For years we’ve talked about how the broadband and cable industry has perfected the use of utterly bogus fees to jack up subscriber bills, a dash of financial creativity it adopted from the banking and airline industries. Countless cable and broadband companies tack on a myriad of completely bogus fees below the line, letting them advertise one rate — then sock you with a higher rate once your bill actually arrives. These companies will then brag repeatedly about how they haven’t raised rates yet this year, when that’s almost never actually the case.
Despite this gamesmanship occurring for the better part of two decades, nobody ever seems particularly interested in doing much about it. The government tends to see this as little more than creative financing, and when efforts to rein in this bad behavior (which is really false advertising) do pop up, they tend to go nowhere, given this industry’s immense lobbying power.
The latest case in point: US Rep. Anna Eshoo last week quietly introduced a bill that would require broadband and cable TV providers to include all charges in their advertised price. Eshoo explains the proposal as such in her announcement:
“Customers deserve to know exactly what they?re paying for when it comes to monthly cable and Internet service bills. Today, they?re sold a service for one price, only to be blindsided by higher bills at the end of the month from tacked on ?service? or ?administrative? fees,? Rep. Eshoo said. ?These ?below-the-line? fees add up to hundreds of millions of dollars each year for cable and Internet service providers at the expense of consumers who have little to no option than to pay up. The TRUE Fees Act is commonsense legislation that brings transparency to consumers and empowers them when it comes to phone, cable and Internet fees.”
Of course this bill is never going to pass this current Congressional body, which tends to go out of its way to protect these companies from anything even vaguely resembling accountability. The industry is likely to pull out all the stops, given the billions that are made annually from such bogus fees, and because the bill also prohibits forced arbitration clauses when cable TV or broadband providers make billing mistakes.
Again, this problem is rampant. CenturyLink has been charging its broadband customers an “internet cost recovery fee,” which the company’s website insists “helps defray costs associated with building and maintaining CenturyLink’s High-Speed Internet broadband network” (that’s what your full bill is supposed to be for). Comcast and other cable companies have similarly begun charging users a “broadcast TV fee,” which simply takes a portion of the costs of programming, and hides it below the line. The names differ but the goal’s the same: falsely advertise one rate, then charge consumers a higher price.
And again, efforts to do something about it always get killed thanks to industry lobbying and corruption. The FCC tried to at least mandate transparency as part of its now-dead 2015 net neutrality rules, which current FCC boss Ajit Pai dismantled for, you know, freedom or whatever. Of course you wouldn’t need legislation like this if there were more competition in the telecom sector letting consumers vote with their wallets, but given Pai and other industry BFFs don’t want to fix that specific problem either, being quietly, covertly ripped off will remain the law of the land for the foreseeable future.
We’ve long noted how state legislatures are so corrupt, they often quite literally let entrenched telecom operators write horrible, protectionist laws that hamstring competition. That’s why there’s now 21 states where companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast have successfully lobbied for laws banning towns and cities from building their own broadband networks, even in instances where the incumbent refuses to. In many states, these laws even ban public/private partnerships, often the only creative solution for better broadband in low ROI markets.
FCC efforts to pre-empt states from engaging in this kind of protectionism have been shot down by the courts, and voters continue to elect lawmakers whose top priority is protecting entrenched telecom duopolies, ensuring this cycle of pay-to-play dysfunction continues.
Occasionally lawmakers propose bills attempting to shake up this cronyism, but the ISP-stranglehold over lawmakers usually ensure they go nowhere. Case in point: Rep. Anna Eshoo has introduced the Community Broadband Act of 2018 (HR 4814), which would not only ban states from passing rules prohibiting community broadband, but would ensure that any community broadband networks that get built don’t get preferential treatment by regulators if they compete with private-sector ISPs. As bill co-sponsor Mike Doyle notes, these networks are often the only way many towns and cities get decent service:
“All too often, communities around the country struggle to get service from private providers, and where people can get service all too often it?s too slow and costs too much,? Doyle said in a statement. ?Communities that build out their own broadband networks offer competitive options that not only bring service to the unserved, but also promote competition in underserved areas.”
