Telecom broadband operators said the idea that Europe’s tougher broadband privacy regulations translate to a better consumer experience — and that the United States should follow that model — is a myth, and the European Union could actually go to school on the U.S. pro-investment strategy.

According to a new report, US vs EU Broadband Trends (2012-2020), the U.S. continues to top Europe in broadband adoption, deployment, investment and competition.

The report was prepared for USTelecom by business analytics firm BPI-Telcodata.

Acording to the report, U.S. consumers can now choose among twice as many facilities-based competitors as their EU counterparts.In rural areas, it‘s more than seven times that of Europe.

The report also said the U.S. leads in both deployment and adoption of high-speed broadband, defined as speeds of at least 30 Megabits per second to 100 Mbps downstream.

The U.S. lead in adoption is likely driven in part by the fact that prices are stable and even declining despite rising costs for most essential goods, the report said.

That was a theme among Republicans at an FCC oversight hearing, where numerous legislators said the price had been going down, countering the Biden administration‘s argument that broadband prices are too high and that that is the reason that price needs to be part of the definition of broadband availability.

But rather than needing to emulate Europe, USTelecom president and CEO Jonathan Spalter suggested the U.S. regulatory model — one that prizes “vigorous private investment” — “is a lesson for the world in spurring investment, advancing competition and accelerating broadband’s many benefits to people everywhere.” ■

Cable and telecom internet service providers, wired and wireless, have signaled they will be filing an appeal by Friday (February 11) of a lower court decision not to block enforcement of California's net neutrality rules, asking a full complement of U.S. appeals court judges to review a panel decision that went against them.

According to a document filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, "by February 11, 2022, plaintiffs/appellants will be filing a petition for rehearing en banc [by the full court] in their appeal of the Court’s February 23, 2021 Order before the 9th Circuit."

Those plaintiffs/appellants are ACA Connects, CTIA, NCTA–The Internet & Television Association and USTelecom.

Cable ISPs had asked the 9th Circuit to overturn a U.S. District Court‘s decision not to grant a preliminary injunction against the California Internet Consumer Protection and Net Neutrality Act.

ISPs had argued that California‘s adoption of rules was preempted by the FCC‘s decision to roll back its rules against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization, which had prompted California to create similar new rules of its own to fill what it saw as a regulatory void.

Also: ACA Connects Makes Its Case Against California Net Neutrality Law

Two weeks ago, the lower court decision to allow the rules to go into effect while the underlying challenge works its way through the courts was upheld by a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The three-judge 9th Circuit panel (Judges Mary M. Schroeder, J. Clifford Wallace and Danielle J. Forrest) — one of the most liberal circuits in the federal appeals court system — agreed with the district court that the FCC lacked the authority to preempt the state law because in reclassifying internet access as an information service under Title I of the Communications Act, the FCC no longer had the authority to regulate in the way it did when broadband was a Title II telecommunications service.

The panel pointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upholding the FCC reclassification but striking down the accompanying order asserting preemption of state net neutrality rules.

Also: California Net Neutrality Law Victory Draws Crowd

The 9th Circuit panel also rejected the ISPs’ contention that the California law was preempted because it conflicted with the underlying FCC policy or because interstate service was the sole province of the federal law. ■

Cable and telecom internet service providers are pushing back on Democratic Federal Communications Commission nominee Gigi Sohn‘s promise to recuse herself from some issues if confirmed. They‘re suggesting such an offer signals a wider problem with which issues she would or should be weighing in on, and what impact that would have on the agency and the industry.

NCTA – The Internet & Television Association and USTelecom, in separate but similar letters to the chair and ranking members of the Senate Commerce Committee, told them they had issues with Sohn‘s promised recusal from certain broadcast matters. The Commerce Committee is holding a confirmation hearing vote Wednesday (February 2) on Sohn‘s nomination. The trade groups signaled there are some cable/broadband-related issues — think net neutrality — for which her past advocacy should raise similar concerns, if there are any concerns to be raised.

Sohn has pledged not to participate in agency decisions regarding retransmission consent or copyright issues if she is confirmed to the open Democratic seat on the commission.

That stems from her advocacy on those issues when she headed Public Knowledge.

Also: Preston Padden: ‘Wall Street Journal’ Declines Letter in Defense of Gigi Sohn

In her recusal offer to FCC general counsel Michelle Ellison, Sohn promised that, for the first four years of her term as commissioner, “I will recuse myself from participation in FCC Docket No. 10-71 or any related FCC docket concerning the same issues.” But she went beyond that.

“For the first three years of my term,” she also wrote, “I will recuse myself from any proceeding before the Commission where retransmission consent or television broadcast copyright is a material issue in the Commission’s disposition of that proceeding.” She defined material issue as “one that has influence and effect on the ultimate disposition of the matter or matters considered in the proceeding.”

Sohn said she would look to the general counsel‘s office to “make any necessary determination on the application of this recusal to a particular matter.”

In his letter, NCTA president and CEO Michael Powell said that while NCTA ”strongly supports” following government ethics rules that are meant to prevent a conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict, “Ms. Sohn’s letter raises several serious concerns.”

While he said the letter should not be read as opposition to the nomination, Powell has a couple of issues with the recusal pledge.

He said it is not clear why those would be the only issues from which she would recuse herself, “given the breadth of issues in which Public Knowledge was involved” under Sohn. He said the recusal should ”logically extend“ to all the matters she advocated for at Public Knowledge, or none.

Second, he said: “Next, in the more recent years since her service at the Commission during the Obama administration, Ms. Sohn has been publicly involved on matters of direct interest to our membership. There is no logical basis for treating these matters differently from the retransmission and copyright issues for purposes of recusal.”

Arguably the main issue she was involved in after Public Knowledge was the Title II-based net neutrality rules she stumped for as a top counselor to then-FCC chairman Tom Wheeler.

More than one Washington insider has suggested that her support for Title II, and broadband operators‘ ongoing unhappiness with that advocacy, was a big reason she was getting so much pushback on the nomination from Republicans.

Also: CWA’s Christopher Shelton Calls for Gigi Sohn’s FCC Confirmation

Powell also has issues with the scope of the recusal, which could cover a wide range of proceedings, past and future, he said. Sohn signaled in her recusal letter she would not be recusing from media ownership rules. But Powell said that “the Commission will repeatedly be required to determine whether retransmission consent or copyright issues are ‘material’ to a particular docket — including media ownership proceedings where the impact on retransmission consent rates can be at issue.” Powell is a former chairman of the FCC.

In its letter, USTelecom also said it was not taking a position on the nomination, only on the recusal offer.  

“It appears highly irregular to recuse an official from any proceeding that addresses two broad, important issues because of a prior filing in a rulemaking more than a decade ago,” said USTelecom president Jonathan Spalter in his letter. “In fact, the ethics rules generally state that prior participation in a rulemaking proceeding is not a basis for recusal. Thus, it appears that Ms. Sohn’s reasoning for recusing herself would establish a new standard for FCC commissioners participating in proceedings in which they were previously active.”

USTelecom said the recusal was clearly to assuage the broadcast industry, there are other issues much broader than a single industry. “Can the FCC be confident that Ms. Sohn will not be perceived as being able to act impartially and not give preferential treatment to any private organization or individual based on her prior FCC advocacy if, as it appears from her letter, she is concerned may not be the case for certain issues?”

USTelecom asks whether Sohn‘s failure to recuse herself from other issues on which she has advocated [like Powell“s letter, Spalter does not say which, though net neutrality is the elephant in the room], will that create the appearance of benefitting one industry over others with no precedent or rational basis."

Both NCTA and USTelecom said they want Congress to at least take these into account before they vote “in order,” as Spalter put it, “for you to assess their practical implications for the adjudicatory and rulemaking functions of the FCC as well as on the continued effectiveness and impartiality of the Commission.”

“Rather than ensuring impartiality,“ Powell said, ”Ms. Sohn‘s targeted recusal has instead raised serious questions regarding transparency together with significant concerns that one industry has been singled out for special treatment to win their support for her confirmation.“ ■

Cable and telco broadband operators have joined with computer companies and others to ask that they be allowed to "buy (less) American" when they are using the monies provided for in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) to build out networks.

In a letter to the heads of the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce and Transportation, NCTA-the Internet & Television Association, USTelecom, CTIA and others said the Buy American requirements for broadband spending could delay closing the digital divide.

"Americans without access to broadband cannot wait for a domestic supply chain to be developed out of whole cloth.... We believe that a limited, programmatic waiver is a necessary precondition to effective and efficient investment in broadband," they said.

Also: White House Issues Guide to Broadband Infrastructure Billions

While they agreed with the long-term goal of promoting more U.S. production, in the short term they said a 55% U.S. content requirement, as the IIJA mandates, does not reflect the current reality of the global supply chain, which includes "switching, routing, transport, access, operations systems, and customer premises/end user equipment and devices," each with hundreds of components with their own supply chains sourced from "trusted vendors and suppliers" around the world.

In fact, they went so far as to say that "no combination of network products would meet the IIJA’s content requirements from end-to-end."

Instead, they said, a limited waiver acknowledges what can be done in the real world. They also point to the precedent of the 2009 American Recovery Act, which imposed similar "buy American" broadband build-out provisions, but at the behest of the Agriculture and Commerce Departments, granted a "buy American" waiver. It also pointed to a similar waiver that Congress built into the Federal Acquisition Regulations. ■

Stakeholders on all sides have asked the Federal Communications Commission for more time to digest and comment on the agency‘s request for input on the impact of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act's $65 billion investment in broadband on the Universal Service Fund advanced telecom subsidy program.

Currently the deadline for comments is January 18-31 for reply comments, but the parties argue the issues are too complex and the stakes too high not to provide more time to stakeholders. “Evaluating how this longstanding fund and the newly-minted IIJA can work together to accomplish the FCC’s mandate to connect all Americans will require time,“ the stakeholders said.

Those stakeholders, ranging from NCTA–The Internet & Television Association, ACA Connects and USTelecom to Common Cause, Public Knowledge and the Benton Foundation, joined Wednesday to petition the FCC for 30 more days for comment —until February 17 — and until March 17 for reply comments.

Also: Landrieu to Oversee Historic Biden Broadband Investment

“While not granting this extension will significantly curtail the Public Interest and Industry Stakeholders’ ability to fully participate in this proceeding, granting an extension at this early stage will have little impact on the proceeding and will not prejudice any other party to proceeding,“ they told the FCC.

They opined that the large number of active proceedings has made it “incredibly difficult” for stakeholders to “fully participate.”

They also pointed out that the notice of inquiry (NOI) was issued just 10 days before Christmas with a mid-January due date. “Holiday travel, staff vacations, and end-of-the-year obligations create significant hurdles to evaluate the complexity of the Infrastructure Act’s impact on the USF,” they said, adding that public interest groups have limited resources and tend to be understaffed over the holidays.

Also: New Bill Pushes Reform of Universal Service Fund Support

The FCC does not routinely grant extensions of its comment deadline, but does so on a case-by-case basis for good cause, which the petitioners are convinced they have, including so the FCC can develop a better record on which to base a decision. The FCC also has pushed deadlines in recognition of holiday issues. ■

USTelecom-The Broadband Association, has tapped a White House official for a top government relations post.

