Karl Bode’s Techdirt Profile

kbode

About Karl Bode

Karl Bode is a freelance writer living in New York that has been babbling, jabbering and prattling about technology, politics and culture professionally for more than fifteen years. Follow me on Twitter @KarlBode

http://www.linkedin.com/in/karlbode



Posted on Techdirt - 29 June 2016 @ 3:21am

After Multi-Month Tone Deaf Shitshow, Microsoft Finally Lets Users Control Obnoxious Windows 10 Upgrade

from the lack-of-control dept

Microsoft's decision to offer Windows 10 as a free upgrade to Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 made sense on its surface. It was a nice freebie for users happy to upgrade, and an effective way to herd customers on older Windows iterations onto the latest platform to help consolidate support expense. But Microsoft's upgrade in practice has seen no shortage of criticism from users annoyed by a total lack of control over the update, and Microsoft's violent tone deafness in response to the complaints.

For example a Reddit post from an anti-poaching organization made the rounds earlier this year after the 17 GB automatic Windows 10 update resulted in huge per megabyte charges from their satellite broadband ISP. Microsoft's response to these complaints? Ignore them. As complaints grew, Microsoft finally provided a way to fully disable the forced upgrade, but made sure it involved forcing users to modify the registry, something Microsoft knew full well less technical users wouldn't be comfortable attempting to hurdle.

But Microsoft made the problem worse in other ways, too. The Redmond giant also came under fire for upgrade popups that misleadingly shoved users toward the upgrade. For example, closing an update notification dialogue box by clicking "X" automatically began the update process, much like malware:

"Last week, Microsoft silently changed Get Windows 10 yet again. And this time, it has gone beyond the social engineering scheme that has been fooling people into inadvertently upgrading to Windows 10 for months. This time, it actually changed the behavior of the window that appears so that if you click the “Close” window box, you are actually agreeing to the upgrade. Without you knowing what just happened."
Things have been escalating ever since, often to comedic effect. But this week things changed somewhat with the news that Microsoft has struck a $10,000 settlement with a California woman who sued the company after an ill-timed Windows 10 upgrade brought her office computers to a crawl. The woman took Microsoft to court after support failed to help resolve the issue, a spokesman saying Microsoft halted its appeal of the ruling "to avoid the expense of further litigation."

And while Microsoft was sure to avoid admitting error of any kind, the company this week announced it will finally give users actual control over the Windows 10 upgrade experience. A new notification window will let users update now, schedule the upgrade for a later date, or (gasp) decline the free offer entirely:
"Since we introduced a new upgrade experience for Windows 10, we've received feedback that some of our valued customers found it confusing," admits Windows chief Terry Myerson, in a statement to The Verge. "We've been working hard to incorporate their feedback and this week, we'll roll out a new upgrade experience with clear options to upgrade now, schedule a time, or decline the free offer."
Aren't you a bunch of sweethearts, actually listening to "valued customers" screaming for months about how you're acting like a malware vendor! As of now, this is what the Windows 10 upgrade notification will look like:
And to think: it only took months of public kicking and screaming, a repeated, vicious beating in the media (even from historical supporters of the company) and this latest settlement for Microsoft to do the right thing. It's particularly absurd given that (assuming you like operating systems that send uncontrollable chatter over the network) Windows 10 is generally well reviewed and liked by people. All Microsoft really had to do was offer the free upgrade, let the OS sell itself, then give consumers some control over the process and this entire absurd saga would have been avoided.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Posted on Techdirt - 28 June 2016 @ 9:26am

Hillary Clinton's Tech Policy Plan Includes Some Empty Broadband Promises And A Continued War On Encryption

from the making-friends-and-influencing-people dept

Hillary Clinton's tech policy plan has been released, and it includes some new, potentially hollow broadband promises, a pledge to continue defending the FCC's net neutrality rules from telecom industry attack, some feel good commentary on the sharing and innovation economies, and continued support for the candidate's absurd war on encryption.

With the FCC's recent net neutrality court victory, the broadband industry's best path forward is to elect a President who'll stock the commission with revolving door regulators who'll simply fail to enforce the rules. But Trump's proven so divisive to some Conservatives, that even AT&T's top lobbyist Jim Cicconi this week came out in gushing support of Clinton:

"Mr. Cicconi, who worked in the White House for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, said he has backed every GOP presidential candidate since 1976. “But this year I think it’s vital to put our country’s well being ahead of party,” he said in a statement provided by the campaign. “Hillary Clinton is experienced, qualified, and will make a fine president. The alternative, I fear, would set our nation on a very dark path."
Given AT&T's threat to take the neutrality fight to the Supreme Court, Cicconi's support is curious, but may say more about Trump's unpredictability than it does about Clinton. Regardless, the 14-page "technology and innovation agenda" includes upsetting her new BFF by continuing to fight for net neutrality:
"Hillary believes that the government has an obligation to protect the open internet. The open internet is not only essential for consumer choice and civic empowerment – it is a cornerstone of start-up innovation and creative disruption in technology markets. Hillary strongly supports the FCC decision under the Obama Administration to adopt strong network neutrality rules that deemed internet service providers to be common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. These rules now ban broadband discrimination, prohibit pay-for-play favoritism, and establish oversight of “interconnection” relationships between providers. Hillary would defend these rules in court and continue to enforce them."
The plan also makes some arguably vague promises on broadband, promising to deliver ubiquitous broadband to all Americans by 2020:
"Hillary will finish the job of connecting America’s households to the internet, committing that by 2020, 100 percent of households in America will have the option of affordable broadband that delivers speeds sufficient to meet families’ needs. She will deliver on this goal with continue investments in the Connect America Fund, Rural Utilities Service program, and Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP), and by directing federal agencies to consider the full range of technologies as potential recipients—i.e., fiber, fixed wireless, and satellite—while focusing on areas that lack any fixed broadband networks currently."
While some outlets were quick to call this plan ambitious, historically vague broadband coverage promises haven't meant all that much.

