit.” At least, that’s what monopoly providers expect.

Our infographic addresses national ISPs that deliver services in both urban and rural areas. Time and again, consumers report that they’re dissatisfied with companies such as Comcast, AT&T, and CenturyLink, but with no options in many areas, there is no recourse. Now that we know approximately 177 million Americans live under the shadow of ISPs that willingly offend network neutrality policies, the faulty market is a more important issue than ever.

National ISPs know the monumental task ahead of new entrants, but also know that if subscribers get a taste for something better, big companies will lose their advantage and subscribership. In order to keep their position at the top of the heap, they invest millions of dollars each year into lobbying at the state and federal level. By advancing legislation that effectively blocks smaller players and municipalities from developing new and better services, Comcast, AT&T, and others can maintain their monopolies.

Our infographic looks at some hard numbers and offers examples of solutions. When communities find a way to get past the big telecom and cable industry stranglehold, they can thrive with local control and accountability.

Check out a larger image here.

...

Senate Considers Network Neutrality Today; Maps Show Millions At Risk

Posted May 16, 2018 by lgonzalez

It’s May 16th and today is the day the Senate will vote on whether or not to reverse last December’s repeal of network neutrality rules by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and other Republican FCC Commissioners. As a reminder, we thought this was a good day to pull out the maps we created that illustrate how that decision to repeal the federal policy put at least 177 million Americans at risk. Without network neutrality protections in place, these folks are limited to obtaining broadband Internet access only from providers that have violated network neutrality or have admitted that they plan to violate network neutrality tenets in the future.

Visualizing the Risks

Back in December 2017 when the current FCC made it’s misguided decision, we decided to take a look at the data and create visualizations to paint a picture of what they had done. We used Form 477 data, which tends to overstate coverage, so the problem in the field is likely more severe than the maps indicate. The results aren’t pretty.

At least 129 million people have only a single provider from which they can subscribe to broadband Internet access. The FCC defines broadband as 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. Out of those 129 million Americans, about 52 million must turn to a company that has violated network neutrality protections in the past and continues to do so.

In some places, the situation is a little better. There are 146 million Americans with the ability to choose between two providers, but 48 million of those Americans must choose between two companies that have a record of violating network neutrality.

For a larger image, download this version [18 MB png].

Download Net Neutrality Repeal By The Numbers, U.S.A. Edition, fact...

BDAC "Model" State Code: CLIC Is Having None Of That

Posted April 16, 2018 by lgonzalez

The Broadband Deployment Advisory Council (BDAC), established by the FCC in January 2017, has caused concern among groups interested in protecting local authority. On April 12th, the Coalition for Local Internet Choice (CLIC) voiced those concerns in a precisely worded letter to Ajit Pai’s FCC that spelled out the way the BDAC is running roughshod over local rights.

Read the letter here.

Leaving Out The Locals

As CLIC states in the beginning of their letter, the lack of local representation on the BDAC indicates that the FCC has little interest in hearing from cities, towns, and other local government. There’s plenty of representation on the Council, however, from corporations and private carriers.

From CLIC’s letter:

The audacity and impropriety of the process is clear from the fact that this entity, comprised primarily of corporate and carrier interests, is empowered by the Commission to develop model codes that could potentially impact every locality and state in the United States without any serious input from the communities it will most affect.

This group of individuals has been tasked with developing model codes that may be adopted at the local level; local input is not only necessary to create policies that are consider the needs of local folks, but that will work. To achieve productivity, BDAC needs to understand the environments in which their proposals may be adopted, otherwise their goal to be increasing broadband deployment may be compromised. Omitting a broad local perspective is not only improper it’s counterproductive.

Work Product

The BDAC has already released a draft model state code, which has stirred up resistance and CLIC explains why. A key problem with the legislation is that it doesn’t appear to be backed up with anything other than philosophies, ideals, or self-interest, writes CLIC. Policy this important should be based on data.

They lay out eight specific and definable reasons why the proposed legislation falls flat for local communities.

1. The...

FCC Ends Speculation On Broadband Speeds, Mobile Internet Access

Posted January 22, 2018 by lgonzalez

On January 18th, the FCC ended months of speculation and released a fact sheet that included several key conclusions to be included in the 2018 Broadband Deployment Report. The most important is that the FCC continues to recognize that mobile Internet access is not a substitute for fixed access. The Commission has also decided to leave the definition of broadband at 25/3 Mbps (down/up).