Michael Pauls Jr. will join the trade group as senior director of government affairs.

Pauls comes to the job from the Office of Management and Budget, where he had been a legislative affairs and communications assistant. His resume includes legislative aid to Rep. Donald Norcross (D-N.J.) and the President's 2020 campaign staff.

“Michael is another talented addition to USTelecom’s government affairs team with experience across Congress, the White House and national political campaigns and will help advance our connectivity agenda in the year ahead,” said USTelecom president and CEO Jonathan Spalter. ■

Technology industry groups are warning the Federal Communications Commission to exercise regulatory caution when changing its device authorization process in the name of network security.

Also Read: Secure Networks Act Passes Senate

In a notice of inquiry (NOI) and notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the FCC is contemplating changes to its equipment authorizations for phones, computers and other devices that tap into FCC-regulated spectrum in its ongoing effort to better protect the network supply chain from national security threats.

Eight industry groups signed onto two letters to the commission targeting the NOI and NPRM. They included the Consumer Technology Association, CTIA–The Wireless Association, USTelecom and the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI).

While the signatories all said they supported protecting the supply chain against “foreign adversaries and nation-states,” the trade groups said the FCC effort raises a number of legal and implementation questions. It also raises the specter of unintended consequences the FCC should consider carefully before taking any action, the groups said.

The groups are particularly concerned about the FCC’s revocation of existing authorizations for equipment that may be in consumers’ homes or offices, or incorporated into other equipment.

“Devices sold at retail may be difficult or impossible to locate, and if a device has been incorporated into other equipment a replacement may require new engineering, testing, validation and manufacture,” the letter said. 

The technology groups also have issues with the proposed criteria for evaluating suspect devices according to their country of origin, rather than the technology used. Historically the FCC’s authorizations have been based on technology and not, for example, whether a device came from China. The groups said the FCC's legal authority to conduct this new type of review is unclear.

Rural broadband advocates are telling the FCC that some of the money the commission is spending on subsidizing broadband in high-cost rural areas has to go to compensate for the unrecovered costs of massive amounts of video streaming entertainment, which means flexible subsidies rather than at flat rates, as is currently the practice.

That came in a USTelecom brief and an academic paper entitled, "Rural Broadband and the Unrecovered Cost of Streaming Video Entertainment,"* both presented in a meeting with FCC staffers by Andrew Erlich, partner in consulting firm Total Spectrum, and a number of representatives of rural ISPS, in response to the FCC's Connect America Fund plan for subsidies in high-cost areas.

The presentations assert that the rapid growth in streaming entertainment services has put increased demands on infrastructure and transport costs "without a corresponding increase in broadband provider revenue."

In fact, it argues, that flat and uniform pricing--and the similar subsidy model--may actually be increasing the number of high-volume users and thus exacerbating the problem given that data shows that lower income is associated with higher average broadband consumption.

And while big players like AT&T or Comcast can shoulder the costs of uniform pricing, for smaller players it is tougher, primarily due to the high volume of traffic generated by the streaming Big Five--identified as Netflix, Alphabet (Google), Disney+/Hulu, Amazon, and Xbox Live.

“Improving network capacity to accommodate streaming is a never-ending exercise...Providers must accommodate greater adoption of streaming across the customer base, in addition to supporting increases in video resolution," said one Indiana broadband provider, according to the paper.

*Paper authors are Roslyn Layton, Aalborg University, Center for Communication, Media and Internet Technologies, and Petrus Potgieter, University of South Africa and Institute for Technology and Network Economics.

Telecom providers say broadband costs have been going down while value has been increasing during the pandemic, according to a new study just released by USTelecom.

The study comes as Congress tries to hammer out a compromise infrastructure package, one that currently contains billions for broadband on the assumption that if the price is too high or the speed is too slow or competition is lacking, government money might be needed to overbuild faster, cheaper networks.

Drawing on public data, including from the FCC, the latest Broadband Pricing Index (BPI) study shows "continued and substantial price reductions for the most popular and highest-speed broadband internet services," according to USTelecom.

"This research demonstrates the significant and continuing downward trend in broadband prices that is causing affordability as a barrier to broadband adoption to recede," USTelecom said.

Also Read: Kinzinger Bill Would Bar Rate Regulation

That price was decreasing despite unprecedented demand for broadband during the pandemic and increased pricing for consumer goods.

“These findings are relevant to the current debate surrounding broadband affordability," said USTelecom president Jonathan Spalter. "In a year when everything seemed to be going up...the price of broadband went in the opposite direction. This continues a years-long story of declining prices, not to mention accelerating speeds that have unlocked a range of broadband-fueled innovations. The truth is: more Americans have cheaper and flat-out better broadband service choices than they did one year ago.”

The study compared prices in two ways, the prices of the most popular speed tiers and the prices of the highest speed tiers, and found substantial price reductions on both counts, with prices for the most popular tier down 7.5% year over year (YOY)--9.3% when adjusted for inflation--and prices for the highest speed service down 2.3% YOY, 4.2% adjusted for inflation.

At the same time, the cost of goods and services during the pandemic was up 1.9%.

"Today’s US Telecom report is the latest in a spate of flawed and deeply conflicted research from internet service providers on the price of their own service," said Joshua Stager, deputy director of broadband and competition policy at New America’s Open Technology Institute. "It is curious that US Telecom would rely on third-party surveys rather than get the pricing data directly from its ISP members. If internet service is as affordable as US Telecom claims, ISPs could prove it by disclosing their pricing data to the FCC....OTI’s research makes clear that the cost of broadband in the United States is too often opaque, misleading, and unaffordable."

A bipartisan bill has been introduced to speed broadband deployments by cutting right-of-way "red tape" in rural communities.

Sens. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) have teamed up to introduce the Accelerating Rural Broadband Deployment Act, which they said will lead to easier and faster broadband installations.

Also Read: Rep. Delgado Introduces Broadband Bills

Specifically, the bill would:

1. "Make it easier for broadband companies to receive federal-right-of-way licenses allowing them to install broadband alongside existing infrastructure like federal highways.

2. "Ensure costs of federal-right-of-way licenses are fair market prices.

3. "Increase transparency into the federal right-of-way license awarding process. "

The bill drew praise from industry.

“We commend Sens. Daines and Kelly on introducing the Accelerating Rural Broadband Deployment Act, legislation that would accelerate broadband deployment by streamlining access to federal rights-of-way," said NCTA-The Internet & Television Association. "To ensure that all Americans have access to the internet, federal policy should not only consider subsidizing network construction to reach unserved households, but should equally focus on removing barriers to broadband deployment – such as existing obstacles that prevent timely access to federal lands and buildings – that slow private expansion efforts. We look forward to working with the sponsors and other members on this bipartisan bill.”

Flip the initials to NTCA (for NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association, and the sentiment is still the same. 

“High costs are a large enough barrier to deploying broadband service to rural areas without adding costly, time consuming processes for gaining access to federal lands," said NTCA CEO Shirley Bloomfield. "On behalf of NTCA’s members, I applaud Senators Daines and Kelly for introducing the Accelerating Rural Broadband Deployment Act to ensure that providers can gain timely approval to access federal rights of way for deploying high-speed broadband networks. This legislation will make it easier to deploy essential broadband service to some of the hardest to reach areas of our country."

Also Read: Sen. Wicker Wants FCC Oversight Hearing on Broadband Mapping

“We all agree on the need to extend broadband infrastructure deeper into unserved parts of rural America, but too often our network innovators bump into red tape and outdated rules that can make construction slow, inefficient or nearly impossible," said Jonathan Spalter, CEO of USTelecom-The Broadband Association. "This is a common sense approach to increase high-speed connectivity from Senators Daines and Kelly. This plan expedites access to federal rights-of-way and streamlines the building process in service of a universal, bipartisan goal: bring the power and promise of broadband connectivity – the 21st century’s indispensable resource – to every corner of the country.” 

If you’re an eagle eyed reader of your monthly phone statement, you’ll recognize the Universal Service Fund (USF) charge among the various government taxes and fees. Congress created USF in 1996 as a dedicated revenue source to connect hard to reach areas in the United States so everyone could have access to reliable telephone service. 

Today the fund focuses on broadband connectivity (more on that in a moment), but with cracks in the 25-year-old program starting to show, now is the time to put USF on sound footing.

The reality: USF is currently on an unsustainable financial path, funded by a regressive surcharge on a shrinking base of telephone customers. If it isn’t fixed, and fixed quickly, the fund won’t be able to meet its mandate and fulfill its connectivity promise – not just to the next generation, but to the current one. 

Let’s back up. USF started with a small fee on the phone portion of every customer’s bill. That worked well enough for a decade until ubiquitous phone service gave way to the high-speed internet that revolutionized communications and transformed our lives. 

As USF evolved into a program to increase broadband connectivity for homes in high-cost rural areas, for low-income consumers, and for schools, libraries and healthcare providers, the funding mechanism stayed the same – a fee on a rapidly shrinking base of telephone-only customers.

To keep USF solvent for these essential universal service programs the fee or "contribution factor" applied on phone service is rising. From five percent of a monthly telephone bill in 1996…to 10 percent in 2005…to 20 percent in 2018. 

In fact, the factor crossed the 30 percent threshold in the first quarter of 2021, increased again to 33 percent in the second quarter and is on pace to hit 40 percent by the end of this year. The problem is accelerating – not going away.  

In the face of our current pandemic, Washington, to its credit, has increased funding for broadband affordability and access. In December, Congress passed the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program, $3.2 billion to provide up to $50 a month ($75 on tribal lands) for broadband service and $100 for a connected device. President Biden recently signed a plan providing more than $7 billion to expand connectivity for at home learning.

That’s a welcome start, but that money will run out. And soon. If only half of eligible households take advantage of the emergency benefit, it will cost about $800 million a month and be exhausted in six months or less.

So how do we fix USF? 

First, Congress should provide more direct and sustainable funding. The FCC just raised more than $80 billion in a blockbuster auction of airwave rights that will carry 5G and other next generation connectivity. Congress should direct a significant portion of that money to universal broadband service or make direct appropriations to shore-up the fund.

Another option – one that should be explored even if Congress appropriates additional funds: broaden the base of USF contributors beyond the shrinking pool of telephone customers to include other players in the internet ecosystem. If Congress doesn’t appropriate funds, then it’s almost a certainty USF will implode absent structural reform. Congress needs to pass legislation – with guidance on how to expand the base – directing the FCC to reform USF.

Congress should also consider whether some of the largest of our nation’s technology, streaming and internet platforms, which don’t currently support our shared networks (but couldn’t have reached trillion dollar market caps without them), should contribute to the costs of ensuring universal connectivity.

A group of top tech and business CEOs recently called on Congress to promote broadband deployment and connect all communities in America. Right on. But it’s time for actions and dollars to meet words. 

Because of access issues or affordability challenges that predate, but were put in sharp relief by the pandemic, our country must step up to connect everyone. Everywhere. This starts with a plan to more broadly share responsibility for universal service. 