A favorite pastime of politicians is to make broadband promises they know will be completed even if government doesn't lift a finger, then gobble up the easy political brownie points (with ample help from an unskeptical tech press) after the fact. Obama, for example, in 2011 promised wireless broadband coverage to 98% of all Americans, ignoring the fact that industry data at the time suggested we'd already met that mark (albeit poorly) with 2G and 3G wireless. Former FCC boss Julius Genachowski similarly received ample praise for issuing a "gigabit city challenge", knowing full well gigabit service was arriving without much help from him or other politicians at the time (mostly via frustrated towns and cities forced into the broadband business on their own).

And while the FCC will help us get to 100% broadband coverage by opening up spectrum for 5G, moving from the supposed 98% broadband coverage mark to 100% really won't require much government help. 5G is arriving by 2020 or so regardless of what Clinton does, as it's a cornerstone of AT&T and Verizon's plan to hang up on unwanted DSL customers they refuse to upgrade. That doesn't somehow mean the broadband that's "100% available" to you is going to actually be good or cheap, since that would involve the government acknowledging that lack of competition means Americans pay more for broadband than most developed nations. Fixing this will take significantly more than empty promises, and for Clinton, it will certainly involve pissing off new allies like Jim Cicconi.

The lion's share of Clinton's tech agenda consists of ambiguous promises that, as with all campaign promises, may or may not have any actual basis in fact.

Clinton's plan calls for improving government adoption of technology and efficiency, improving our patent system (which the Clinton camp declares "has been an envy of the world"), and other feel good efforts such as "facilitating citizen engagement in government innovation" and using technology to "improve outcomes and drive government accountability" (doesn't that sound lovely?). But Clinton also makes it clear she intends to continue waging war on encryption -- her plan for a "Manhattan Project" to "solve" (read: weaken) encryption still very much on the table:
"Hillary rejects the false choice between privacy interests and keeping Americans safe. She was a proponent of the USA Freedom Act, and she supports Senator Mark Warner and Representative Mike McCaul’s idea for a national commission on digital security and encryption. This commission will work with the technology and public safety communities to address the needs of law enforcement, protect the privacy and security of all Americans that use technology, assess how innovation might point to new policy approaches, and advance our larger national security and global competitiveness interests."
Yes, it's abundantly clear that Clinton and friends continue to struggle with the idea that encryption is simply a tool, and like any tool it can be used for a myriad of purposes. That doesn't mean you unilaterally declare war on said tool -- or work tirelessly to make that tool less useful or more dangerous via backdoors -- a conversation we'll apparently be having over and over and over again should Clinton's presidency ascend beyond the rhetorical, larval stage.

39 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Posted on Techdirt - 28 June 2016 @ 6:18am

Senate Hearing Shows Cable Companies Routinely Overbill Customers, Do Little To Correct Errors

from the wrist-slaps-and-platitudes dept

If you've been distracted by something like a coma, you may have noticed that the cable industry has developed an atrocious reputation for poor customer service, built over a generation of regulatory capture, prioritizing growth over customer service, and just generally not giving much of a damn. By and large, a Congress slathered in telecom and cable campaign contributions has ensured that nothing much changes on that front, with most politicians taking every opportunity to in fact defend this dysfunctional status quo from innovation, competition, or change.

As such, it was marginally adorable to see Congress hold a hearing last week designed to deliver a few light wrist slaps to cable executives for their inability to seriously improve. Senators Rob Portman and Claire McCaskill simultaneously released a study (pdf) exploring how a number of large cable companies routinely overbill consumers, and do little to nothing to actually resolve such errors. In fact, a study released by the Senate found that Charter and its recently acquired subsidiary Time Warner Cable routinely overbill customers to the tune of around $7.2 million per year:

Between January and April 2016, Time Warner Cable overbilled customers nationwide an estimated $639,948. The Subcommittee projects that, in 2016, Time Warner Cable will overbill customers nationwide a total of $1,919,844. Charter has not yet completed the underlying work necessary to determine how much it has overbilled customers. But it has informed the Subcommittee that it overbilled customers by at least $442,691 per month.
What's more, the study found that these two companies specifically have a habit of doing even less than other upopular cable companies (read: nothing) after customers were overbilled:
During the six and a half year time period covered by the Subcommittee’s investigation, Time Warner Cable and Charter did not automatically refund or credit customers for equipment overcharges they discovered. By contrast, Comcast and DirecTV provided full refunds to overcharged customers, and Dish’s sophisticated billing system is designed to prevent these types of issues from occurring in the first instance.
And as a reminder: Time Warner Cable and Charter just merged, potentially creating a Voltron of errant overbilling. And thanks to binding arbitration mouseprint now buried in every cable and broadband contract under the sun, overbilled customers can't technically sue.

