As the nation celebrates Black History Month, as well as a larger reckoning over the treatment of African Americans, the Internet Education Foundation said Friday that its State of the Net (SOTN) conference has historically failed to sufficiently represent diverse voices and it is pledging to improve on that record going forward. 

Also Read: Rosenworcel Warns of Presidential Shut-Down of Net

The annual conference, the seventeenth iteration of which was held virtually three weeks ago, brings together policy players to talk about the present and future of broadband and internet policy.

"We have long curated the program to highlight differences of opinion among experts from across the spectrum of industry, government, academia, and civil society," SOTN said in a statement. "Yet, over those 17 years the speakers at SOTN have not always sufficiently represented women and communities of color. Over the course of our 25 year history, those voices have been woefully underrepresented in Internet policy conversations."

SOTN said that in the interests of accountability it was publishing charts illustrating the diversity--or in some cases lack of it--in its speaker lineup for 2021. That included that only 25% of keynote speakers were black and that white speakers constituted 68.2% of speakers while Black, Asian, Latinx and Native American speakers collectively accounted for 31.8%.

Also Read: Sen/ Klobuchar Pushes Competition Policy

"We have made strides over the years to bring more diverse voices to the table at State of the Net," SOTN said. "We've made great progress in some areas and have made incremental improvements in others. In other areas, we haven't made much of a dent and we need to do better.

Editor's Note: On Graphic, BIPOC stands for "Black, Indigenous, and People of Color."

Aside from a promise that net neutrality will be the focus of the House Communications Subcommittee's first hearing this year, nary another word was spoken at Tuesday's State of the Net conference about the controversial access issue. 

Indeed, federal and local policy-makers and industry advocates shunned traditional concerns about network infrastructure and telecommunications policy, which had been dominant issues at the 15th annual event of the Internet Education Foundation, with the cooperation of the Congressional Internet Caucus.

Rather, the focus was on the platforms — especially Google and Facebook — which have become gatekeepers for the expanding range of online services and transactions. 

Along with the concerns over platform dominance came an array of calls for strong policies to protect privacy and to quash anticompetitive maneuvers. FCC commissioner Brendan Carr offered predictable cheerleading for 5G (Fifth Generation) wireless services, and demands for tight cybersecurity in the evolving digital ecosystem were woven through the conference. 

House Antitrust chairman David Cicilline (D-R.I.) opened the program with strong words about Google's perceived anti-competitive behavior, both as a gatekeeper and for its buying splurge in which it has gobbled up smaller firms. This "concentration of power" creates "pernicious impacts on a free and diverse press," Cicilline said, especially "in the absence of a competitive marketplace." He cited reports on Google's ability to manipulate traffic on its ad networks as well as with its readers and users. All of this affects "legacy news companies and digital publishers alike," Cicilline said. "The free and open internet ... is incompatible with this trend toward centralization online."

"It's vital that the House Antitrust Subcommittee takes up these matters in a top-to-bottom investigation [to determine] whether use of market power harms the competitive process online," he said. "We cannot have a democracy without a free and diverse press"....one that gives publishers "a level playing field to negotiate with dominant platforms."

Cicilline used the attack on Google as prelude to announcing that he is reintroducing the “Journalism Competition and Preservation Act," which he had submitted last year. The bill would create safe harbor for news publishers to negotiate business arrangements collectively with Google, Facebook and other platforms. Cicilline said his subcommittee's hearings will "build a record to document anti-competitive behavior to develop a deep understanding of these markets in exploring every tool for preventing" abuses by platform operators.

The News Media Alliance (formerly known as the Newspaper Association of America, and prior to that as the American Newspaper Publishers Association) quickly commended Cicilline's plan, calling it an effort toward assuring "fair compensation for use of news content" from publications.

FCC Preps for 5G, FTC Ready to Take on Vertical Integration

Carr opened his presentation praising 5G by noting that, "Some carriers are telling us we already have it" -- a line that drew a bemused, knowing chuckle from the audience. Carr said, "We're now beginning to see" the long-promised convergence of services "in practical ways." He predicted that 5G "will unleash...new waves of innovation."

Much of Carr's speech focused on the "real challenge" from China, which he said has deployed 5G at five times the pace of the U.S., a timely comment in the midst of the Huawei controversy. He stopped short of promising special consideration for U.S. 5G projects, but he cautioned against establishing policy barriers.