We can debate who should ultimately contribute to USF (and how much), but there’s no denying: the system needs fundamental fixing. If we are to build back better, universal broadband access and affordability are nothing short of foundational. Congress and the FCC should meet this connectivity moment and set the country (and USF) on a better path.

Jonathan Spalter is President and CEO of USTelecom – The Broadband Association.

A new USTelecom study of the cybersecurity-readiness of small and medium-sized businesses operating critical infrastructure and found them generally wanting at a risk to national security.

USTelecom’s 2021 Cybersecurity Survey: Critical Infrastructure Small and Medium-Sized Businesses (SMBs) looked at communications networks as well as energy, financial and water, and found small businesses involved in all those were particularly vulnerable to breaches and can take longer to identify and recover from them (on average seven-and-a-half-months to fully recover).

Also Read: COVID-19 Related Pirate Streaming Is Big Malware Threat

Fully three quarters of those businesses surveyed said they had experienced a cyber breach while a majority (59%) said that their breach(es) had "stopped" productivity.

"Don’t be fooled – these companies may be small or have fewer employees than their counterparts – but they play a big role in operating and safeguarding our country’s critical infrastructure, including energy, financial, water and communications assets," said USTelecom SVP Robert Mayer in announcing the study.

The survey found that the cost, on average, to resolve a breach was $170,000, while 46% said they also lost customers because of breaches.

Also Read: IoT Cybersecurity into Law

USTelecom offered up some recommendations for mitigating cybersecurity risks: 1) conduct regular training; 2) revisit and update policies and procedures; 3) update system configurations; 4) conduct annual risk assessments; 5) conduct post-breach assessments; 6) evaluate in-house capabilities annually; 7) have cybersecurity insurance; 8) share information formally and informally; 9) conduct regular briefings; 10) dedicate at least 10%-25% of IT budgets to cybersecurity.

USTelecom conducted 14 in-depth online surveys with SMB CEOs and C-level executives. Usable responses were obtained from 323 respondents.

USTelecom, whose members include major carriers and communications companies including AT&T, Verizon, and Cisco, is "pausing" its political contributions to all candidates as it reviews that spending.

Also Read: AT&T Suspends Funding for GOP Election Vote Challengers

“USTelecom and each of our members share a common mission: creating opportunity and connecting communities everywhere," said USTelecom president Jonathan Spalter. "As we pursue these objectives, and in light of the tragic and horrifying events last week in Washington, D.C., we have chosen to pause our political contributions while we assess these troubling developments and their implications.”

The troubling developments includes Republicans objecting to the count even after the storming of the Capitol by President Trump supporters, which caused that vote to be delayed, and cost the lives of several people.

Also Read: President Won't Concede Election, Blames Media

AT&T has said it will pause its corporate political contributions to those Republicans, who were led by Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) but that included over a hundred Republicans in the House and Senate.

Industry players were weighing-in Friday on President-elect Joe Biden's picks to run the Commerce Department, the department that includes the National Telecommunications & Information Administration, which oversees federal spectrum policy.

Biden has nominated Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo to be Secretary of Commerce and Don Graves, who has been leading the Biden-Harris Transition’s Treasury Agency Review Team, as deputy secretary.

Prior to becoming governor, Raimondo helped found venture capital firm Point Judith Capital and before that was the state's general treasurer. Raimondo is a graduate of Harvard, masters and doctoral degrees from Oxford, where she was a Rhodes Scholar, and a law degree from Yale.

Graves is a former counselor to then-Vice President Biden, as well as executive director of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, and deputy assistant secretary for small business, community development and housing policy at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. He also led the effort to revitalize Detroit following the city's bankruptcy and Biden's Cancer Moonshot initiative.

"President-elect Biden has selected two proven leaders with a keen understanding of how broadband innovators support American connectivity, job creation, education, national security and economic prosperity," said USTelecom president and CEO Jonathan Spalter.

“Now more than ever, the Commerce Department plays a vital role in our connected digital future, and this talented leadership team is ready to face a range of issues related to cybersecurity, 5G and spectrum management, and the future of the internet. There are also enormous opportunities to make this country more connected and technology access more equitable, and USTelecom members look forward to working with the department to finally and fully achieve our universal connectivity goals.”

"[The Telecommunications Industry Association looks forward to working with Gov. Raimondo and Mr. Graves, once they are confirmed, on a range of important issues that include improving supply chain security, expanding internet connectivity and access, promoting the competitiveness of trusted ICT manufacturers, and ensuring that the U.S. leads in standards innovation,” said TIA CEO David Stehlin.

"On behalf of the wireless industry I congratulate Governor Raimondo on her nomination as Commerce Secretary," said CTIA President Meredith Attwell Baker. "Governor Raimondo was one of the first to recognize 5G’s potential to generate new levels of economic and job growth. Her nomination sends a strong signal that the Biden Administration is committed to maintaining America’s position as the world’s innovation hub."

“Governor Raimondo’s extensive experience as a distinguished public official, successful businesswoman, and advocate for government-industry collaboration will serve her well as the next Secretary of Commerce,” said Jason Oxman, president of global tech association ITI. “On behalf of the tech industry, I want to congratulate her on this well-deserved nomination. Our industry looks forward to working together on pressing issues including broadband, industry standards, supply chain security, and trade to promote U.S. leadership and innovation around the world."

It didn't take long for the FCC to start getting advice on how to spend the $3.2 billion in new broadband subsidies Congress gave it in the recently passed COVID-19 aid bill.

The FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau officially sought input Monday (Jan. 4) ) on how to hand out over $3 billion in new broadband benefits created by Congress in the recently passed package of appropriations and COVID-19 aid funds and USTelecom has already weighed in.

Also Read: Trump signs COVID-19 Bill

Before the day was over USTelecom had outlined its core principles for the program, according to a letter to the FCC dated Jan. 4.

The $3.2 billion Emergency Broadband Benefit Program was created to help low-income households access the internet, and fund equipment and service for students forced to study from home during the pandemic. The latter was impart because the FCC under chairman Ajit Pai interpreted the E-rate subsidy statute language as excluding home service and equipment because the statute directed the subsidy to be used for classrooms not homes. Democrats argued that was too narrow a reading.

In a letter to the FCC, USTelecom president Jonathan Spalter said that for the service and eligible equipment to be both rapidly deployed and successful, the FCC should keep these four principles top of mind:

1) Tap existing tools. He suggests using the National Lifeline Accountability Database to verify eligibility for the program, something USTelecom said is a key to the program.

2) Keep it simple. Complexity is the enemy of speed and participation, Spalter suggests, saying "[t]he simpler the Commission can make the program to implement the more effective it will be."

3) Be Flexible. Given that it is an emergency program, give broadband providers the "flexibility and optionality" to adapt the program to existing plans. Spalter said that will maximize participation by those providers.

4) Plan now for the transitions in and out of the program, which is tied to the ongoing pandemic of uncertain duration. "As there is a finite amount of money that will last an indeterminate amount of time, it is important for customers and providers alike to understand their responsibilities once the appropriated funding is fully expended," said Spalter.

Cable operator and telecom ISPs are offering school districts a discount on home broadband to help bridge the educational digital divide.

NCTA-The Internet & Television Association (as well as USTelecom) are teaming up with nonprofit EducationSuperHighway on the K-12 Bridge to Broadband, which will help public school districts and states identify the low-income students who need help to join the remote hybrid learning educational system prompted by the pandemic.

Cable ops who have committed to the program include Comcast, Cox, Charter, Mediacom and GCI.

“America’s broadband networks are continuing to play a critical role in helping the nation adapt to changes in daily life required by the COVID pandemic,” said NCTA president Michael Powell. “As the school year begins, these changes are front and center in many parts of the country, with family rooms temporarily replacing classrooms and more schools using online instruction to continue their educational mission. In rising to these challenges, the cable industry is continuing to provide robust and reliable service and is redoubling our efforts to work collaboratively with schools, communities and other partners to get families connected through innovative new service models that will foster and sustain the educational progress of our children.”

The basic approach of the K-12 Bridge to Broadband is that NCTA members will offer a "sponsored service" through which school systems can buy broadband for low-income students at a discount. ISPs will also work with school districts to identify the eligible students who don't have broadband.

ISPs will agree not to use any information shared with them by the school for target marketing to participating families or for other services unrelated to the sponsored service.

The new initiative got a shout-out from FCC chairman Ajit Pai, who urged school systems to use some of the billions in existing connectivity funding to help with the remote learning effort.

“I thank NCTA and the EducationSuperHighway for launching this initiative to make it easier for students in low-income families to connect to the internet,” said Pai. “With the start of the school year and the continued reliance upon remote learning in many parts of the country, it is essential that students have the connectivity they need to continue their education through this and similar initiatives. I therefore reiterate my call for states and school districts to take advantage of the $16 billion in CARES Act funding that can be used to connect our nation’s students during the COVID-19 pandemic.

"The FCC has been working with the U.S. Department of Education to raise awareness of this CARES Act funding for remote learning, and this money is already having a positive impact. For example, in the District of Columbia, the CARES Act is making it possible for the D.C. government to cover monthly Internet bills for tens of thousands of children in low-income families who attend local public and charter schools. Similar initiatives using CARES Act funds have been launched in other states, including Alabama and Connecticut, to ensure low-income students are able to engage in remote learning during the ongoing pandemic.”

Legislators have proposed billions for broadband buildouts in COVID-19 aid packages, citing the need for online learning and remote healthcare and the ability to work from home, which means closing the digital divide given that a broadband connection is increasingly a prerequisite for full participation in a pandemic-altered society. 

The ad also comes as USTelecom member AT&T publicly called this week for direct congressional funding of Universal Service Fund, the FCC program that subsidizes advanced telecommunications--increasingly that means broadband--for low-income residents, hard-to-reach and uneconomical to serve places, and schools and libraries. 

According to a copy of the contract with TEGNA's WUSA-TV Washington, the $30,000 spot in CBS' Face the Nation will be a "Call to action: Get congress to invest in broadband connection for Americans." 

The ad flight is scheduled to start July 27 and run through Aug. 2. 

A just-introduced package of Republican-backed broadband bills drew a crowd in Washington Thursday (June 25). 

Given that the bills would streamline wireless broadband infrastructure tower siting, it was no surprise that FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr gave it a hand. Carr was deputized by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to oversee the FCC efforts at such streamlining as part of Pai's media modernization deregulatory initiative. 

Related: FCC Clarifies Wireless Buildout Streaming Rules 

“The Republican Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee have put together a smart and comprehensive set of infrastructure reforms,” said Carr. “Their thoughtful reforms would bring families across the digital divide and further extend America’s leadership in 5G by helping to accelerate the build out of high-speed Internet services. Their ideas, including legislation that would tackle the permitting delays that persist for Internet builds on federal lands, would make an immediate difference for rural communities across the country." 

There are most of a dozen bills targeting buildouts on federal lands as part of the Republican package, though its prospects in a Democrat-controlled House are problematic.  

USTelecom, which represents the major telecom ISPs, was equally pleased. 