While both Time Warner Cable and Charter have promised to implement systems to avoid overbilling customers moving forward, such inquiries are usually geared toward scoring some cheap political brownie points among cable-loathing constituents, and rarely result in much of a follow-up (and there could be follow-up, since much of this technically constitutes false advertising). Still, to her credit, McCaskill also touched on the practice of misleading below-the-line fees used by cable operators to covertly jack up the advertised rate of services post-sale:
"We found that customers are being charged a host of fees that are not included in advertised pricing, some of which are for programming that used to be included in a customer’s video package. We also found that, just as many customers have long believed, some of these fees, like the HD and DVR service fees, aren’t a true reflection of the cost to the company of the service, but rather are based on the revenue goals of the company, and the price a customer is willing to stomach.”
Again, that has been a problem for years in both cable and telecom, thanks in part to Senators and regulators that have a nasty habit of pretending it's not happening. From "broadcast TV fees" that bury the cost of programming below the line, to bizarre, nonsensical charges like "internet cost recovery fees" -- most of the "innovation" in telecom and cable these days occurs in the realm of adding misleading charges to your bill, not in improving actual service or support.

A second study presented at the hearing goes into more detail, examining how cable providers also make it difficult if not impossible to comparison price shop (another benefit of below the line fees). McCaskill even offered up a recording of her recent call with DirecTV, made after she realized the company for years had been charging her an $8 per month "protection plan" fee she neither wanted nor asked for.

"I said, 'well, were you going to tell me this?' They said, 'no you have to call in and ask,'" McCaskill said at the hearing (you can find a full video of the hearing here). "If I hadn't called in and asked, that $10 could still be on my bill today based on the billing practices of the companies represented at this hearing."

And while cable's best and brightest spent plenty of time at the hearing claiming they've learned the error of their ways and are doing everything under the sun to change, that's the same promise they've given every year for more than fifteen years. Surely this wrist slap will be the wrist slap that sends them running back to the drawing board with a heartfelt desire to change?

Read More | 17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Posted on Techdirt - 27 June 2016 @ 11:44am

Russian Culture Minister Claims Netflix A U.S. Mind Control Effort

from the glass-house-propagandists dept

Already on the shitlist of U.S. broadband companies for supporting net neutrality and opposing things like usage caps, Netflix now has a new factually-challenged enemy: Russia. Russia's Culture Ministry took over government film funding through the Cinema Fund in 2012, and more recently unveiled a list of approved subject matter should film makers in Russia wish to get funding. Approved subject matter should include tales that herald "traditional values," "the constructive actions of civil society" or "heroes fighting crime, terrorism and extremism."

With Netflix now pushing into 190 different countries and launching in Russia last January, Russia has clearly become nervous about the influence the US streaming company could have on Russian culture and homegrown production efforts. As such, streaming services like Netflix have been saddled with a significant number of restrictions, including requirements that online video services must be run through a Russia-registered subsidiary, produce 30% of its content locally, and potentially apply for a broadcast license.

Apparently believing these restrictions won't hamper Netflix fully enough, Russian Minister of Culture Vladimir Medinsky last week upped the rhetoric to 11, proclaiming that Netflix was little more than a US government attempt to control the minds of Russian citizens:

"Vladimir Medinsky, Russia's minister of culture and a loyal supporter of President Vladimir Putin, claims the online streaming service is on the US government payroll. Speaking to a Russian news service, he said the White House had realised "how to enter every home, creep into every television, and through that television, into the head of every person on earth, with the help of Netflix."

"It turns out that our ideological friends [the US government] understand perfectly well which is the greatest of the arts," he said, alluding Lenin's famous comment about the propaganda of cinema. "And you thought, what? That all these gigantic start-ups appear by themselves? That some boy student thought something up and billions of dollars flutter from above?"
Scary! Nobody denies that both countries have used oceans of disinformation and media propaganda to portray the other side in a negative light, but suggesting Netflix has much of a motivation beyond money is an entertaining leap. Medinsky's complaint is particularly amusing given that Russia was just exposed for running disinformation factories twenty-four hours a day whose sole function is to fill the internet with anti-Western bile. But regardless of which side is generating the propaganda; if your social values are so fragile they can be unraveled by a half-hour sitcom or a documentary, you may want to reconsider your ethos.

That said, the real villain in this latest chapter in the information wars isn't Netflix, but Netflix-produced shows and other fare that dare to show homosexuals as something vaguely resembling actual human beings.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Posted on Techdirt - 27 June 2016 @ 6:30am

White House Warns Congress To Stop Its Sneak Attacks On Net Neutrality

from the duopoly-defenders dept

For most of the last year, the House has desperately been trying to punish the FCC for standing up to ISPs on net neutrality. This has included an endless number of taxpayer funded "accountability" hearings designed to shame the agency, as well as attempts to gut FCC authority and funding via sneaky budget riders. The latest example is the House Appropriations Committee's 29-17 vote to approve an FCC appropriations bill (pdf), part of a larger Financial Services Bill determining the 2017 budgets for multiple agencies. That bill not only dramatically reduces the FCC budget, but tries to hamstring net neutrality rule enforcement.

Apparently growing tired of these kinds of sneak attacks, the White House last week was forced to issue a statement of administration policy (pdf) lamenting the use of "highly problematic ideological provisions" in budget bills aimed at stopping regulators overseeing multiple sectors from doing their jobs. Specifically, the White House defends the FCC's net neutrality plan, noting that bureaucratic sneak attacks will not be able to undermine an agency vote and the support of millions of Americans:

"For almost a century, U.S. law has recognized that companies who connect Americans to the world have special obligations not to exploit the monopoly they enjoy over access in and out of Americans' homes or businesses. It is common sense that the same philosophy should guide any service that is based on the transmission of information—whether a phone call, or a packet of data. The FCC's rules recognize that broadband service is of the same importance, and must carry the same obligations as so many of the other vital services do.