Download the fact sheet here.

“Broadband” Will Not Slow Down

The Commission had proposed reverting to a slower definition of broadband from the current standard of 25 Megabits per second (Mbps) download and 3 Mbps upload. Under Tom Wheeler’s leadership, the FCC decided to update the standard to its current definition in January 2015, but current Chairman Ajit Pai and other Republican Commissioners suggested in last year’s Notice of Inquiry (NOI) that the FCC might effectively take us backward to a 10 Mbps/1 Mbps standard.

The suggestion rankled better connectivity advocates and Internet users. Many recognized that lowering the standards would make it easier for the FCC to proclaim that the U.S. was making strong progress toward universal household deployment. The Commission would have been justified making such a conclusion under the standard because large sections of rural American receive DSL, fixed wireless, satellite, or mobile Internet access that would meet a lowered 10/1 standard.

Hundreds of thousands of people, organizations, and businesses filed comments opposing a slower standard. Many of them live in areas where 10/1 speeds are already available but who have been waiting for better options. Commissioners Rosenworcel and Clyburn also spoke out against the lowering broadband speeds.

Commissioner Rosenworcel tweeted:

#FCC proposing to lower US #broadband standard from 25 to 10 Mbps. This is crazy. Lowering standards...

The Grinch Who Stole Network Neutrality

Posted December 21, 2017 by lgonzalez

A holiday poem in the style of "How The Grinch Stole Christmas" by Dr. Seuss.

Every American on the Internet liked network neutrality a lot

But the FCC’s Grinchy Pai, former lawyer for Verizon, did not!

Pai hated net neutrality! He despised it, he dreaded it!

And on December 14th, he and his cronies, they shredded it.

It could be, perhaps, that he wanted more dough.

ISPs could make more with lanes fast and lanes slow.

But whatever the reason, cash or prestige,

His choice pissed off subscribers by many degrees.

Americans cried out in anger and dismay!

“We like net neutrality! Don’t take it away!”

“It’s good for free speech and new businesses too! Selling, reporting, and artistic debut!

We need it for school kids who have tests to take.

We need it for far away doctors with prognoses to make.

We need it so businesses can hit the ground running.

We need it for working from home, for homework, for funning.

We need it to save money. To get good Internet service.

We don’t want ISPs to decide what to serve us.”

“You have market protection,” he said with a snort.

But ILSR elves proved there was nothing of the sort.

The elves showed very little, almost no competition.

But Grinchy Pai didn’t care for the net neutrality tradition.

He wouldn’t listen to pleas to stop and investigate.

Even millions of fake comments didn't make him hesitate.

His planned to kill net neutrality completely.

His overlord ISPs would reward him so sweetly.

“Pooh-pooh to subscribers!” he was grinchily singing

...

Net Neutrality Repeal Threatens Some States More Than Others

Posted December 20, 2017 by lgonzalez

On December 14th, FCC Chair Ajit Pai and the Republican Commissioners voted to present a huge holiday gift to big ISPs by dismantling network neutrality, despite outcries from the American people. When we examined FCC data to determine how many Americans would be left without market protections from known network neutrality violators, the numbers were discouraging. Now we’ve reached into the weeds to analyze the numbers on a statewide basis.

Percentage Of Population

The results reveal that a significant percentage of Americans will be limited to Internet access only from large monopolies that have a history of violating network neutrality and very strong incentives to abuse their market power.

Some states with higher population benefit slightly from competition relative to others — compare Florida’s 40 percent to 65 percent in Pennsylvania — but this also reflects the anti-competitive nature of big ISPs that tend to cordon off sections of the country and respectfully stay within their zones. Other, more rural states, such as Wisconsin at 66 percent, have few options because national ISPs just aren’t interested in serving areas where population is sparse and the pay-off is a long time coming. Lack of competition means high probability of service from one of the big four known violators in our study — AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Charter.

In this chart, we've listed states in order of greatest percentage of impacted population:

...

State

Population Served Only By Big 4 Net Neutrality Violators

community broadband networks

Left Navigation Lower