“Representatives [Greg] Walden, [Bob] Latta and members of the Energy and Commerce committee are right to focus on the role outdated regulations, slow approvals and rights-of-way disputes play in holding back broadband construction and deployment," said President Jonathan Spalter. "Too often our network innovators bump into red tape and rules that make these essential infrastructure projects slower, more expensive or nearly impossible. That doesn’t help consumers, especially those in corners of the country that need – and deserve – 21st century connectivity.” 

“I welcome further efforts from Congress to close the digital divide and expand wireless broadband services, and thank Republican Leaders Walden and Latta for their work to produce this comprehensive legislative package," said Competitive Carriers Association President Steven K. Berry. "Promoting new infrastructure deployment by reducing unnecessary barriers, clarifying federal, state, and local zoning authorities, and fostering competition will result in a win-win-win for consumers, industry, and the economy. At a time when consumers are relying on mobile broadband services more than ever before, it is a real positive that policymakers are focused on ensuring broadband can be deployed in unserved and underserved areas. I thank the Members for their work on these important issues, and CCA stands ready to work with Congress to keep moving forward.” 

USTelecom told the FCC this week it supports a free and open Internet, just one defined as "unencumbered by unnecessary regulations." 

It was filing reply comments in a court remand of portions of the FCC's 2018 Restoring Internet Freedom order, most of which the court upheld. 

Related: NCTA Says Record Supports FCC Net Neutrality Dereg 

The court asked the FCC to better explain why it had concluded that reclassifying internet access as an information service not subject to common carrier mandatory access rules and eliminating the rules against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization did not harm public safety, pole attachments or the FCC's low income broadband subsidies. 

USTelecom said the RIF order benefitted public safety and did not undermine either the pole attachment regulatory framework or the Lifeline broadband subsidy. 

As have other ISP commenters, USTelecom pointed to the increased investment prompted by the deregulation as benefitting first responders generally and the consumers "who rely on such infrastructure to generate and receive important public-safety communications." 

Those who have suggested there could be some negative impact on public safety are generally referring to the ability to block or throttle if that affected first responder communications. 

But in its final analysis, USTelecom says the record clearly demonstrates that "the overwhelming benefits of the restored Title I classification vastly outweigh the purported costs (if any) of abandoning the outdated, common carrier regulatory framework applicable to broadband for the scant two years preceding the RIF Order." 

USTelecom president Jonathan Spalter told Congress needs to get more personal protective gear to broadband's front-line workers. 

President Trump included those workers in the category of "essential," which means they are asked to continue working despite the risk. 

Some of USTelecom's members have adopted a remote repair approach, using a virtual assistant to help customers with issues inside the home or small business, for example, with the customer becoming the non-virtual assistant and the technicians remaining outside the residence and sending the customer a text that starts a video chat. But that is not the case with all, and even then the technicians are not sheltering in place and must have protective equipment at the ready. 

In testimony for a Senate Commerce Committee hearing Wednesday (May 13) on “The State of Broadband Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic,” Spalter said many of its members' employees are still in "dire need" of personal protective equipment (PPE) as they do repairs or provide direct, sometimes on-site, assistance to customers.  

He said that USTelecom, which chairs the Communications Coordinating Council, has worked with DHS and FEMA to distribute about a million cotton masks to broadband providers, but that "more and better equipment" is needed.  

"Congress should consider it a priority to provide additional protective equipment for these essential workers," he said. 

Citing the pandemic and MVPD's crucial role, the FCC has decided to extend the deadline for MVPD compliance with new truth-in-billing regs mandated by Congress. 

Cable operators--NCTA-The Internet & Television Association and ACA Connects--had sought an emergency extension, also citing COVID-19, though some prominent Hill Democrats were calling for enforcement on schedule Friday (April 3) at about the same time the FCC's Media Bureau was explaining the extension. 

A source familiar with those Democrats' thinking said that they assumed the delay is because of the coronavirus emergency and are hopeful the companies and the FCC will implement it as soon as possible.

"As the nation tackles the COVID-19 pandemic, multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) and providers of fixed broadband Internet access service are among the entities that are integral to the Commission’s ongoing, nationwide effort to keep Americans informed and connected 

during this national emergency," said Media Bureau chief Michelle Carey. "So that these service providers may focus their resources on this critical effort, we provide appropriate flexibility for MVPDs and providers of fixed broadband Internet access service to fulfill their obligations under the Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019 (TVPA). Specifically, by this Order, we exercise our discretion under the TVPA to grant a blanket extension until December 20, 2020, of the effective date of new truth-in-billing requirements.

The mandate requires cable and satellite providers to disclose all fees before potential subs sign on the dotted line and allow for a 24-hour grace period for cancellations without penalty. The TVPA also requires more transparency in electronic billing and prohibits MVPDs from charging for equipment they don't provide. It was supposed to go into effect June 20, six months after the law's passage as the legislation specified. 

But saying its members need to focus their time and energies on fighting the pandemic and shouldering the additional broadband load of a surf-in-place populace, NCTA and ACA Connects told the FCC they would like the mandate date extended to Dec. 20. Actually, the FCC asked in a request for comment on whether it should extend it to that date and NCTA said yes, then added an exclamation mark with the virus-related request for an emergency extension. 

“ACA Connects welcomes the FCC Media Bureau’s decision today to extend by six months the deadline for compliance with new truth-in-billing requirements for MVPDs and broadband providers enacted last year as part of the Television Viewer Protection Act," said ACA Connects president Matt Polka. “As ACA Connects explained in a joint filing with NCTA and USTelecom, our members would have been hard-pressed to obtain necessary software upgrades from their billing vendors in time to meet the original June deadline, even in the absence of COVID-19.  

“We applaud the FCC for extending the compliance date of the Television Viewer Protection Act," said NCTA in a statement. "The Commission’s timely action will enable cable operators to focus on critical tasks to ensure that Americans remain connected during this unprecedented COVID-19 crisis.”

Telecom ISPs have provided the FCC with a laundry list of coronavirus-related temporary deregulation, including waiving a bunch of deadlines, suspending rules, and providing more funding, all to address the teleworking and telemedicine and distance-learning load of a homebound workforce and student population. 

That came in a letter from USTelecom to FCC chairman Ajit Pai and the other commissioners. They conceded it could be costly and said they would press Congress to appropriate the money. 

And while ISPs have all signed the FCC chairman's connectivity pledge, which includes not terminating customers and waiving late fees for 60 days, the association said the reality is that such a promise comes with a revenue loss, "revenues they expected to have available," in addition to which it is becoming clear that some may not be able to pay even after the 60 days, and broadband providers are already being pressed to extend that period.  

For some, particularly smaller companies, that could have a substantial impact on revenues and operations, it said. "The Commission should be mindful of this fact and consider how it can provide appropriate assistance and support as outlined [below]," it told the FCC. 

"The effects from the inability to access or afford broadband access are particularly acute during this national health crisis," USTelecom said. "Therefore, it is essential that industry and government work together in partnership to do everything we can to make sure every American has access to broadband. The Commission’s long history and expertise in serving healthcare providers, schools and libraries, and low-income Americans, in addition to fueling the deployment of broadband infrastructure, can serve as a substantial tool in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic." 

The association first thanked the FCC for what it has already done--granting special temporary authorities and streamlining regs among them--and more under consideration. 

Then came the asks, "in the spirit of cooperation," focused on its four tranches of Universal Service Fund advanced telecommunications subsidies: healthcare, lifeline, E-rate, and Connect America Fund. 

Here are the actions USTelecom wants the FCC to take during the pandemic: 

On Healthcare: 

1. "Temporarily increase the annual undiscounted cost of eligible expenses Healthcare Connect Fund Program applicants may apply for and remain exempt from the competitive bidding requirements to up to $100,000..."

2. "Open a new application filing window for Funding Year (FY) 2019 funding requests and waive competitive bidding requirements as well as the FY 2019 rural health care support mechanism funding cap to allow HCPs to immediately access more bandwidth and associated support for the remaining months of Funding Year 2019..." 

3. "Waive or significantly increase the rural health care support mechanism funding cap for FY 2020 if necessary to accommodate increased demand..."

4. "Postpone the implementation schedule for the new rules adopted in the RHC Promoting Telehealth Report and Order by one year to allow healthcare providers (HCPs) to obtain services and apply for support with a minimum of disruption and uncertainty..." 

5. [S]uspend or postpone audit fieldwork and deadlines for responding to document or information requests from [Universal Service Fund] auditors..." 

6. "Make a separate allocation of funds available for “Category 2” Internal connections, basic maintenance and managed internal broadband services for eligible healthcare providers..." 

On Lifeline: 

1. "Suspend the prohibition on duplicative support to ensure that all students and adults in household have access to the broadband connections they need to while limiting interactions outside the home..."

2. "[T]he FCC should establish a temporary emergency Lifeline program separate from the existing Lifeline program. The emergency Lifeline program could support a discount of up to $25 per connection per month up to the total monthly service charge per connection (up to 180 days)..." 

On E-Rate: 

1. "Open an emergency funding request window (or expand the current window for FY2020) to provide additional E-rate support during this emergency..." 

2. "On a targeted, temporary basis to address this crisis, waive certain provisions of the competitive bidding process to allow schools and libraries fast access to emergency funds..."

3. "If within the scope of the Commission’s legal authority, allow schools to apply for funding to purchase wired or wireless broadband connectivity on behalf of studentsand/or teachers that do not currently have broadband access from home..."

4. "If within the scope of the Commission’s legal authority, support the purchase of, and distribution to students and/or teachers that do not currently have access at home, devices such as laptop computers, tablet computers, hotspots, smartphones or similar devices..." 

On Connect America Fund: 

1. "Authorize a one-time infusion of funds to ensure that all service providers can rapidly augment their existing infrastructure to support non-traditional usage demands, including funds to augment backhaul to prevent congestion..." 

2. "Allow Connect America Fund (CAF) and Alternative-Connect America Cost Model (ACAM) recipients to elect to receive advance payment of the future high-cost support they are eligible to receive, and waive programmatic requirements..."   

3. "Extend the CAF and A-CAM interim and final deployment milestones by, as an initial matter, six months..."

4. "Waive future CAF II performance measurement-related penalties associated with the inability to test or underperformance of testing..."

5. "Expedite the Digital Opportunity Data Collection by facilitating completion of the Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric (“Fabric”)..."

6. "Grant relief on letter of credit (LOC) obligations..." 

And waive the following deadlines: 

"March 31 deadline for revisions to 2019 Form 499-A involving downward reductions in contribution obligations

"April 1 Form 499-A

"April 1 accessibility recordkeeping compliance certification

"April 22 supply chain information collection

"May 1 Form 499-Q

"June Tariff Review Plan and Access Recovery Charge data filing deadlines (deadlines not yet set)

"June 16 CAF ICC data submission deadline"

"July 1 Form 481 Annual ETC Report

"Urban rate survey (typically comes out in July and is due by the end of August)

"Explore options to reduce the burdens associated with the July 31 annual cost study filings for rate-of-return carriers (elements of which involve field work to produce a response)

"Extend deadlines associated with ongoing USAC audits."

USTelecom has told Congress that its members are "laser focused" on making sure their networks can handle the prolonged reliance on telework, distance learning and other forms of high-band, remote communications--like telehealth--and even as more of that bandwidth is used for video and content streaming during the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. 