These carefully-designed rules have already been implemented in large part with little to no impact on the telecommunications companies making important investments in the U.S. economy, and would ensure that neither the cable company nor the phone company would be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what Americans can do or see online. The appropriations process should not be used to overturn the will of both an independent regulator and millions of Americans on this vital issue.
The White House also takes a moment to slam the House attempt to kill the FCC's plan to bring competition to the cable box. Specifically, the statement complains how budget riders would have forced the plan into permanent committee purgatory:
"The Administration opposes section 636 that aims at delaying the FCC from adopting or enforcing new rules to open the video set-top box market to additional competition. Currently, 99 percent of cable and satellite TV consumers rent set-top boxes directly from the cable providers, costing households an average of $230 per year. The FCC is already committed to a lengthy, thorough rulemaking process that would establish a robust record of comment and analysis from companies, non-profit organizations, and academics. The current provision unnecessarily interferes with these long-established processes by requiring a delay of at least 270 days, and probably much longer, and a redundant, potentially costly study."
Again, the politicians opposing both of these FCC initiatives breathlessly claim they're only concerned about government "overreach." In reality, campaign contributions simply have them tripping over themselves to see who can best defend the nation's telecom duopolists from the faintest specter of competition and accountability. The White House statement makes it abundantly clear these sneak attacks will be vetoed, meaning that while they may be cathartic for net neutrality opponents trying to protect AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from the will of the public, they aren't likely to be effective.

With the net neutrality rules now on solid legal ground and an appeal victory seen as unlikely, net neutrality opponents only have one real way to weaken the rules: elect a president sure to stock the FCC with revolving door regulators who'll refuse to actually enforce them.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Posted on Techdirt - 23 June 2016 @ 9:36am

North Carolina's New Broadband Plan Forgets To Include 'Don't Let ISP Lobbyists Write Shitty State Telecom Law'

from the promises,-promises dept

For years we've noted how 19 states have effectively let companies like AT&T and Comcast write protectionist state broadband laws to protect the status quo. Such laws usually either block or hamstring frustrated communities looking to build their own broadband networks, or in some instances from striking public/private agreements with companies like Google Fiber. Last year the FCC finally started paying attention to such bans, stating it intends to use Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to preempt restrictions conflicting with its Congressional mandate to ensure even broadband deployment.

The FCC's action specifically targeted bans in both Tennessee and North Carolina, both states where incumbent telecom lobbyists quite literally control state legislatures. Both states' dysfunction on this front is legendary, yet both chose to sue the FCC in court to, they claim, defend "states rights" from federal government "overreach" (defending state residents from shitty telecom law written by lobbyists isn't much of a concern).

North Carolina has been a particular joke on this front, with Time Warner Cable successfully getting its own protectionist legislation passed in 2011, after three consecutive failed attempts. The "Level Playing Field/Local Gov't Competition Act" saddled towns looking to improve local broadband infrastructure with all manner of limits on how they could build, price, and sell broadband service -- simply to protect lazy incumbent ISPs:

"Christopher Mitchell, director of the Telecommunications as Commons Initiative for the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a nonprofit economic and community development consulting group, disagreed with Avila. He said if the bill in North Carolina is signed, he’d classify it as a de-facto ban on community broadband networks, given the wide breadth of restrictions in the bill.

"I don’t believe you’ll see any community surpass the hurdles to build a network if this bill passes,” Mitchell said. “The number of barriers will make it all but impossible.”
Fast forward to this week, and North Carolina unveiled its new state broadband plan (pdf), which aims to bring "universal access" to broadband for all North Carolina residents by 2021. As we saw with our national broadband plan, such plans are historically hollow, designed to give the impression political leaders are actually bridging the digital divide, while ignoring the lack of competition that results in US broadband residents paying some of the highest rates for broadband in the developed world. The real plan for most governments? Let deep-pocketed telecom campaign contributors have everything they want.

North Carolina's plan is no different, but at several points oddly tries to applaud activism by communities sick and tired of stagnant broadband duopolies:
"Through the course of writing the plan, two common themes emerged: active and engaged communities and their partnerships with private sector internet service providers are the biggest factors in bridging existing digital divides. Therefore, the plan’s recommendations encourage communities to be active participants in the development process.
Well, unless you support state laws actively and violently preventing them from doing that, right? The plan summary at one point does point out that the state's horrible protectionist law exists, but isn't politically courageous enough to actually recommend eliminating it as a serious impediment to state improvement. The plan's executive summary continues to ignore the state's responsibility in helping to keep broadband coverage gaps intact:
"However, broadband’s benefits are not evenly dispersed and a digital divide, or “a gulf between those who have ready access to the internet and computers,”i and those that don’t, is growing. Many communities, typically in sparsely populated or economically-distressed areas lack access to infrastructure or affordable service. Additionally, broadband adoption—the proportion of citizens subscribing to internet service—is low in NC given the rate of broadband availability in the state and contributes to the widening digital divide.
In every state, there are areas where incumbent ISPs refuse to reach because it's just not profitable enough, quickly enough for investor-loyal ISPs. That's why local communities have often been forced to either build their own networks, or lean on a public/private partnership. The end result was municipal broadband networks like Greenlight out of Wilson, North Carolina, which was willing to fill in those gaps -- but found itself suddenly unable to expand and hamstrung by North Carolina's protectionist state broadband law. North Carolina's plan fails to seriously address this.