"I want to let the private sector compete" without restraints from local government agencies, on topics such as tower deployment, he said. Carr stressed that, "2019 will be the year of 5G," which will trigger "massive infrastructure" construction and "lots of new jobs."

FTC commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter used her time in the spotlight to refute the "prevailing belief" of recent years that vertical mergers are good.

"We have to look skeptically at all the claimed benefits of vertical mergers," she said. Federal review of merger plans should make "parties substantiate the benefits... and we should bring enforcement actions if we believe" actual performance does not match the promises.

Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim, who heads the Justice Department's antitrust activities, also acknowledged the need for new ways to evaluate mergers. He cited recent Google acquisitions, especially those involving advertising programs. Delrahim sought to align it with the current Department of Justice evaluation of broadcasting mergers, and how they may affect advertising operations.

Delrahim indicated that future examinations could assess online and broadcast advertising within a local market as direct competitors, despite the platform differences. He said, "New entrants are important" and emphasized that "light regulation" is vital, although, "We have to be very careful" about each. In response to a question about "How did tech get so big?" the antitrust chief replied, "Big isn't necessarily bad" — especially if it creates a product that consumers want, he said.

Delrahim also opened the discussion of privacy, cautioning that his "biggest concern" about privacy legislation is that the legacy companies will be able to shape the discussion and eventual policy-making. Based on his experience with their skills, they could create barriers that will impede start-ups and maintain privacy regulations from which the existing companies will benefit.

Data Privacy: National or State Protections?

Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Washington), a member of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Internet of Things Caucus and co-chair of the Women's High Tech Caucus, said Congress "has a responsibility" to assure that consumers have a clear understanding of what happens to their data.

Her remarks followed a series of SOTN presentations about the fragmentation of privacy policies, with very strict ones emerging at the state level, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act. Panelists could not agree on whether such rules will put excessive burdens on companies and whether the standardized measures can be enforced. Several speakers urged Federal action lest conflicting state privacy rules create a diametric dilemma for companies that operate in multiple jurisdictions.   

As for the allied matter of cybersecurity, Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.) called for a national framework for assuring the safety of all segments of the network infrastructure, from artificial intelligence to weapons security. Langevin, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, the Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Innovation Subcommittee and co-chair of the Congressional Cybersecurity Caucus, emphasized the need for training and expanding the cybersecurity work force and for coordinating government/private sector activities.

Eighty different committees and subcommittees on Capitol Hill now have some jurisdiction over cybersecurity, he explained. "As Congress, we will have to move with greater agility, including oversight and reform" to stave off the growing potential attacks.

Congressional action to update the Telecommunications Act will be incremental, according to Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee.

"We're looking at it piece by piece," Walden said at the 2018 State of the Net conference on Monday, Jan. 29. He added that Congress also "needs to look at the FCC operation" overall, acknowledging that "we live in a different era" than when the 1996 Telecom law was enacted. Walden said he expects a "program-by-program" evaluation, but did not suggest any timetable or urgency for the review.

More From SOTN: Rosenworcel Seeks Wider Investigation of Fake Comments

Walden's outlook on piecemeal telecom reform legislation echoes the view of his Senate counterpart Sen. John Thune, chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. At the SOTN conference last year, Thune also avoided any expectation that an omnibus revision of the Telecommunications Act is likely.

Walden also addressed net neutrality and broadcast spectrum issues in his remarks. He blamed the FCC's 2015 Open Internet ruling for creating an unnecessary barrier, but stopped short of promising any Congressional lawmaking on the topic either, as others have suggested.

"We ought to be able to find common ground to prevent bad behavior," such as paid prioritization, Walden said. But he contended that the issues are "not fully understood," saying, "We need to get certainty on what will drive more investment."

Related: Walden Says House E&C Will Hold Hearing on Paid Prioritization

Walden said he believes that lawsuits about the issue "will force America further back" in Internet development. He did promise that his committee will hold hearings on the topic, but did not specify a schedule.

In addition to his vow to find more money for the broadcast channel repack, required after last year's incentive spectrum auction, Walden vowed "a continuing effort to find more spectrum" and indicated that he expects that the FCC will "proceed with more spectrum auctions."

Related | broadcastingcable.com: Walden Says $3B Needed for Auction Repack

Asked about white space uses in the broadcast spectrum, Walden said he'd like to "maximize spectrum use but not interfere" with current operations.

"I'm not opposed so long as there is no interference," he explained.