Members of Congress from both Houses have reached out to cable and telecom ISPs seeking status reports. 

Related: Senators Seek Info on ISP's Coronavirus Readiness 

The association, which represents the major telecom broadband providers, told Congressional leaders in a letter that as of Friday, in areas where large numbers of workers have been sent home, it had not observed any traffic that exceeded network capacity, not has it gotten reports of "material" congestion or latency issues. 

It points out that is despite the fact that over 60% of network throughout is now taken up by video and content streaming. "While these data flows continue to increase year-over-year," it said, "at peak hours our networks have sufficient capacity to provide customers with necessary bandwidth."  

USTelecom said it is monitoring "around the clock" to assess the networks' tolerance of what it calls, with some understatement, "the internet’s changing business, education and social uses." 

USTelecom was one of many associations and companies to sign FCC chairman Ajit Pai's connectivity pledge. 

The association said its members have been relaying operational and performance information to Department of Homeland Security, FEMA and state safety agencies and that "providers also have in place specific procedures and protocols to ensure first responder communications are prioritized and can transit the networks in the event of an emergency." 

“This is an evolving and unprecedented situation for our country and global community, but every company we represent is committed to the principles of network preparedness and resiliency – in good times and bad," USTelecom told the legislators. "Broadband is the 21st century’s indispensable resource, never more so than in an environment where COVID-19 is reshaping the way we interact with our families, colleagues and fellow citizens.”

Huawei cites NCTA-The Internet & Television Association, USTelecom and CTIA in comments to the FCC this week, telling the commission to abandon its proposal to require universal service fund participants to rip and replace suspect network tech, which the FCC has said includes Chinese network tech suppliers Huawei and ZTE. 

Huawei pointed out that USTelecom told the FCC in its comments that Congress did not intent the FCC to regulate supply chains or a carriers purchasing decisions. It also noted that NCTA had told the FCC that given that there were "numerous other federal efforts" to deal with supply chain risks, "contradictory regulations could have serious unintended consequences.” 

Related: NCTA Cites Suspect Tech Ban's Unintended Consequences 

As to the FCC deciding what tech poses a national security threat, Huawei cited CTIA-The Wireless Association. “[A]s a regulatory agency, the [Commission] may not have the same experience, expertise, or resources as other agencies to designate national security threats," CTIA said.

Related: Huawei says FCC Band Could Be Unconstitutional 

Huawei also said that those commenters had confirmed a simple reality, "that the Commission’s proposed rule is overbroad, imposes extreme burdens, and lacks any reasonable cost-benefit justification." 

Huawei told the FCC that forcing carriers to remove and replace still-operational equipment was legally unsound and factually unjustified. It called the FCC's response to concerns about trusted suppliers was an " irrational and highly inefficient way to address purported security risks." 

The FCC voted to disallow the use of any Universal Service Fund broadband buildout funds to carriers using suspect tech. 

Last November, the FCC voted unanimously to prevent carriers from getting broadband subsidy money if they have suspect tech in the networks they are using that money to build. It also proposed requiring USF-funded carriers to remove and replace existing suspect tech.  

Congress has independently passed legislation that would mandate and fund such rip and replace. 

The FCC said by suspect tech it means equipment, or services, that pose a national security threat to networks or the equipment supply chain. While that will apply to any suspect tech, the FCC also made an initial determination--subject to comment and challenge--that Huawei and ZTE fit the description. Huawei has challenged the designation and is trying to make its case.  

Tech giant NEC Corp. of America has joined USTelecom, the association said Wednesday. 

USTelecom members include former Bells like AT&T and Verizon and tech companies like Cisco, Oracle and Ericsson. 

"For more than a century, NEC has set the pace in transformative technology, and we’re looking forward to bringing that expertise to our expanding roster of global innovators," said USTelecom president Jonathan Spalter. 

NEC, founded in 1899 in Japan as Nippon Electric Co., provides private and government network services, makes PCs, and has labs around the world, including a lab in China working on 5G wireless communications and machine learning. The company was a pioneer in digital signal processing. 

Paul Raak has joined USTelecom as VP of government affairs. 

USTelecom members include AT&T, Verizon, and Frontier. 

Raak had been handling Capitol Hill advocacy for broadband association ITTA.

AT USTelecom, Raak will focus on broadband mapping and deployment and the FCC's Rural Digital Opportunity Fund. 

“Paul’s passion for rural broadband started in Iowa as the son of a third-generation telephone company owner," said USTelecom president Jonathan Spalter, "so he’ll not only be a great addition to our team but an asset to our rural broadband providers in every corner of the country." 

USTelecom was celebrating passage Thursday (Dec. 19) of the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability (DATA) Act, which passed the Senate unanimously as Congress wraps up business before the holiday break.  

The bill passed the House earlier this week. 

“The House and now the Senate have both decisively acted to transform the country’s obsolete broadband maps to get a clearer picture of who has – and who still lacks – access to broadband, the 21st century’s indispensable resource," said Jonathan Spalter, president and CEO of USTelecom. "Under the leadership of Senators Wicker, Peters, Thune and Klobuchar, Congress has adopted a state-of-the-art technology and data driven plan to modernize the national broadband coverage maps with the express purpose of increasing deployment in rural America." 

The bill requires the FCC to issue new rules "to require the collection and dissemination of granular broadband availability data and to establish a process to verify the accuracy of such data, and more."  

The bill essentially pushes an effort already underway at the FCC. The commission voted earlier this year to come up with a more granular broadband data collection process that could be crowd-vetted.  

Virtually all sides agree that the FCC's broadband mapping is unwerwhelming and needs improvement, especially since it is used to determine where broadband deficits need addressing and whether the FCC is fulfilling its Congressional mandate to deploy broadband on a reasonable and timely basis.  

BuzzFeed was reporting Thursday (Oct. 3) that a years-long investigation had uncovered millions of bogus comments favoring ISP deregulation filed by two companies working for Broadband for America, the pro ISP-deregulation group which claims the major ISP trade groups--NCTA-The Internet & Television Association, CTIA, USTelecom, and ISPs AT&T, Comcast, Charter and Cox among its members. 

The story did not suggest BFA orchestrated the use of bogus comments, only that the companies working for it appeared to have generated them. 

There were bogus comments aplenty on both sides of the net neutrality issue in the FCC docket, which contained a record-shattering 22 million comments, millions of which have since been exposed as fraudulent. 

The Buzzfeed story cites data scientist Jeff Kao who estimated that 99.7% of the “organic” comments--not prewritten or duplicate comments, favored retaining the Obama-era rules against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization, rules that the FCC under Ajit Pai successfully overturned, a decision a federal court upheld two days before Buzzfeed published its investigative piece.  

Broadband for America had said it commissioned its own study back in 2017, the chief takeaway from which was that 69.9% of the comments were in favor of repealing Title II, when "fake and unverifiable" international comments were factored out. 

But that was focused on international comments.

NCTA declined to comment on the BuzzFeed story. BFA, and other companies and associations identified as members by BFA, had not returned requests for comment at press time.

Free Press, which opposed the ISP deregulation and has had big questions about the legitimacy of the net neutrality comment process, weighed in on the story.  

“We had long suspected the broadband industry was behind the illegal effort to fake public opposition to Net Neutrality," said Free Press Senior Director of Strategy and Communications Timothy Karr. "Thanks to this invaluable investigative reporting, we can see the money trail that reportedly leads from the largest cable and phone companies through their front group Broadband for America and into the hands of those paid to defraud the public." 

“This is not only outrageous, it’s exactly the kind of violation that federal and state authorities have been investigating. The proper authorities must take the next step and hold those involved to account. And Congress must demand answers from Chairman Pai on what he’s doing to prevent fraud and evaluate real public input.” 

“As the D.C. Circuit recognized this week, the FCC’s decision to abandon the heavy-handed, utility-style Internet regulations imposed under the prior Administration was well-grounded in the law and the facts contained in the record," said a spokesperson for FCC Chairman Pai. "The Restoring Internet Freedom Order was based on a careful examination of the law and the facts, not substance-free form letters, such as the nearly 8 million identical one-sentence comments supporting Title II regulation that were tied to email addresses from FakeMailGenerator.com."

The FCC's net neutrality comment docket has been a flashpoint for net neutrality activists and the subject of outside investigations, including by the New York State Attorney General and the FBI.  

Related: Rep. Pallone Says FBI Investigating FCC Comment Docket  

Pai has conceded there were opportunities for mischief in the docket—which ultimately manifested itself in bogus comments, including ones from a Russian addresses—but he signaled that was the price of erring on the side of inclusiveness. But just how many were filed, and what the FCC's procedures for at least trying to verify their veracity, became an ongoing dialog, though some Dems would say monologue, with the FCC in the run-up to the FCC's December 2017 vote to roll back net neutrality regs.  

In a letter to the Hill, Pai had explained that to enable the filing of bulk comments, the FCC system in 2016 was reconfigured to allow automated submissions, and that while it uses commercially available tools to protect the system from cyber attacks, it "is fundamentally an open, public-facing system, which limits our ability to shut down inappropriate bots accessing [it]." 

There is also no limit to the number of comments that can be filed, other than a size limit of 25 MB for each comment, and five files per submission, including attachments. 

The FCC is expected to take public comments into consideration, though in an age of millions of such comments, it is arguably a practical impossibility.

Fortunately, how many comments are filed is not supposed to be a determinative factor in decision-making, any more than the loudest voice or the biggest pockets are supposed to decide whether or not a policy is good or bad.  

USTelecom will be looking for a new chairman of its board of directors.  

The association said Friday (June 14) that current board chair Anand Vadapalli has announced he will be exiting as president and CEO of Alaska Communications. He was elected chairman in October 2017. 

Vadapalli joined Alaska Communications in August 2006 and was named CEO in February 2011 

“The USTelecom community is grateful to Anand for his vision, leadership and commitment to our industry and the customers we serve," said USTelecom president Jonathan Spalter. "As chair of the association’s Board of Directors, Anand has been a brilliant national advocate for the promise and potential of broadband technology and instrumental in charting a clear, strategic path for USTelecom and our members. We thank Anand for his service to the broadband industry and wish him all of the best in his next adventures.”

USTelecom has released new data it says shows broadband capital investment was up $3 billion in 2018, saying that continued a trend that began when the FCC signaled it planned to eliminate the FCC's rules against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization of internet access.

It is a preliminary look at the 2018 data, but USTelecom estimates that U.S. broadband providers, wired and wireless, invested $75 billion in 2018, up from $72 billion the year before.

"The decline in capital investment starting in 2015 and the recovery that started in 2017 suggest the likelihood of a negative regulatory impact from the 2015 utility classification of broadband providers and, conversely, a positive impact from a return to a more forward-looking policy environment in 2017," said USTelecom.

The data was released on the eve of the June 11, 2019, effective date of the FCC's Restoring Internet Freedom order deregulating internet access. ISPs, joined by the FCC's Republican majority, have argued that the previous 2015 Open Internet Order imposing Title II-based regs had depressed investment, something net activists have vigorously disputed.