This same kind of nonsense is occurring in state after state, with politicians breathlessly declaring that even broadband deployment is a priority, then turning around and supporting protectionist laws that do little beyond keeping stagnant broadband duopolies intact. If ISPs don't want communities getting into the broadband business, they should offer better, cheaper service. And if states want to truly support even broadband deployment, step one needs to be to stop letting mega-ISP lobbyists write shitty state telecom law.

3 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Posted on Techdirt - 23 June 2016 @ 6:32am

Sony Settlement Gives PS3 Owners $9 After Company Made Console Less Useful Via Firmware Update

from the just-renting dept

We've noted countless times how in the modern computing era, you don't really own what you think you own. You don't really own the music or books that can arbitrarily disappear on your devices, and you no longer really own a wide variety of hardware that can be dramatically changed (often for the worse) via firmware update months or years after purchase. If you're extra lucky, you'll shell out $300 for a piece of hardware that one year later simply won't work at all. With intelligent automobiles and the rise of the internet-of-not-so-smart things, that's more true now than ever.

Case in point: back in 2010 we noted how Sony issued several firmware updates for its Playstation 3 gaming console that effectively made the console less useful. One specifically (PS3 software update 3.21) removed the console owner's ability to load alternative operating systems like Linux. But tinkerers being tinkerers, some users found ways to use the feature to expand the console's functionality in all kinds of creative ways. Fearing a loss of control and potential spike in piracy, Sony decided to make the console significantly less useful.

Sony was ultimately sued via class action for the decision. After six years of litigation, Sony has agreed to settle the dispute by doling out a whopping $9 to each console owner that bought a PS3 based on Sony's promises to provide "Other OS" functionality, and $55 to each PS3 user that managed to get Linux running on the console. Like most class actions it's the attorneys who'll reap the most benefits, Sony doling out $2.25 million in attorneys' fees for the lawyers who brought suit (though it's worth noting even this wouldn't be possible today thanks to TOS mouse print banning class actions and requiring binding arbitration).

Sony's lawyers at several points tried to claim that the update was "voluntary," refusing to acknowledge that users that refused to install the firmware couldn't actually use it for much of anything:

"...Sony said the update was voluntary. However, without updating, console owners couldn't connect to the PlayStation Network, play any games online, play any games or Blu-ray movies that required the new firmware, play any files kept on a media server, or download any future updates. Before the settlement, Sony argued that its terms of service allowed it to remove the Other OS feature and that the functionality wasn't that big of a deal for most console owners."
Part of the settlement requires that PS3 owners show "some proof of their use of the Other OS functionality" -- which after six years may not be all that easy for impacted users. While it's nice to see PS3 owners get a little something after six years of litigation, the overall trend in technology remains one where consumers can't tinker with the hardware they "own," can't be sure the hardware will adhere to day one marketing promises, have no guarantees that the gear will even work even one year down the line, and can't sue if what they own is intentionally downgraded or crippled by the manufacturer. Progress!

Read More | 32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Posted on Techdirt - 23 June 2016 @ 3:25am

Open Access Idaho Broadband Network Lets Customers Switch To A New ISP In Seconds

from the what-competition-actually-looks-like dept

In 2009, the FCC funded a Harvard study that concluded (pdf) that open access policies (letting multiple ISPs come in and compete over a central, core network) resulted in lower broadband prices and better service. Of course when the FCC released its flimsy, politically timid "National Broadband Plan" back in 2010, this realization (not to mention an honest accounting of the sector's limited competition) was nowhere to be found. Since then, "open access" has become somewhat of a dirty word in telecom, and even companies like Google Fiber -- which originally promised to adhere to the concept on its own network before quietly backpedaling -- are eager to pretend the idea doesn't exist.

That's not the case for Ammon, Idaho however, where a small municipal broadband ISP is building a core broadband network that's not only embracing open access, but is developing tools that will let customers easily switch between ISPs in seconds. Even different customers in the same home can select different ISPs depending on their needs:

"Residents will get a gateway provided by the city. When they hook it up and try to surf the Web, they will be taken to the portal where they can select an ISP—very much like using the Internet in a hotel. From that point, residents will scan the available Internet offers, purchase one, and get hooked up immediately. They could even buy two different Internet services, which might be useful for a family where a parent works at home and wants a single broadband line for a home office and a second broadband service for the rest of the home."
While only a 12 home trial at the moment, the city of Ammon is beginning expansion to 200 homes, with plans to reach all 4,500 homes and apartment buildings in time. Like most municipal broadband networks, the Ammon network was forged in the wake of resident annoyance at apathetic area incumbents CenturyLink and Cable One. Also like most municipal broadband communities, Ammon is relatively conservative, once again putting to bed the useful ISP-backed myth that municipal broadband is a partisan, political issue:
"Ammon is "a very conservative community," so creating a fiber network instead of relying solely on the private sector is not something city officials were about to do lightly, Mayor Dana Kirkham said in the video. But city officials soon figured out that they could do the initial project themselves for just $22,000 and that they could also bring Internet access to government buildings and businesses, improving the city's ability to compete in a high-tech world in a fiscally responsible manner."
Again though, open access in most areas of the country is treated like the bubonic plague. Why? Most large scale open access proposals often involve some form of local public/private partnership to ensure even coverage of what's becoming a necessary utility to lower ROI areas. The end result is any ISP lobbyists' worst nightmare: an informed, motivated public with the backing of local governments working together to improve broadband competition, instead of the current paradigm of regulatory capture resulting in government ignoring the public to maintain the duopoly status quo.