AT&T, Verizon and Comcast’s stranglehold over state and federal lawmakers ensures this effort will likely be killed in committee, just like the two previous efforts to pass such a law were (one by Eshoo last year, and another by Senator Cory Booker in 2016). Like net neutrality, having access to better, cheaper broadband has stupidly become a “partisan” issue thanks to ISPs eager to sow discord on the subject. And when it comes to municipal broadband, ISPs do so by framing the concept as automatic taxpayer boondoggles (actual residents tend to disagree).
Ignored in that argument is the fact that these towns and cities aren’t getting into the broadband business because they think it’s fun, they’re doing so after decades of disgust at available private options. Also ignored is the fact that making local infrastructure decisions should be left up to the communities themselves, not competition-phobic Comcast executives sitting half a world away. If ISPs wanted to stop community broadband, they could offer better, cheaper service. Instead, lawsuits, disinformation, and protectionist state laws tend to be their option of choice.
Unfortunately for these ISPs, the attack on net neutrality is only driving more interest than ever in locally owned and operated creative alternatives to the broken status quo. And as the Trump administration rushes to remove all federal and state oversight of these uncompetitive duopolies, the resulting shit show will only make such options more appealing than ever to under-served communities.
When you testify before Congress, it helps to actually have some knowledge of what you’re talking about. On Tuesday, the House Energy & Commerce Committee held the latest congressional hearing on the whole silly encryption fight, entitled Deciphering the Debate Over Encryption: Industry and Law Enforcement Perspectives. And, indeed, they did have witnesses presenting “industry” and “law enforcement” views, but for unclear reasons decided to separate them. First up were three “law enforcement” panelists, who were free to say whatever the hell they wanted with no one pointing out that they were spewing pure bullshit. You can watch the whole thing below (while it says it’s 4 hours, it doesn’t actually start until about 45 minutes in):
Lots of craziness was stated — starting with the idea pushed by both chief of intelligence for the NYPD, Thomas Galati and the commander of the office of intelligence for the Indiana State Police, Charles Cohen — that the way to deal with non-US or open source encryption was just to ban it from app stores. This is a real suggestion that was just made before Congress by two (?!?) separate law enforcement officials. Rep. Morgan Griffith rightly pointed out that so many encryption products couldn’t possibly be regulated by US law, and asked the panelists what to do about it. You can watch the exchange here:
You see Cohen ridiculously claim that since Apple and Google are gatekeepers to apps, that the government could just ban foreign encryption apps from being in the app stores:
Right now Google and Apple act as the gatekeepers for most of those encrypted apps, meaning if the app is not available on the App Store for an iOS device, if the app is not available on Google Play for an Android device, a customer of the United States cannot install it. So while some of the encrypted apps, like Telegram, are based outside the United States, US companies act as gatekeepers as to whether those apps are accessible here in the United States to be used.
This is just wrong. It’s ignorant and clueless and for a law enforcement official — let alone one who is apparently the “commander of the office of intelligence” — to not know that this is wrong is just astounding. Yes, on Apple phones it’s more difficult to get apps onto a phone, but it’s not impossible. On Android, however, it’s easy. There are tons of alternative app stores, and part of the promise of the Android ecosystem is that you’re not locked into Google’s own app store. And, really, is Cohen literally saying that Apple and Google should be told they cannot allow Telegram — one of the most popular apps in the world — in their app stores? Really?
Galati then agreed with him and piled on with more ignorance:
I agree with what the Captain said. Certain apps are not available on all devices. So if the companies that are outside the United States can’t comply with same rules and regulations of the ones that are in the United States, then they shouldn’t be available on the app stores. For example, you can’t get every app on a Blackberry that you can on an Android or a Google.
Leaving aside the fact he said “Android or a Google” (and just assuming he meant iPhone for one of those)… what?!? The reason you can’t get every app on a BlackBerry that’s on other devices has nothing to do with any of this at all. It’s because the market for BlackBerry devices is tiny, so developers don’t develop for the BlackBerry ecosystem (and, of course, some BlackBerries now use Android anyway, so…). That comment by Galati makes no sense at all. Using the fact that fewer developers develop for BlackBerry says nothing about blocking foreign encryption apps from Android or iOS ecosystems. It makes no sense.
Why are these people testifying before Congress when they don’t appear to know what they’re talking about?