USTelecom conceded that that the swings in capital investment warranted further study given that they could also be affected by "macroeconomic conditions, technological developments, capital costs, taxes, competitive upgrade cycles" as well as regulation.

That said, USTelecom said that the "top line broadband capex data strongly suggest that the current pro-investment, pro-innovation, and pro-consumer policy environment is working."

“The latest evidence reaffirms that our policies are working," said Pai of the latest numbers. "Today’s figures show that investment in our nation’s broadband networks rose in 2018 for a second straight year, with an estimated increase of $3 billion. That follows other positive news. For instance, in 2018, fiber was deployed to more new homes in the United States than any year in history, and small cell deployment more than quadrupled. Average broadband speeds have increased substantially. And the digital divide is closing." 

NCTA-The Internet & Television Association is telling the FCC that perfect broadband mapping in the future is the enemy of good data now, or at least sooner if the FCC adopts its proposal. 

That came in NCTA's response to telco ISPs who have proposed a different approach to improving the mapping of where broadband is and isn't, something cable and telco ISPs, the FCC and Congress all agree it needed.  

NCTA is proposing using shapefiles rather than census blocks as the units for measure for broadband availability. It argues shapefiles provide more granular data, something everybody is also looking for, than the census block approach the FCC is currently using. NCTA says the key advantage is that "unserved areas within served census blocks would no longer be counted as served." 

Related: NCTA Outlines Mapping Proposal

The Broadband Mapping Consortium--comprising USTelecom, ITTA and WISPA--has told the FCC that in NCTA's proposal the resulting data aren't sufficiently accurate. 

In a gentle dismissal of NCTA's entire framework, the consortium told the FCC in an April 12 letter.

"We appreciate the cable industry's thoughtful suggestions," they said, [h]owever, their proposed alternatives lack the key unifying component that the Broadband Mapping Consortium is looking to address in its pilot program, a process that will create more accurate broadband location data that, in turnn, will support far more meaningful and useful broadband availability reporting for communications policy." 

"Horsefeathers," replies NCTA, or the regulatory filing equivalent.  

"As a threshold matter, it is important to put the issue of accuracy into perspective. A consistent theme in the BMC Letter is that only through the use of a yet-to-be-created common template for geocoding locations can broadband data collection and mapping be accurate," NCTA says. "But somehow the imperfect GIS [geographic information system] tools that exist today are powering a wide variety of services, like Airbnb and Zillow, that may not be 100% accurate but nevertheless deliver substantial value to society. Rather than waiting around for a theoretically perfect approach to broadband data collection to materialize, the Commission should move forward with structuring a program that is tolerant of the imperfections that are inherent in any data exercise of this magnitude." 

Beyond that data imperfection issue, NCTA says the coalition has made no convincing argument for any "serious shortcomings" to its approach. 

The FCC is collecting comment on ways to collect better (form 477) data on fixed and mobile broadband availability. It has been under the gun to get a better handle on where broadband is and isn't, since that determines whether it is closing the digital divide generally, the rural digital divide in particular, and whether it is deploying advanced communications in a reasonable and timely manner, which the FCC recently concluded is the case.

The Senate Commerce Committee Security Subcommittee will hold an April 30 hearing on cybersecurity related to the internet of things (IoT). The subcommittee is chaired by Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska).

The hearing will look at both threats and was to incentivize cybersecurity by design for connected devices and networks, as well as 5G cybersecurity.

Witnesses for the hearing (subject to change): Michael Bergman, Vice President, Technology & Standards, Consumer Technology Association

Mr. Matthew Eggers, Vice President, Cybersecurity Policy, U.S Chamber of Commerce; Harley Geiger, director of public policy, Rapid7; Robert Mayer, SVP for cybersecurity, USTelecom–The Broadband Association; Charles Romine, director, Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology.

A bipartisan, bicameral bill is being introduced Monday (March 11), the Internet of Things (IoT) Cybersecurity Improvement Act of 2019, to try to get at Hill concerns over network and telecom security.

The bill would require the government to make sure that any devices it purchases meet minimum security requirements.

Also last month, CTIA, the wireless internet association, certified the first IoT device under its Internet of Things (IoT) Cybersecurity Device Program.

The CTIA certification verifies the devices security features against a set of best practices on everything from the storage of consumers’ information and password and security management, to "standards and the availability of an over-the-air mechanism for security software."

Patrick Halley has joined USTelecom as SVP of advocacy and regulatory affairs.

Halley has been a partner at D.C. communications law firm Wilkinson Barker & Knauer 9WBK), and before that served in various posts at the FCC including as associate chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau and acting director of the Office of Legislative Affairs. 

His new post at USTelecom, heading up its advocacy before the FCC, White House and other federal players, won't be a big stretch. At WBK he was advising trade associations, among others, on strategy, policy and legal.

"A nationally-recognized communications policy strategist, Patrick brings deep insight into the regulatory and policy opportunities ahead for the rapidly growing broadband innovation community," said USTelecom president Jonathan Spalter.

Halley's first day was Wednesday (Jan. 2).

"In spite of growing bipartisan momentum in Washington and among technology companies about the need to act, the absence of a single federal privacy policy has encouraged states and international governing bodies to fill the vacuum and effectively dictate how Americans operate online." -Jonathan Spalter, USTelecom

Whether or not Congress flips blue or remains red after the election, there is a purple issue the next Congress must immediately tackle. It is bipartisan, affects America’s global leadership, and is a priority for every consumer who uses the internet: digital privacy.

In our hyper-connected digital lives, consumers across the political spectrum expect and demand strong internet privacy protections. Internet users should be certain that sharing images, exchanging messages, visiting websites, engaging in commerce and sending sensitive data are the types of acts the entire internet ecosystem is obligated to respect and protect.

We agree.

America’s innovative broadband providers are united by the principle that digital privacy is sacred and government has a role in ensuring that consumers can both confidently use the internet and maintain their privacy to the degree that they are comfortable.

In spite of growing bipartisan momentum in Washington and among technology companies about the need to act, the absence of a single federal privacy policy has encouraged states and international governing bodies to fill the vacuum and effectively dictate how Americans operate online.

Unless Congress steps up on privacy, others are going to keep stepping in with well-meaning but counterproductive privacy plans.

The new California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), for example, gives consumers the right to prevent their personal information from being sold to third parties. This seemingly innocuous provision does not distinguish between sensitive and non-sensitive information and could impact how consumers receive online advertising or valuable discounts associated with store rewards programs.

The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) includes a similarly expansive definition of personal information and makes consent to use or share information more difficult to obtain.

These first-mover laws have made constructive contributions to the privacy conversation and deserve credit for responding to mounting consumer concerns. But at the end of the day these patchwork approaches risk creating consumer “confusion” in the name of consumer “protection” and turns the EU, or a single state, into the de facto regulator of digital privacy in the United States.

Instead, all players in our internet economy should be working together to avoid further policy fragmentation and build on the strengths of existing approaches to develop our own comprehensive, unified privacy blueprint that puts consumers first, builds digital trust and applies to all companies interacting with individuals on the internet.

Congress should lead that effort by developing a framework with privacy principles that include: effective security, ample consumer choice and flexibility, and reliable notifications when breaches occur – also applied uniformly to all companies operating on the internet. This framework should have mechanisms that are interoperable with existing multinational privacy regimes.

We know the ones and zeroes of our digital infrastructure are neither red nor blue. From our largest global enterprises to our smallest digital entities, millions of consumers are counting on Congress – regardless of who wins the midterms – to come together to develop a pro-investment and pro-innovation privacy plan that delivers peace of mind to consumers.

Our companies are committed to doing our part to shore up digital trust and give Americans the confidence that no matter what platform, device or network they choose, guardrails will be in place to protect their digital privacy and support our growing and interdependent internet ecosystem.

Jonathan Spalter is the president and CEO of USTelecom, a telecommunications industry trade association representing broadband service providers, manufacturers and suppliers in the world of internet-based communications and entertainment.

The Trump Administration's response to Gov. Jerry Brown's signing Sunday (Sept. 30) of California's tough new net neutrality law was swift and definitive: Justice is suing the state. But there was plenty of other reaction to the effort to re-regulate broadband access in the face of the FCC's order that such efforts were preempted.

“While not surprising, California’s net neutrality effort reaffirms its leaders’ total lack of understanding of how technology or our economy actually works, particularly its ban on paid prioritization," said FCC commissioner Michael O'Rielly, who voted to deregulate ISPs and eliminate the rules against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization. "If allowed to stand, the law would be incredibly detrimental to American consumers and the continued growth of the Internet. Thankfully, this is precisely why our nation’s founding fathers crafted a Commerce Clause to the U.S. Constitution and why I pushed so hard for the Commission’s December action to include strong preemption provisions. The DOJ’s action to challenge this overreach is both appreciated and appropriate."

Democratic commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, who strongly opposed the elimination of the rules, saw it a lot differently, and tweeted her thanks to the governor.

[embed]https://twitter.com/JRosenworcel/status/1046554401647841281[/embed]

“The enactment of California’s net neutrality law is a huge victory for the free and open internet,” said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). “California has shown Washington and the rest of the country that the internet warriors fighting to save net neutrality will not be stopped."

The Taxpayers Protection Alliance argues that new net regs will leave taxpayers on the hook as the feds and states battle it out in court using taxpayer dollars. Then there is the less free data and reduced investment, which it says will not benefit the state's "struggling households." Paid prioritization is a way for companies to subsidize bandwidth use for a particular service, which supporters like the alliance say is consumer-friendly and opponents say is a way to favor one service over another, which isn't neutral.

"[P]assing massive and intrusive internet regulations means fewer options for consumers and internet providers," said Taxpayers Protection Alliance president David Williams. "[T]outed by the law’s backers will be few and far between. Recent data from the Wehe app shows that, even in the post-Title II world, throttling is rare and used solely for network management."

Demand Progress and Public Knowledge, some of net neutrality rules' biggest backers, were celebrating Sunday.

"This is a big day for net neutrality," said Robert Cruickshank, campaign director at Demand Progress. "Gov. Jerry Brown has just restored a free and open internet to the 40 million people of California — the world’s fifth largest economy and home to many major tech companies. This law passed with a large bipartisan majority thanks to an unprecedented outpouring of community activism the likes of which Sacramento has not seen for some time. We now urge the U.S. House of Representatives, especially members representing California, to quickly sign the discharge petition and force a vote to use the Congressional Review Act to restore net neutrality for all 50 states.”

"As is often the case, California is setting a strong example for Congress and other states on the type of net neutrality protections an overwhelming majority of Americans expect," said Public Knowledge VP Chris Lewis. 

"Only in Washington D.C. is this controversial due to the influence of broadband provider lobbyists. Even in California, that influence was strong, but an outpouring of support from consumers and small businesses helped to remind policymakers just how popular net neutrality protections are."

The Writers Guild of American West was also pleased. Content creators are concerned about distributors having too much power over the internet, which they see as an alternative to traditional video distribution channels already controlled by consolidated companies. 

Related: Amazon Slams California Privacy Law

"Once enacted, this landmark net neutrality legislation will serve as a model for states nationwide to follow," said the guild. "The Internet today is where we connect, where we organize and speak freely, and where we can choose what content we consume. With increasing attacks on our First Amendment rights and widespread corporate concentration, preserving an open Internet free from ISP interference is more important now than ever.”