And while Ammon's approach is unlikely to be adopted on any scale here in the States, it's an interesting look at what could have been if the country wasn't quite so beholden to telecom industry campaign contributions.

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Posted on Net Neutrality Special Edition - 22 June 2016 @ 6:23am

Study Finds That T-Mobile's Binge On Is Exploitable, Unreliable, And Still Violates Net Neutrality

from the a-duck-is-still-a-duck dept

For a while now we've warned how "zero rating" (letting some content bypass usage caps) is a creative way for ISPs to tap dance around net neutrality --potentially to public applause. Comcast, for example, exempts its creatively-named "Stream" streaming video service from caps, but claims this doesn't violate net neutrality because the traffic never technically leaves Comcast's network. Verizon exempts its own Go90 video service from caps as well, and to date doesn't even bother justifying the move. Both AT&T and Verizon let companies pay for cap exemption.

And while these programs all laugh in the face of neutrality, many users still tend to applaud the horrible precedent because they believe -- despite paying an arm and a leg for wireless data -- that they're getting something for free.

T-Mobile has been perhaps the most creative in exploiting this belief and implementing zero rating, now exempting some 90 video services from user usage caps and throttling these services to 1.5 Mbps (or 480p) unless a user opts out. But neutrality advocates have repeatedly noted this idea still violates net neutrality given that thousands of startups, educational orgs, and non profits still aren't whitelisted -- and may not even realize they're being discriminated against.

And while T-Mobile has done some great things for consumers the last few years, T-Mobile's response to these concerns has been relatively pathetic, vacillating between lying about how the program works, to insulting net neutrality supporters like the EFF while fighting real net neutrality rules and Title II reclassification. Yet because many in the public don't understand the horrible precedent and just think it's really groovy they're getting free stuff -- T-Mobile's Binge On, happily lives on.

But a new study out of Northeastern University doesn't have much nice to say about T-Mobile's "consumer friendly" zero rating program. The researchers found numerous problems with Binge On, including the fact that T-Mobile's promise of 480p video quality is consistently less:

"T-​​Mobile says that the res­o­lu­tion for Binge On streaming is 480p (pro­gres­sive scan) or better, which is con­sid­ered stan­dard for DVD movies. How­ever, the researchers did not find evi­dence to back up these claims. In their trials using YouTube, the res­o­lu­tion was only 360p, notice­ably blurry on a modern smartphone.
They also found that T-Mobile's systems not only had trouble accurately detecting video services:
"T-Mobile’s detec­tion methods are very simple, so there’s no way they can always be right,” he says. "That means that Binge On is likely slowing down traffic that is not video. This raises serious con­cerns about com­pli­ance with the Open Internet Order."
And they found that the system was manipulable by clever T-Mobile users, potentially allowing them to zero rate services not covered by the program:
"Those simple methods open the door to exploita­tion as well, allowing sub­scribers to get free data even for non-​​video con­tent. The researchers devel­oped simple soft­ware that manip­u­lates internet traffic so that it looks like video. For example, it makes any web content—web pages, app down­loads, and photos—look like YouTube traffic. “We real­ized we could make any net­work traffic zero rated by just putting the right text in the right place," says Choffnes. "That is a secu­rity vulnerability -- it's poten­tially an open cash reg­ister that people can take from."
So in short, the report notes that T-Mobile's Binge On isn't accurate, is exploitable, and reduces video quality more than T-Mobile claims. T-Mobile (and zero rating supporters) argue that what T-Mobile's doing is ok simply because users can opt out. But the researchers noted that putting the onus to opt out on frequently non-technical consumers doesn't somehow magically mean net neutrality isn't violated by the underlying precedent. The researchers argue that regardless of public opinion on the subject -- the T-Mobile Binge On is still a net neutrality violation however you'd like to slice it:
"The internet has been hugely suc­cessful because it enables inno­va­tion, where all new internet appli­ca­tions receive the same net­work ser­vice as incumbents -- it's a level playing field," says Choffnes. "T-Mobile’s policy gives spe­cial treat­ment to video providers that work with them. What if every ISP did this, but in a dif­ferent way? In such a world, the next Net­flix, Hulu, or Pied Piper might never get off the ground because keeping up with ISPs and their poli­cies would leave them chasing their tails."
There's several reasons why we're not seeing the backlash to zero rating we've seen elsewhere in the net neutrality fight. One, again, consumers think they're getting something for free, and don't understand that usage caps are entirely arbitrary constructs to begin with, and not actually even useful for managing network congestion (should it even actually exist). Zero rating also is seeing support from companies that historically supported net neutrality (Google, Netflix) because these companies are benefiting from the additional traffic and ad eyeballs these programs send their direction.

But because consumers don't really understand the slippery slope they're happily having a picnic on -- and Silicon Valley companies are willing to turn a blind eye to these types of net neutrality violations because they profit off of them -- doesn't magically mean what T-Mobile is doing is a good idea.

With the FCC's net neutrality rules now on more secure footing after their major legal win, all eyes now turn to what the FCC intends to do about broadband usage caps and zero rating. While many countries (India, Japan, The Netherlands, Chile) understand the bad precedent at play here and have banned zero rating outright as anti-competitive, the FCC decided to weigh the anti-competitive impact of zero rating on a "case by case basis." And while the FCC is currently conducting a rather glacial inquiry into caps and zero rating, ISPs so far have been allowed to employ the practice with relative impunity.