A subsequent SOTN session on "The Fragmentation of Communications Policy" focused on privacy. Former Federal Trade Commission chair Jon Leibowitz, now in private practice at Davis Polk and Wardell law firm, said that the FTC is a "muscular agency" in this category and warned that state oversight of the issue is unacceptable.

"A federal solution - not a patchwork of state rules" is needed, Leibowitz said.

Another panelist, former National Telecommunications and Information Administration Director Larry Irving, now a telecom consultant, responded that the "FTC is not the right agency to regulate privacy over the Internet." At that, Chris Lewis, VP at Public Knowledge, insisted, "There is no reason why you can't have multiple cops on the beat," saying such an arrangement would provide "robust power" for enforcement.

Irving characterized the "likelihood of legislation in the near term is de minimis."

DOJ's Views of Security
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein focused on security in his remarks at the final SOTN session. Attendees were cautioned that he would not talk about or respond to questions about that day's revelations relating to the Russia allegations involving White House and Congressional activities.

Nonetheless, Rosenstein plunged into the fray, warning that, "We'll probably have more [cyber attacks] in the future with people protecting themselves" against such incursions.

He also said the DOJ is seeking "responsible encryption."

"We favor encryption but not to the exclusion of legitimate law enforcement concerns," he said. "We need to continue to improve our cyber defenses so we can help private sector protect themselves.”

He urged that "federal agencies work with industry to combat threats."

"We need to improve our cyber defenses to help protect the sector," he said.

In response to a question about intellectual property protection, Rosenstein said it was a "top priority for us," citing global coordination of efforts to fight piracy.

Public Dismay/Confusion
Earlier in the day, Sally Shipman Wentworth, vice president of Global Policy Development at the Internet Society, described an ISOC study which found that the user-centric vision of the Internet "has been lost." Commercial providers and government involvement now is dominant in Internet operations, factors that users don't understand, she said.

Wentworth also noted the "enormous explosion of threat vectors," singling out the massive role that government agencies will play in the Internet of Things, such as sensors for traffic, local security and other public services. She said that such activities will involves organizations that "have not necessarily been part of the Internet discussion so far," suggesting potential problems as new ventures and services emerge.

Her concerns were reinforced by findings from another new research report, unveiled at the SOTN conference.

Eighty-five percent of Americans said that the Internet has had a positive impact on their lives, but 56 percent said they believe it has weakened American democracy, according to the study by the Internet Education Foundation www.neted.org , which produces the SOTN conference. The "Society Under Strain" report found that Americans are "skeptical about the ability to secure the Internet" and about financial innovations that many don’t understand.

“Americans have high hopes for what the Internet can mean to their lives, but as technology advances it creates new concerns that ultimately end up before Congress and regulators,” said Tim Lordan, executive director of the Internet Education Foundation.

"Americans look to policymakers for answers," he added. "A majority (53%) believe that the laws and regulations that we have today aren’t working to deal with the issues that arise due to the Internet."

The study, conducted by Vrge Strategies, found that Americans are mixed on whether artificial intelligence and virtual assistants enabled by it will be beneficial or harmful. Thirty-seven percent said it will benefit them by making their life and work easier; nearly the same amount (36%) said it will be harmful by creating security and privacy issues.

According to the report's analysis, Americans overwhelmingly expect Internet companies to protect customers from cyberattacks: 52% cited Internet companies, 19% said the government and 18% expect consumers themselves to be responsible for protecting their Internet uses.

Nearly half of respondents (48%) said that while some incidents can be prevented, the “Internet cannot be protected from most cyber attacks.”

Pictured: Rep. Greg Walden speaking at the 2018 State of the Net conference.

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), in early comments at Monday's annual State of the Net conference in Washington, presaged a discussion later in the day about whether and how federal support to build broadband facilities should be part of the Trump administration's proposals for upgrading the nation's infrastructure of roads and bridges.

That dialog sparked an examination, suitable to the venue and referred to throughout the day as part of the "kinetic versus cyber" ecosystem, of telecommunications' importance vis-à-vis tangible products.

"The more we can do in the broadband space, the  better," Schatz said in his remarks at the conference. "We can get bipartisan support," but he proposed that "we should do little things" rather than go for sweeping telecom reform.

Schatz also addressed the continuing controversy about net neutrality, insisting that, "reversing the Open Internet order is not so easy." He said that "right now it is just too polarized" to legislate on that issue, although he thinks Congress should do so.