U.S. Telecom, which represents ISPs, called for a 50-state legislative framework for protecting net neutrality. “We all support strong and enforceable net neutrality protections for every American – regardless of where they may live," said USTelecom president Jonathan Spalter. "But this bill is neither the way to get there, nor will it help advance the promise and potential of California’s innovation DNA," he said. "Rather than 50 states stepping in with their own conflicting open internet solutions, we need Congress to step up with a national framework for the whole internet ecosystem and resolve this issue once and for all.”

"This is a true grassroots victory," said California-based progressive group. CREDO Action. "Today, Californians won out against one of the most powerful lobbies in Sacramento. AT&T and other Big Telecom companies opposed this bill with everything they had. Thanks to hundreds of thousands of activists who would not give up the fight against all odds, Californians will have real, meaningful net neutrality protections. We thank Gov. Brown for standing with us and protecting the future of the internet and all our communities who depend on it."

The bill does not go into effect until 2020.

"In fact, the technology we know and experience as “wireless” is—and always has been—supported behind the scenes by wired infrastructure." -Jonathan Spalter, USTelecom

It seems everywhere I turn there are stories about fifth generation (5G) wireless: Will the U.S. win the global race to 5G? Will 5G close the digital divide? Will 5G replace my home broadband? The federal government has joined in asking these questions—with the FCC and the White House holding public discussions this week on how to support 5G development in the near future.

But what is it, exactly?

“5G” describes an evolving set of next generation technologies that represent the newest and fastest wireless connectivity. Many providers are planning to launch 5G services this year using mobile wireless, fixed wireless, or both. And though 5G wireless technology is making headlines worldwide, there’s an important but often overlooked component missing in the discourse—the wired broadband networks. Why? Because 5G can’t and won’t exist without an extensive, ubiquitous wired backbone, and the hundreds of billions of dollars of investment by America’s broadband companies required to deploy them.

In fact, the technology we know and experience as “wireless” is—and always has been—supported behind the scenes by wired infrastructure. This includes your cell phone’s internet and your home’s internet connection. Mobile cellular networks depend on wireline backhaul connections to cell sites, with nearly all wireless traffic traveling over a backbone of fixed networks. They are only wireless in the proverbial “last mile.”

And your home’s WiFi is really just a short range extension of a fixed broadband network, be it cable, DSL, or fiber. Put a different way, when in the near future I send a video via a 5G network from my iPhone in Washington, D.C. to a friend in Oakland, California, some 3,000 miles away, that data will transit wireline networks for 2,998 miles of that trip. Its path would be wireless for just a single mile on each end of the journey.

As with previous generations of wireless communications, users will experience 5G via “wireless” devices; but the ultra-fast speeds will be brought to us behind the scenes by one—or a combination—of those wired connections. So wired infrastructure, including increasingly dense fiber networks, will be essential to making widespread 5G a reality.

Until this solid infrastructure is extended further throughout the country—including to our most remote areas—the benefits of the latest, ultra-high-speed wireless technologies will be realized chiefly by those living in cities and close suburbs, which could exacerbate America’s urban-rural digital divide.

Regardless of the “how,” closing that digital divide is one of the primary, shared goals of the nation’s wireline broadband providers. USTelecom members are investing billions of dollars and working across the country on the ground to do so. Industry investment of over $70 billion annually has helped increase rural connectivity by 71 percent over the last decade. That sort of dedication deserves more than a passing nod in the next-generation connectivity conversation, knowing that—in fact—these investments are enabling the strong wireless connections that are stealing the show.

America’s broadband innovators, be they small, mid-sized, and large, agree that it is now more important than ever to dive deep into the conversation of closing the digital divide. While it will be a challenge, an arsenal of technologies exists that will help close the gap. Broadband providers are using the most economical combinations of technologies like fiber, cellular, and small cells. Meanwhile, providers are developing technologies like fixed wireless, which could be make a significant contribution to closing the urban-rural digital divide.

We need all hands on deck to bring more Americans online. It’s great to see our broadband providers, government agencies, and the White House doing more to support the development of next-generation wireless connectivity. But the fact is, wireless is all about the wires.

Jonathan Spalter is the president and CEO of USTelecom, a telecommunications industry trade association representing broadband service providers, manufacturers and suppliers in the world of internet-based communications and entertainment.

Cable operators and other broadband providers want to use the Farm Bill to remove a long-time thorn in their sides, broadband subsidies that allow for major overbuilding of existing providers.

In a letter to the chair and ranking members of the Senate Agriculture Committee, the heads of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, the American Cable Association, USTelecom, and ITTA-The Voice of America's Broadband Providers, said that while they are considering the new Farm Bill, they should consider reducing the allowable overbuilding in the Rural Utility Service broadband loan program.

Helping light a fire under the push for change is that Congress, in the RAY BAUM's Act, made $600 million available for rural broadband deployment, which will be administered through RUS.

The RUS program only requires 15% of an applicants targeted service area to be unserved, meaning 85% of the funds could be used to build where therea are already up to two providers.

"This practice does nothing to help those in rural America who still don’t have broadband service. Additionally, this government subsidization of a competitor in a market already served by one or two providers is an inefficient use of scarce funding and puts a thumb on the competitive scale, undermining future efforts to sustain existing networks or to build out broadband networks in high-cost areas, especially when those networks are built with private risk capital," they told Sens. Pat Roberts and Debbie Stabenow, chair and ranking member, respectively, of the committee.

NCTA et al. want the Senators to use the bill to modify RUS to limit funding to areas where 100% of residents have no broadband service (defined as no service of at least 10 Mbps downstream, 1 Mbps upstream), or where at least 90% don't have such service.

Attention all those concerned about the Federal Trade Commission's enforcement of network neutrality in the absence of FCC rules: The FTC will be participating in a webinar March 27 to address those concerns.

There is no fee for the 2 p.m. discussion with acting chief technologist Neil Chilson, hosted by Diane Holland, USTelecom VP, law and policy. (USTelecom backed the FCC's network neutrality rules rollback that prompted the concerns and the webinar.)

Among the topics up for discussion and elucidation, according to USTelecom, are: "The FTC’s deep expertise in evaluating harm to consumers and to competition in every industry; the agency’s significant internal technological proficiency to evaluate harms in tech-heavy industries, including broadband; [and] how the FTC supplements its own resources with outside experts, including coordinating with other government agencies."

Related: Ninth Circuit Confirms FTC Common Carrier Carve-Out Is Activity Based

One of those other government agencies will be the FCC, which will enforce the enanced disclosures of ISP conduct the FTC can police with its Sec. 5 authority over unfair and deceptive and anticompetitive practices. Another is the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, which shares oversight of competition in the business sector.

Related: FTC Makes Case for Data Privacy, Security Muscle

The FCC's 2015 reclassification of ISPs as common carriers removed them from FTC oversight per a longstanding antitrust exemption that prevents the FTC from regulating common carriers, though the FTC has been trying to get that exemption repealed.

USTelecom took the offensive in its blog on the July 12 Internet Day of Action, which organizers meant as a protest of the FCC's planned rollback of Title II.

USTelecom president Jonathan Spalter said the real issue in the net-neutrality protest was protecting the bottom lines of "large, powerful internet companies." Among the participants in the protest are Google, Twitter, Facebook, Netflix and Amazon, for example.

"Net neutrality is something we all strongly support, and ISPs are committed to modern rules that protect the universally-embraced principles of no blocking, no throttling and no slow lanes," said Spalter, the last a reference to the no paid prioritization rule. "From Amazon to Twitter to Netflix to, yes, even Pornhub [also an Action Day participant], these online giants want consumers to insist to the FCC that only 100 pages of heavy-handed regulations written in 1934 can 'save net neutrality.' These are the same companies that grew to supremacy in the absence of this heavy-handed framework, yet suddenly now they want consumers to believe it is essential."

Read More: Complete Internet Day of Action Coverage

ISPs have argued that Washington is hyper-focused on them as gatekeepers, while keeping a hands-off approach on edge providers as though they were still struggling garage-innovators, rather than behemoths with staggering valuations and market power.

"When you log on today and see the 'spinning wheel of doom,'" Spalter wrote [the protest includes online graphics simulating those endlessly spinning "load" icons], "keep in mind that some of the biggest and most dominant online companies in the world don’t need you to fight their battles for them, but they are asking anyway."

As with other ISP groups weighing in on Advocacy Day, USTelecom wants Congress to step in. Spalter said the solution to regulatory certainty is "clean, modern net-neutrality rules that safeguard consumers’ online freedoms without sacrificing their equally keen interest in stronger, faster broadband networks — and all the innovation it makes possible."

He said FCC chair Ajit Pai, in proposing to roll back Title II for wired and wireless ISPs and interconnections, eliminating the general conduct standard and rethinking the other rules, "should be commended for seeking that balance in his net-neutrality proceeding."

But Spalter also said Congress should "do right by all consumers to make these protections permanent under the law."

Related: Rep. Walden Advocates for Internet Bill

That is a tall order in a bitterly divided Congress, with some Democrats feeling that coming to the table is not a winning strategy on net neutrality or much else.

Jeremy Pederson has joined USTelecom as vice president of government affairs.

Pederson comes from Frontier Communications, where he was senior manager of federal legislative affairs.

Before that he was counsel to House Energy & Commerce Committee chairman Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.). He also has a connection with a good man to know these days, having been a summer clerk to then FCC commissioner Ajit Pai, now chairman.

"He brings a trifecta of policy experience to our work," USTelecom CEO Jonathan Spalter said of Pederson.

USTelecom, which represents major telco ISPs, was rooting on FCC chair Ajit Pai's business data services (BDS) proposal, which deregulates rates for incumbent providers like USTelecom members AT&T and Verizon where there is competition.

Pai has said he thinks that comprises a lot of places. But the association was pushing even further, saying the item could have been even more deregulatory.

Pai has scheduled a vote on his proposal for April 20.

USTelecom execs, including group president, Jonathan Spalter, told Paiin an April 10 meeting that the proposal to "reduce" the FCC's "price setting role" was "relatively constrained," and pointed to the benefits of more broad price relief, including a finding that incumbent telecoms are no longer de facto dominant, according to an ex parte filing on the meeting.

USTelecom argued that the FCC data on BDS understates the current level of competition and that its competitive market test -- for price deregulation -- may be too conservative.

Critics of the BDS proposal argue that it is overestimating the competition and have called on the FCC to release the data on which markets meet the test or delay the vote.

Jonathan Spalter, former chair of Mobile Future, has tapped his former communications director there for a top communications post at his new gig atop USTelecom.

Sally Aman, who has also helmed her own consulting firm, Aman & Associates, starts immediately.

Related: USTelecom Names Government Affairs SVP.

Aman succeeds Anne Veigle, who has been with USTelecom for the past seven years.

“USTelecom’s members play the central role connecting our nation, investing in our economy, and pushing the envelope with world-leading innovation,"  said Aman. "This is a critical time to work on broadband issues, and I couldn’t be more excited to join the USTelecom team in supporting our members, their stakeholders and their customers.”