Later in the hearing, when questioned by Rep. Paul Tonko about how other countries (especially authoritarian regimes) might view a US law demanding backdoors as an opportunity to demand the same levels of access, Cohen speculated ridiculously, wildly and falsely that he’d heard that Apple gave China its source code:
Here’s what Cohen says:
In preparing for the testimony, I saw several news stories that said that Apple provided the source code for iOS to China, as an example. I don’t know whether those stories are true or not.
Yeah, because they’re not. He then goes on to say that Apple has never said under oath whether or not that’s true — except, just a little while later, on the second panel, Apple’s General Counsel Bruce Sewell made it quite clear that they have never given China its source code. Either way, Cohen follows it up by saying that Apple won’t give US law enforcement its source code, as if to imply that Apple is somehow more willing to help the Chinese government hack into phones than the US government. Again, this is just blatant false propaganda. And yet here is someone testifying before Congress and claiming that it might be true.
Thankfully, at the end of the hearing, Rep. Anna Eshoo — who isn’t even a member of the subcommittee holding the hearing (though she is a top member of the larger committee) joined in and quizzed Cohen about his bizarre claims:
She notes that it’s a huge allegation to make without any factual evidence, and asks if he has anything to go on beyond just general “news reports.” Not surprisingly, he does not.
Elsewhere in the hearing, Cohen also insists that a dual key solution would work. He says this with 100% confidence — that if Apple and law enforcement had a shared key it would be “just like a safety deposit box.” Of course, this is also just wrong. As has been shown for decades, when you set up a two key solution, you’re introducing vulnerabilities into the system that almost certainly let in others as well.
And then, after that, Rep. Jerry McNerney raises the point — highlighted by many others in the past — that rather than “going dark,” law enforcement is in the golden age of surveillance and investigation thanks to more and new information, including that provided by mobile phones (such as location data, metadata on contacts and more). Cohen, somewhat astoundingly, claims he can’t think of any new information that’s now available thanks to mobile phones:
Here’s Cohen:
Sir, I’m having problems thinking of an example of information that’s available now that was not before. From my perspective, thinking through investigations that we previously had information for, when you combine the encryption issue along with shorter and shorter retention periods, in a service provider, meaning they’re keeping their records, for both data and metadata, for a shorter period of time, available to legal process. I’m having difficulty finding an example of an avenue that was not available before.
Huh?!? He can’t think of things like location info from mobile phones? He can’t think of things like metadata and data around unencrypted texts? He can’t think of things like unencrypted and available information from apps? Then why is he on this panel? And the issue of data retention? Was he just told before the hearing to make a point to push for mandatory data retention and decided to throw in a nod to it here?
At least Galati, who went after him, was willing to admit that tech has provided a lot more information than in the past — but then claimed that encryption was “eliminating those gains.”
Cohen is really the clown at the show here. He also claims that Apple somehow decided to throw away its key and that it was “solving a problem that doesn’t exist” in adding encryption:
There he’s being asked by Rep. Yvette Clarke if he sees any technical solutions to the encryption issue, and he says:
The solution that we had in place previously, in which Apple did hold a key. And as Chief Galati mentioned, that was never compromised. So they could comply with a proper service of legal process. Essentially, what happened is that Apple solved a problem that does not exist.
Again, this is astoundingly ignorant. The problem before was that there was no key. It wasn’t that Apple had the key, it’s that the data was readily available to anyone who had access to the phone. That put everyone’s information at risk. It’s why there was so much concern about stolen phones and why stolen phones were so valuable. For a law enforcement official to not realize that and not think it was a real problem is… astounding. And, again, raises the question of why this guy is testifying before Congress.
It also raises the question of why Congress put him on a panel with no experts around to correct his many, many errors. At the very least, towards the beginning of the second panel, Apple GC Sewell explained how Cohen was just flat out wrong on these points:
If you can’t see that, after his prepared remarks, Sewell directly addresses Cohen’s claims:
That’s where I was going to conclude my comments. But I think I owe it to this committee to add one additional thought. And I want to be very clear on this: We have not provided source code to the Chinese government. We did not have a key 19 months ago that we threw away. We have not announced that we are going to apply passcode encryption to the next generation iCloud. I just want to be very clear on that because we heard three allegations. Those allegations have no merit.