"I'm open to legislating but only if it's not a Trojan horse for undermining the authority that is already in place," said Schatz, who sits on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

He also said he "believes Jessica should be back on the FCC," a reference to former Democratic FCC commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, whose term ended after an ill-fated, politically laced attempt to reappoint her in late December.

Schatz's remarks included his views on privacy and the Internet of Things, which were major topics throughout the SOTN annual conference.

"IoT is one of the spaces where we need rules of the road; also artificial intelligence as it relates to law enforcement," Schatz said. "I don't think this is apocryphal sci-fi stuff. We have to have this conversation, ideally private-sector driven." 

He did not offer any suggestions on how Congress would become involved in these rapidly developing tech/telecom sectors.

At a subsequent session on IoT, Dr. Ron Ross, a fellow at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, characterized cybersecurity intrusions as "the greatest national security problem," emphasizing that communications and utility operators are not adequately prepared for attacks, such as "exfiltration" of customer information. He said building the infrastructure to defend against cyberattacks "is incredibly complex."

The panel also addressed looming issues such as liability and how IoT systems can be built that enable consumers to keep control over their own data.

Reassigning Spectrum, Funding Broadband Deployment
A session on "Rethinking the Future of Communications Policy" spanned a terrain from spectrum allocation to FCC staffing.

After declaring the current broadcast incentive auction a success (despite its lower-than-expected revenue results), the panel said it expects further efforts to retrieve airwaves for new digital applications. In particular, the panel focused on government agency controlled airwaves, which it called "the low hanging fruit for more spectrum."

Larry Downes, project director of the Georgetown University Center for Business and Public Policy, cited the opportunity for the new administration "to incentivize federal agencies with underused spectrum to give it up or share it for commercial use.   

Although the Defense Department is unlikely to relinquish its massive spectrum holdings, according to panelists, airwaves controlled by aviation and other agencies may be diverted to commercial use.  No one offered specifics regarding timetable or how the transfer would be accomplished.

Broadband will be part of the Trump administration's national infrastructure construction plan, said Markham Erickson, a partner at Steptoe & Johnson law firm, who represents telecom and internet clients. He expects the primary federal actions will be created by providing tax incentives and subsidies for private investment, "some mechanism to get broadband out to rural places."

Erickson also said he expects that the FCC will retain "extensive regulations" over some telecom sectors, although he did not cite specific topics.

With FCC transition team member Mark Jamison (pictured above) on the panel, discussion also touched on the extent of the FCC reorganization agenda. Jamison, who is director of the Public Utility Research Center at the University of Florida, was a member of the Trump transition team working on the FCC.

Jamison said that the "basic goal" was to "elevate the role of technical analysis."

"It's easier to hire lawyers than economists or engineers," he said. "I think the commissioners and public will be better served" with more technical expertise.

Gigi Sohn, a former advisor to former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, concurred, noting that it was "very frustrating to bring engineers and economists" from telecom and media companies and count on their information. "As a result, we're reliant on industry input," Sohn said, lapsing, as she frequently did on the panel, to using "we" when discussing a job she left three weeks ago, a very common gaffe among recently quondam public servants. She joked about the ex post facto “we” that crept into her comments.

The panel agreed that FCC reorganization should reflect greater overlap of activities that affect multiple bureaus.

"The FCC should recognize the convergence of all kinds of Internet Protocol technologies," said Downes. "There is no need to separate bureaus based on [legacy] structures."

Sohn also used the platform to predict that Trump appointees will adopt the mantra "Consolidation, consolidation, consolidation," in counterpoint to Wheeler's "Competition" mantra. She predicted that the FCC will have no role in upcoming merger considerations, with those functions going to the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department.

Erickson pointed out that there are similar rules at various bureaus and agencies, noting as an example that the Justice Department may be better equipped to take "a bigger view of intermodal and intramodal competition."  

In his closing keynote,  Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) avoided any indication that an omnibus Telecommunications Act reform is in the works.

Comcast was the only "Platinum Sponsor" of the annual event;  AT&T, Verizon and Google were among the "Gold Sponsors."

WASHINGTON — Depending on who’s doing the talking, zero-rating plans are either potentially anti-competitive violations of the Federal Communications Commission’s new network-neutrality rules or an innovative business plan that could help drive broadband adoption and benefit low-income Web users.

But the key to the future of those toll-free or sponsored data plans, which are becoming increasingly attractive, is what the FCC decides they are after it completes an inquiry into the practice.