The FCC's privacy vote continued to draw a crowd Thursday (Oct. 27) as more groups weighed in on the FCC's decision to require broadband subs to give affirmative permission for the sharing of their Web browsing and app use histories, and take action to boost disclosure of data sharing and data security and breach notification.

Related:Stakeholders Go Public on Privacy Order

The Open Technology Institute was pleased with the move.

“OTI commends the FCC for taking this important step to protect the privacy of broadband consumers," said Laura Moy, acting director of Georgetown Law’s Institute for Public Representation, which represents OTI. "The rules approved today will finally give consumers the protection that they deserve and the Communications Act requires. We want consumers to have confidence in the internet as a safe platform for the exploration and expression of viewpoints without having to worry their ISP will be looking over their shoulder. By preventing ISPs from snooping into and monetizing private information without first getting their customers’ permission, this Order delivers that confidence.”

Demand Progress was equally upbeat, but also took the opportunity to take aim at the AT&T-Time Warner merger.

“Today, chairman Wheeler and commissioners Clyburn and Rosenworcel should be commended for asserting the FCC's jurisdiction over how internet providers protect their users' privacy," said Demand Progress executive director David Segal. "Time and again, we have seen the country’s largest ISP’s, including AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, violate the public’s privacy — severely eroding trust and chilling free expression online in service of corporate profits. Today’s vote is a step forward, but much more must be done. AT&T in particular is a notorious violator of privacy rights, and these consumer abuses are but one of many reasons why we look forward to fighting the company's attempted takeover of Time Warner.”

The FCC's privacy order makes kids' information sensitive data that requires opt-in consent for sharing.

"Common Sense applauds chairman Wheeler and the Commission for approving strong new protections for the privacy of children and families in their online lives and the right for broadband consumers to make informed choices about the use and sharing of their and their kids’ online information, including web and app activity, IP addresses, and geolocation," said Common Sense Kids Action founder James Steyer. "The new FCC rule will also protect families as they move from computers and mobile devices to a growing Internet of Things. This is an excellent step in increasing privacy protections for Americans overall, and we look forward to supporting the rule’s implementation as well as to supporting similarly robust rules for other online actors." Currently edge providers like Google and Facebook are not subject to similarly strong opt-in requirements, but some in Congress are looking to give the FTC more authority.

But there were plenty of pans, or at least partial pans, for the order, which ISPs have said could disrupt the ad-supported free content on the Web and give an unfair advantage to edge providers who are not under an opt-in regime for sharing Web and app info with third-party marketers.

“The FCC’s new privacy rules board up the windows while leaving the doors unlocked," said Rick Boucher, former Democratic chair of the House Communications Subcommittee and currently honorary chair of the Internet Innovation Alliance. "Rather than expanding the definition of sensitive data to include all Web browsing and app usage history, the FCC should adopt the FTC’s more sensible framework as the privacy requirements for ISPs so the entire internet ecosystem is governed by the same rules.

"The bifurcated system that the Commission has created will surely harm consumers by creating confusion," Boucher added. "There is a better way.”

Advertisers and ad associations were not happy.

"The FCC’s new sweeping privacy rules decision is unprecedented, misguided, counterproductive, and potentially extremely harmful," said the Association of National Advertisers. "Subjecting virtually all web browsing and application use data to opt-in consent is completely inconsistent with its long-standing treatment by the FTC, the states, and the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA) self-regulatory program. ANA believed it was a positive step when the FCC stated it would distinguish between sensitive and non-sensitive data, but this proved to be merely misleading lip-service. The new definition of sensitive data adopted by the Commission today would encompass and swallow a vast amount of routine consumer data on the Internet and mobile media."

Dave Grimaldi, EVP of the Interactive Advertising Bureau, said: “Today the FCC took an unfortunate step toward destabilizing the ad-supported internet economy. By voting to approve an overly-broad definition of “sensitive information” that includes web browsing history, the Commission’s action could impair the ability for online ads to support the wealth of consumer benefits we all have come to expect.”

Software developers said that while they recognized that the FCC needed to address the regulatory gap -- the FTC can't regulate common carrier privacy, so the FCC deeded itself oversight when it reclassified ISPs as common carriers in the Open Internet order -- the commission had gone too far. 

“We are concerned that this new privacy regulation strays from the current FTC framework which focuses on information that is actually sensitive," said Software & Information Industry Association VP Mark MacCarthy. "The Commission is casting too wide of a net by classifying web browsing information, app history and other such data as ‘sensitive.’ This broad opt-in requirement is likely to create substantial confusion for consumers.”

USTelecom's reaction was mixed.

“When this proceeding began, USTelecom and many others urged the commission to harmonize its proposal with the framework developed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) given its years of experience with protecting consumer privacy," said USTelecom president Walter McCormick. "The FTC’s approach, endorsed by the White House, has supported innovation across the internet to deliver services that consumers want. The FCC’s partial revision of its proposal to more closely align with the FTC approach is a welcome change for consumers."

But there was a "but."

"Unfortunately, the FCC has chosen to depart from the FTC framework in some areas, for example, by summarily classifying all Web browsing as sensitive information," McCormick added. "This is a disservice to the goal of providing consumers with consistency in privacy expectations when they use the internet and poses a threat to continuing web innovation. The FCC’s argument that broadband providers have unique access to consumer information compared to other internet firms is simply wrong, as the record in the proceeding amply demonstrates."

Verizon, which is a member of USTelecom, was even more cautiously upbeat.

"Verizon is encouraged by the preliminary information we heard this morning about the privacy order approved by the FCC," said Kathy Grillo, SVP and deputy general counsel. "Our company cares deeply about our customers’ privacy, and we strongly believe maintaining consumer trust is critical in each facet of our operations."

"From the outset of this proceeding, we stressed the importance of creating a consistent approach to privacy that gives consumers the same information and choices about the use of their data, regardless of the type of company they interact with online. While we will need to closely review the text of the FCC order after it is released, the final order appears to adopt rules that are much more closely aligned with the Federal Trade Commission’s privacy framework that has long applied to our ISP business and that continues to apply to the rest of the internet ecosystem.”

ISPs were beginning to weigh in on the FCC’s new broadband proposal taking a more nuanced approach by gauging its protection on the sensitivity of the data, though agency chairman Tom Wheeler’s proposal to categorize Web browsing histories and app histories as sensitive information was not sitting well with NCTA-The Internet & Television Association.

"The Chairman’s Fact Sheet describes a regime that departs from the FTC’s proven sensitivity-based approach to consumer privacy in several key respects," said NCTA. "Specifically, in its treatment of web browsing data and first party marketing of ISP services, the FCC departs from past FTC practice in ways that violate principles of fair competition and deny consumers the benefit of a consistent approach to online privacy protection. If the Chairman insists on advancing this approach, we would hope that his fellow commissioners would ‘opt-out’ and seek a result more faithful to the FTC’s proven framework of protecting consumers."

NCTA pushed for a more FTC-like model, but clearly this was not quite it.  NCTA had a similar reaction to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's pivot on set-tops toward an app-based approach NCTA had proposed, which is while it looked like a pivot, it was not all it seemed.

The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) called it a faux compromise.

"The privacy framework announced today, like the Title II common carrier designation before it, sets a terrible precedent likely to reverberate throughout the Internet ecosystem for years to come," the group said.

"This proposed order represents one more slide down the slippery slope, away from the innovation-friendly world of flexible guidelines and effective oversight and towards a paternalist mother-may-I regime that will necessarily raise consumer costs and limit investment. Let’s be clear: This proposal is a vehement rejection of the type of U.S. regulatory oversight that has allowed U.S. businesses to thrive online and a sharp reversal from past claims that the U.S. government is committed to using multistakeholder processes for creating Internet-related policies. Instead, it would create a rigid regulatory regime and introduce a new collective action problem that would limit the use of virtually all data that can be put to economically beneficial uses.

"The FCC claims to hew more closely to the tried-and-true FTC privacy framework. It does only in that the FCC plans to base its data sharing consent requirements loosely around the sensitivity of the data involved, rather than placing heightened restrictions based solely on the company holding the data.

"But key departures from the FTC model negate most, if not all, of the advantages of this approach. First, the FTC offers guidelines, not regulatory mandates. The FCC’s class of 'sensitive' data requiring opt-in consent is absurdly large, effectively requiring ISPs to obtain opt-in consent for any uses of consumer data—a scenario that will chill investment and diminish competition by establishing disparate privacy rules for separate segments of industry.

"In addition, the FCC would force companies to ask for permission from the government before offering their broadband customers discounts for sharing of data. This paternalistic approach assumes that consumers are neither smart enough nor savvy enough to make their own choices about how to reduce their costs."

Telcos were a little more sanguine, though still with reservations.

“Consumers are best served when privacy rules are clear and consistent across the entire internet. We are pleased that the FCC has recognized the importance of providing consumers with a common expectation of privacy without regard to service or platform, and that the sensitive nature of the information being shared should be the determining factor in what is afforded increased protection," said USTelecom president Walter McCormick. "We are concerned, however, that the commission, which has no expertise with regard to determining the content of speech, is now attempting to redefine what consumers may regard as sensitive. In this regard, consumers would be better served if the FCC were to defer to the expertise of the FTC in this area, and the two agencies were to pursue a uniform approach.”

Verizon chief privacy officer Karen Zacharia said: "At Verizon, we are encouraged that the FCC appears to have taken seriously the input provided by a wide range of stakeholders and seems to be moving towards an approach that provides for more consistent standards across the internet ecosystem. We care deeply about our customers’ privacy, and understand that we have much at risk if we lose their trust. A consistent approach to privacy that gives consumers the same information and choices about the use of their data, regardless of the type of company they interact with online, is essential.  Maintaining a consistent set of standards also will foster the competition and innovation that consumers love about the Internet.

"Where the FCC draws the line between sensitive and non-sensitive data will be important, but in general we agree that a sensitivity-based approach is more closely aligned with the Federal Trade Commissions’ choice framework and better for consumers," Zacharia added. "We think that this approach better reflects our customers’ expectations. In fact, at Verizon, we have long tailored choices for our customers based on data sensitivity.

"Verizon is much more than an ISP," she continued. "For a company like Verizon, which offers a diverse set of products and services across the Internet ecosystem, this movement towards a harmonized approach is particularly important."

The Association of National Advertisers sounded hopeful but concerned.

“We are just beginning to review Chairman Wheeler’s Broadband CPNI Fact Sheet, and are pleased that it now distinguishes between sensitive and non-sensitive information," ANA said in a statement. "This distinction is critically important and consistent with existing law and self-regulatory standards, like those of the Digital Advertising Alliance. While the Fact Sheet cites some examples of the information that will fall into each category, it will be crucially important that the definition of sensitive information is not overly broad or this approach will prove onerous both to business and consumers and counterproductive. We are also extremely concerned about some provisions, including the overly-burdensome data breach notification obligations that are inconsistent with state approaches to this issue in the U.S. This aspect of the proposal is highly likely to force companies often to have to prematurely notify a breach before all facts are at hand.  We look forward to working with the FCC on these issues as this matter advances.”