In short, the FCC's failure to ban zero rating opened the door to net neutrality violations, provided an ISP is just clever about it. Without Netflix or Google's support, and with consumers believing they're benefiting from such models, the FCC is seeing notably less political pressure to act. So while it's wonderful that we've got shiny new net neutrality rules freshly upheld by the court system, they may wind up being useless as carriers and ISPs tap dance over, under and around them -- to thunderous public applause.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Posted on Techdirt - 21 June 2016 @ 8:37am

Cable Industry: Our Shitty TV Apps Are Just As Good As Real Cable Box Competition, Right?

from the half-baked dept

The cable industry is aggressively fighting the FCC's attempt to bring competition to the cable box market. So far that's been via a two-pronged approach of buying a torrent of incredibly misleading editorials by people pretending to be objective observers (including Jesse Jackson), and throwing money at politicians who oppose the plan, but pretty clearly have no goddamned idea what they're actually talking about.

Under the FCC's plan (pdf), cable providers would be required to provide their existing programming to third-party hardware vendors, creating competition and hopefully a flood of better, cheaper hardware without the need for expensive, and annoying CableCARDs. But with the average user paying $231 annually in set top box rental fees, the cable industry is pulling out all the stops to protect $21 billion in annual, captive revenues.

The cable sector's latest attempt to scuttle the FCC's plan? A voluntary counter-proposal that pretends to deliver what the FCC is asking for, but falls well short. Under the proposal unveiled during recent meetings at the FCC (pdf), the cable industry would instead provide much of its existing programming via apps. This, the cable industry claims, would somehow create competition in the third-party hardware market without FCC involvement:

This alternative could be built on enforcing an industry-wide commitment to develop and deploy video “apps” that all large MVPDs would build to open HTML5 web standards....They expressed their belief that such an approach could further advance competition for independent device manufacturers within the context of a market transformation already underway and in a manner that fully protects and respects the rights of content owners.
But while this has been portrayed as some kind of revolutionary concession by hired telecom sector policy cheerleaders and several different press outlets, it isn't much different than what cable operators offer today. Currently, most cable providers offer some of their content via apps usable on tablets, smartphones, and many streaming devices. Historically, they offer fewer features and less content than is available via full, traditional cable; little more than a token gesture toward innovation in the hopes of keeping paying customers from jumping ship to Netflix, Amazon, or a collection of other cheaper options.

Under this latest proposal, you'd be able to watch some cable content via apps, but if you wanted to, say, record via DVR -- you'd still have to sign up for old, vanilla QAM-based cable and pay for the same, old, clunky set top box. Ultimately, my guess is that these cable executives would eventually get rid of the cable box if you use their apps, but force you to pay a monthly fee for their cloud-based streaming or other services. Potentially using zero rating (exempting their services from usage caps) to ensure fealty. Slight variation on the same, existing song.

INCOMPAS, a trade association that has Google, Amazon, Netflix, and some ISPs as members (mostly telcos with no interest in selling cable TV), issued a statement pointing out that this "compromise" wasn't much of one, while reminding everyone that cable sector promises historically don't mean much:
...The cable industry is proposing competitive choice for streaming devices, but still seeks to retain a controlling grip on DVRs and recordable devices. “The cable industry has made promises before about ditching the set-top box, that have not materialized. So it is important for the FCC’s unlock the box proposal to include enforceable standards that will create a thriving market for competition, congruent with the law.
Consumer groups too were quick to point out that the cable industry's proposal is murky and falls short:
"The proposal does not allow for many features that consumers want, such as home recording, and it does not allow for true user interface competition," Public Knowledge Senior Staff Attorney John Bergmayer said in a statement sent to Ars. "Additionally, core aspects of the proposal are unclear, in particular, the precise mechanism by which MVPDs propose to provide apps for various hardware and software platforms, and whether consumers would need a broadband connection to access video programming instead of leveraging their existing pay TV connections."
While it's good this proposal at least brings the cable industry to the table, skepticism is more than warranted. This is, after all, an industry with a long, proud history of engaging in anti-competitive behavior under the auspices of phantom technical justification, with net neutrality and usage caps being only a small part of the equation. Comcast, for example, is so eager to limit streaming competition it refuses to let its broadband customers access HBO Go across a wide variety of devices, providing only fleeting, half-baked justifications for the behavior.

Make no mistake, the cable industry is absolutely terrified of not only losing tens of billions in rental fees, but of truly open hardware platforms willing to direct customers to cheaper streaming alternatives. Under this app-based approach, you can be dead certain that cable would include all manner of caveats to ensure customers still need to sign up for traditional cable or their DVR services if they want the "full TV experience." Anyone who thinks the sector's going to honestly volunteer any plan that puts its existing monopoly power at any serious risk -- simply doesn't know the cable industry.

If the FCC is truly intent on real competition to the set top box market, the cable industry may need to be dragged kicking and screaming to the finish line.

Read More | 18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Posted on Techdirt Wireless - 21 June 2016 @ 6:23am

NY Post Craps On NYC's Plan To Offer Free Wi-Fi -- Because The Homeless Might Watch Porn

from the worry-wart dept

As you might have heard, New York City recently launched one of the biggest free Wi-Fi initiatives ever conceived. Under the program, some 7,500 Wi-Fi kiosks will provide gigabit Wi-Fi, free phone calls to anywhere in the country (via Vonage), as well as access to a device recharging station, 311, 911, 411 and city services (via an integrated Android tablet). The city is installing ten a day -- most at old payphone locations -- and hopes to have 500 of the kiosks in place by July. It's a pretty impressive effort, and by most measures providing fast, free connectivity to the city's five boroughs has been something to celebrate.