The FCC is still vetting the information it requested in December from major Internet-service providers — the mid-January deadline for data in the inquiry was pushed back by Winter Storm Jonas, which buried the nation’s capital.

The inquiry appeared to be a reaction to pressure from zero-rating plan critics after FCC chairman Tom Wheeler in November praised T-Mobile’s new “Binge On” offering, which allows the mobile phone provider’s subscribers to access video from certain providers without it counting against subscriber data caps, as just the type of innovation the FCC’s new Open Internet order would not discourage.

When Wheeler seemed to backtrack on that praise and said the agency wanted more information about Binge On, Comcast’s Stream TV service and AT&T’s sponsored data plans, AT&T responded, “We remain committed to innovation without permission, and hope the FCC is too.”

AN INQUIRY, NOT A FIAT

Wheeler insisted two weeks ago that the FCC’s inquiry was merely that, telling reporters he had not sat in on any of the meetings, nor had any of the members of his staff.

But the chairman controls the agency’s bureaus, Republican commissioner Michael O’Rielly countered. “We do all know that the bureaus are at his discretion because otherwise, I would get a lot more information,” O’Rielly said.

O’Rielly said he is still trying to find out more information about the inquiry, but said that he was troubled by the direction in which the FCC was heading. He said he was troubled by the “mother may I” approach of the agency’s having to bless — or reject — new business models. That was concerned him about the net-neutrality rules, he said.

The new Open Internet rules do not prevent zero-rating plans, but they do prevent paid prioritization and also give the FCC some wiggle room through a general-conduct standard with which it can essentially review any business practice it thinks might have the effect of favoring some content over others for anti-competitive purposes.

“Because the Internet is always growing and changing, there must be a known standard by which to determine whether new practices are appropriate or not,” Wheeler said back when he proposed the Title II-based rules.

At the Internet Education Foundation’s 12th annual State of the Net conference in Washington two weeks ago, people on both sides of the issue were trying to help the FCC decide.

Roslyn Layton, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute’s Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy, made the case for why zero rating plans were not the threat to Internet openness that some have claimed.

She said that there is no good or service that is not subject to a differential price and said it was “strange” to her why Internet service would be singled out.

She said the one of the best things about the history of TV, radio and the Internet was that advertisers and sponsors were allowed to lower the cost to end users. That’s a key difference between media industries in the U.S. and Europe, she said, saying Europe’s license-fee model has meant fewer channels and less content.

The Internet also benefits from third-party subsidization, she said, pointing out that edge provider Google effectively zero-rates its search by displaying ads.

One criticism of the FCC’s approach to its new Internet rules is that they target ISPs while leaving edge-provider business practices alone. ISPs aren’t explicitly asking the FCC to regulate the edge, but point out that there are opportunities for edge providers to interrupt the virtuous circle that the FCC appears to gloss over in focusing on regulating ISPs. Wheeler has said edge providers are outside the scope of the rules.

On the other side is Stanford University law professor Barbara Van Schewick. The key to the issue is whether a zero rating plan has the effect of “picking winners and losers online,” she said. The bright-line net neutrality rules are about doing that with technology, via slowing or blocking traffic or by buying a technical advantage for a fee, aka paid prioritization.

Zero-rating is just a different form of favoring some content over others, she argued — via business plan, rather than technical limitations or advantages.

WATCHING FOR ‘COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE’

Comcast’s Stream TV, for example, was not about subsidizing access, but instead about “giving a competitive advantage to [Comcast’s] own application,” she said. That is a key net-neutrality concern, she said.

Kevin Martin, former FCC chairman and now an attorney for Facebook, which has its own zero-rating program to try and boost basic connectivity, said he didn’t have any problem with the FCC taking a case-by-case approach to vetting business plans under its new rules, but said zero-rating can be beneficial.

Martin signaled the FCC was right to be vetting the plans, but did not throw cable operators under the bus. He said MSOs would argue their customers have already paid for the programming ISPs are zero-rating.

But unlike cable operators, which have issues with the FCC’s case-by-case approach under the general conduct standard, Martin was all for it. “I think an analysis of what’s actually going on with each program is appropriate, and the FCC got that component right,” he said.

Layton argued zero rating plans aren’t just for the big dogs. She said they benefit smaller network providers who can’t compete with larger providers in terms of speed, but need another way to differentiate themselves.