A few minutes later, he’s asked directly about this and whether or not the Chinese had asked for the source code, and Sewell says that, yes, the Chinese have asked, and Apple has refused to give it to them:
Seems like they could have killed 3 hours of ignorant arguments presented to Congress, if they had just not allowed such ignorance to be spewed earlier on.
For many years now, we’ve talked about the importance of a federal anti-SLAPP law, that would protect the First Amendment. As we’ve explained, it is not uncommon for people to abuse our judicial system to file a lawsuit against someone for saying things that they don’t like, knowing that no matter how frivolous, the threat (and cost) of the lawsuit is often enough to get them to shut up. That’s why such “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” (SLAPP) are so popular. As it stands, anti-SLAPP laws are a complete hodgepodge of state laws. Some states have no anti-SLAPP laws. Others have weak ones. And a few have strong ones (though even some of those are under attack).
While there have been some attempts in the past, it appears that some in Congress are trying, once again, to create a federal anti-SLAPP law. This one has been introduced by Reps. Blake Farenthold and Anna Eshoo (with co-sponsorship from Reps. Darrell Issa, Jared Polis and Trent Franks).
The SPEAK FREE Act of 2015, will protect citizens from frivolous lawsuits that target their First Amendment Rights. Based on the Texas Citizens Participation Act, this bill will prevent bad actors from using a lawsuit to silence public opinion simply because they don?t agree with it. These lawsuits, known as SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), pose a threat not only to free speech, but to the modern information economy. Protecting our right to free speech drives economic opportunity by paving the way to new forums for expression, like YouTube, or by facilitating the rise and fall of products or services through competition and honest buyer feedback.
The SPEAK FREE Act will provide a federal backstop to state Anti-SLAPP laws by creating a process similar to that in Texas and California, where expensive court proceedings are delayed and claims can be dismissed if the defendant can show that a SLAPP suit cannot succeed on the merits.
The full text of the bill can be seen at that link (or below), and it does appear to be similar to the ones in Texas and California, making it much easier to dismiss bogus SLAPP suits, to halt discovery and to get awarded attorneys fees for such SLAPP suits. Also, unlike some state laws, it is not limited to just speech about the government, which is important. While there may be some specifics within the bill that are worth tweaking, overall, it seems clearly modeled on the very successful, and well-thought out bills already in place in Texas and California. It would be a huge boost to freedom of expression to have this become law.
Seeing as how some rather wealthy folks have been trying to kill off anti-SLAPP laws in states already, expect to see a lot of FUD come out about this attempt to put in place an anti-SLAPP law that protects free expression across the entire country.
In an evening session just a few minutes ago, the House of Representatives voted 295-114 in favor of H.R.1123, the “Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act”. As we discussed this morning, though it started out as a reasonably good bill intended to address the use of the DMCA to squash activities that have nothing to do with copyright, last-minute changes introduced by Rep. Bob Goodlatte poisoned its intent by introducing a possible future exception for bulk phone unlocking.
Unfortunately, the changes were so last-minute that the reaction and withdrawal of support by Reps. Zoe Lofgren and Anna Eshoo was not enough to turn the tides. Though the problematic text is carefully worded for plausible deniability — allowing the House to claim it hasn’t technically taken a side — I doubt it would take long before phone companies and their lobbyists started using this oh-so-obvious bit of leverage gifted to them in the bill. For now, it falls to the Senate to pass their version of the bill, so there’s still a chance we’ll see these problems addressed.
Earlier this month we noted how a group of representatives responded to the death of the FCC’s net-neutrality rules by introducing the Open Internet Preservation Act of 2014, a bill that aimed to simply bring back the FCC’s net neutrality rules (and all of the problems within). The bill, backed by Anna Eshoo was apparently introduced solely as a public relation stunt, given that it had absolutely no chance of passing. After years of distortion, noise and confusion, net neutrality is such an immensely toxic topic in Congress that nobody wants to touch it, assuming Congress was functional enough to pass a bill in the first place.
Speaking with C-Span, Eshoo admitted the bill has no chance of passing. So why bother? According to Eshoo it was the principle of the thing:
“She suggested it was to make a point. “I think that setting a bill down in the Congress of the United States in the form that it is in really reflects millions and millions and millions of people in our country, and most frankly around the world, that want the Internet to remain accessible and open and free to them.” She called that an important principle.
Except Eshoo’s making the wrong statement on the wrong principles. The rules’ dubious legal underpinnings aside, most of the people who recently lamented the death of network neutrality rules forgot, or never knew, that the rules didn’t do much of anything useful to begin with. They were based on framework language from the likes of AT&T, Verizon and Google (from Eshoo’s district), didn’t meaningfully cover wireless networks, and contained a lot of loophole language that allowed for any number of discriminatory network behaviors — just as long as the network operator proclaimed it was being done for the health and security of the network. The rules did ban outright blocking of content, but that’s something no ISP is dumb enough to do anyway for fear of incurring real consumer protections.
It was effectively the industry’s way of enshrining rules that had no real teeth but would prevent the introduction of tougher rules. That was, until Verizon decided to have their cake and eat it too — suing the FCC in an attempted killing blow to erode FCC regulatory authority over broadband. That didn’t work, and the resulting loss killed neutrality rules but in some ways left the FCC’s ability to regulate broadband ISPs intact. All eyes are now on precisely what track new FCC boss (and former cable lobbyist) Tom Wheeler wants to take this train of dysfunction.
Eshoo might think she’s helping by trying to resuscitate the carcass of busted, legally unsupportable and intentionally wimpy neutrality rules “on principle,” but the only PR statement that was made was that nobody on either side of the net neutrality debate in Congress actually seems to be entirely aware of what they’re fighting over.
Well, this was inevitable, but a group of Representatives have introduced a new net neutrality bill, called the Open Internet Preservation Act of 2014, which attempts to bring back the FCC’s rules that an appeals court struck down. The bill is more PR than anything else. For whatever reason (actually no good reason at all), net neutrality has become a purely partisan issue in Congress (Democrats for, Republicans against) and based on the fact that this bill only has Democrat sponsors, it means, first off, that it’s only going to rekindle the same old fight without solving anything and go nowhere. But, more importantly, it’s still the same old situation trying to kludge together a temporary solution for the real problem, which is the lack of a competitive market.
While there was a lot of talk after the White House agreed with an awful lot of people that mobile phone unlocking should be legal, there’s been little real action. Part of the problem might be that the White House suggested that this could be fixed via telecom law, when the whole issue had nothing to do with telecom law, but the broken anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA, also known as 17 USC 1201. While Congress did put forth a bunch of bills, they were all lacking, and none seemed to really tackle the underlying problem: 17 USC 1201 is completely broken. It makes circumventing a technical protection measure a form of infringement, even if the circumvention has nothing to do with actual copyright infringement. Furthermore, it makes it illegal to “manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof,” that is primarily designed for circumventing digital locks even if the end use is not infringing.
Thankfully, Rep. Zoe Lofgren has finally introduced a real reform bill that tries to tackle this issue, along with Rep. Thomas Massie, Rep. Anna Eshoo and Rep. Jared Polis. The bill, called the Unlocking Technology Act of 2013, changes the law to make it clear: if you circumvent some sort of digital lock for a reason that has nothing to do with infringement, it would no longer be illegal. Basically, it would add the following:
It shall not be a violation of this section to circumvent a technological measure in connection with a work protected under this title if the purpose of such circumvention is to engage in a use that is not an infringement of copyright under this title.
Similarly, circumvention tools that have primarily non-infringing uses would also be legalized. It would still be illegal to do that big list of things above if the intent is to infringe, but merely creating the tools for non-infringing purposes would be legalized. Thus, tools for unlocking mobile phone, and the act of unlocking mobile phones, would be legal.
The bill also has two other key pieces. First, it makes it clear that it is not copyright infringement to switch networks and then access or load a copy of software that is stored in RAM. This seems very specific, but some operators have argued that by putting in a clause in a user agreement that forbids switching networks, those who do so could infringe by then accessing software stored in memory.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the bill addresses the claims that fixing the DMCA would violate trade agreements (we’ve heard seven different trade agreements would be violated with this simple fix of the DMCA) by telling the President that Congress says he needs to fix those agreements. Nice and simple:
The President shall take the necessary steps to secure modifications to applicable bilateral and multilateral trade agreements to which the United States is a party in order to ensure that such agreements are consistent with the amendments made by this Act.
This is actually really important. Because (just watch) copyright maximalists love to scream about how changes like this would “violate our international obligations” (while leaving out the fact that they were the ones who wrote half of those agreements in the first place). But the fact is that Congress has authority over international trade, not the executive branch. So if Congress wants, as would be the case with this bill, it can order the executive branch to change or fix any international agreements that get in the way of good law.
Somehow, with little fanfare, last week Rep. Zoe Lofgren (along with Reps. Eshoo, Matsui and Honda) introduced the Global Free Internet Act of 2013, which appears to be a new version of a similar bill from last year. You should read the full bill yourselves, but it points to the importance of a “single, open, global internet,” as well as certain things that might threaten that. Among the things it lists are important, are that we, as a country:
(A) encourage utilization on a global basis of technology standards set by international standards-setting organizations, including industry-led and other voluntary bodies, and selected by the market;
(B) respect the security of information, privacy, and speech of Internet users;
(C) promote investment in Internet-related innovation;
(D) refrain from compelling Internet service providers and other intermediaries to restrict the free flow of information on the Internet; and
(E) allow trade in Internet-related goods, services, information, and content.
And it worries about governments seeking to censor or constrain the internet by doing any of the following:
(A) mandating unique technology standards favoring domestic producers as a condition of market access or pursuing related policies regarding standard-setting that are discriminatory and subvert the open, global nature of the Internet;
(B) sponsoring or tolerating the use of Internet-related tools to gain unauthorized access to public-sector and private-sector networks in the United States to disrupt their operation;
(C) blocking, filtering, or otherwise restricting Internet communications in a manner that discriminates against Internet-based services and content originating in other countries;
(D) monitoring Internet use and communications in a manner that restricts individual privacy and freedom; and
(E) imposing market access requirements or liabilities that discriminate against or otherwise impede Internet-related goods, services and content from other countries.
It then goes on to create a task force to take on these issues, and to help the government promote the first list, while avoiding the second. It seems like a perfectly reasonable plan, with little controversial about it, which is why I wouldn’t be surprised to see Congress ignore it.
While the MPAA has been pretending that there are no alternatives beyond the insanity that is PIPA and SOPA, some in Congress have actually been hard at work on trying to think through the specific issues. And one key point has become clear: this isn’t a law and order issue, but an international trade issue. Nearly all of the complaints are about the problem of “foreign” sites sending goods across the border into the US. So it makes absolutely no sense that this issue isn’t under the purview of the Finance Committee, whose job it is to oversee international trade. Thus, a bill is being worked on that tackles the issues as an international trade issue. A “discussion draft” is being circulated on this (embedded below).
This new effort has bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate, and unlike SOPA and PIPA, seeks to try to focus in on situations that are actually problematic. In the Senate, it has the backing of Senators Cantwell, Moran, Paul, Warner and Wyden. All of whom had come out against PIPA, except for Warner. Adding him to this issue is big, given his experience in the business world. On the House side, it’s Reps. Chaffetz, Campbell, Doggett, Eshoo, Issa and Lofgren. The focus would be putting the issue into the International Trade Commission, where there are experts focused on trade issues.
I think this is an approach that absolutely makes sense for counterfeit physical goods and the websites that sell them. Frankly, it’s bizarre that it ever went beyond a discussion of international trade. It becomes somewhat trickier with copyright issues, and that’s because you now have questions about how physical borders apply to digital networks. And I’m not sure I know how to best deal with that. Separately, having seen the ITC process on patents go off the rails at times, and become more of a way for patent holders to issue a “double whack” against a company they accuse of infringement, I’d be concerned about making sure that this process doesn’t allow for two bites at the same apple. If it’s properly focused on just foreign sites, that might not be as big an issue.
Either way, the devil will be in the details, but the details are still being written. Seeing as this is a discussion draft, I’m hearing that the folks involved really do want a discussion (unlike what we got with SOPA/PIPA), and that includes folks here. Take a look at the draft, and weigh in, knowing that some of the folks involved really will be reading what you have to say.