Unless you're the New York Post, which decided to spend precious calories this week worrying about how the system potentially lets the city's homeless population watch porn:

"...The plan badly backfired when scores of homeless men — and some schoolchildren — soon realized they could surf porn sites all day on the city’s dime using the communal Android-run tablets and gratis Wi-Fi."
Of course the Post kind of floats over the amazing fact that the kiosks let everybody in the city access any information they want at any time, but the Post also fails to really offer any evidence that there's waves upon waves of masturbating homeless brigands terrifying city residents. In fact the story proceeds to note that the company behind the initiative, LinkNYC, has already ramped up filtering of pornographic websites to at least make it a little more difficult. In fact there's really not much of any meat to the clams the city's plan "backfired" at all, outside of a quote from an indignant out of towner:
"I used to come here in the ’70s, and I remember thinking Times Square was as skeezy as you could get, but I was wrong,” said former New Yorker Richard Herzberg, 61, who now lives in Dallas, Texas. "This is as skeezy as Times Square could get. I mean, in the old days there was plenty of porn, but you could only see it behind closed doors. So at least there was that level of modesty."
While the Post would apparently prefer it if we dismantled a useful, citywide Wi-Fi network to fix a nonexistent or relatively minor problem, it's worth remembering that masturbating in public remains a criminal offense, making the fact that it's happening at a free Wi-Fi pylon somewhat irrelevant. And while there's an argument to be made for loss of city character as New York evolved from punk rock minefield to glorified shopping mall, city residents that remember the apocalyptic nature of 70s and 80s NYC likely see sporadic homeless porn consumption as the very least of the city's worries.

50 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Posted on Techdirt - 17 June 2016 @ 7:39pm

Tim Wu Joins NY AG's Office In Shaming 'Abysmal' Cable Broadband ISPs

from the stating-the-obvious dept

Last fall, we noted how New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's office had launched an investigation into awful broadband service quality. In and of itself that was nothing particularly interesting (especially given Schneiderman's history of grandstanding), though what made the inquiry of note is the office's hiring of Tim Wu, the Columbia Law professor who first coined the term "net neutrality" back in 2002. With Wu as the AG's "senior lawyer and special adviser," Schneiderman sent letters to NYC area broadband incumbents Verizon, Cablevision and Time Warner Cable -- questioning whether they actually deliver the speeds they advertise.

So far this inquiry doesn't appear to have culminated in much of anything beyond a recent letter sent to Charter CEO Tom Rutledge (pdf) warning him that he needs to dramatically improve the "abysmal" service offered by one of the company's recently acquired properties, Time Warner Cable. According to the AG's letter, tests conducted by volunteers show that Time Warner Cable connections consistently fail to achieve advertised data rates:

"The results we received from Time Warner Cable customers were abysmal. Not only did Time Warner Cable fail to achieve the speeds its customers were promised and paid for (which Time Warner Cable blamed on the testing method), it generally performed worse in this regard than other New York broadband providers. In short, what we have seen in our investigation so far suggests that Time Warner Cable has earned the miserable reputation it enjoys among consumers. Overcoming this history will require more than a name change; it will require a fundamental revolution in how Time Warner Cable does business and treats its customers.
This, of course, is not really a new revelation. Limited competition historically leaves large ISPs with no incentive to seriously upgrade infrastructure or customer support, resulting in the cable companies most of us know and love. And while the letter promises Charter's CEO the NY AG's office will "be in touch soon to propose next steps," the AG hasn't really offered a solution so far. And the letter comes just as New York State joins federal regulators in approving Charter's $79 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks, a deal most consumer advocates warn simply creates another Comcast with the size, scope and power to ensure broadband remains marginally competitive at best.

While the AG's office appears to have used a relatively simple speed test to collect the data, a far more comprehensive study by the FCC last year (using custom-firmware embedded routers in user homes) found that roughly 10% of Time Warner Cable customers got less than 80% of their advertised speeds during prime time, 15% received 80 to 95% of their advertised speeds, while 75% got more than 95% of advertised speeds. That's not perfection, but it doesn't really rise to the level of "abysmal," either.

In fact, that same FCC study found that the majority of the ISPs measured do consistently deliver advertised speeds, and since the FCC began conducting these studies -- some ISPs have even taken to offering a little more than what's advertised to avoid public shaming of this type. The problem with the AG's inquiry is that, historically, speed hasn't really been as large of an issue as horrible customer service, sneaky misleading fees and high prices, the last two of which federal and state regulators have a long, proud history of completely ignoring. And unless the AG has some magical way to address a lack of competition in the market, harsh letters stating the obvious may not really accomplish all that much.

Read More | 9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Posted on Techdirt - 16 June 2016 @ 10:45am

Chattanooga Mayor Says City's Gigabit Network (Which Comcast Tried To Kill) To Thank For City's Revival

from the get-the-hell-out-of-the-way dept

While hardline free marketeers and incumbent ISPs often try to paint city-owned broadband networks as the pinnacle of government-sponsored disaster, Chattanooga Mayor Andy Berke this week credited the city utility's gigabit broadband service as a major contributing factor for the city's re-invention. The Chattanooga Electric Power Board (EPB) is a city-owned utility that offers broadband speeds up to 10 Gbps to locals; a recent Consumer Reports survey noting that outside of Google Fiber, EPB has the only truly positive consumer satisfaction ratings among the 30 national ISPs ranked by the magazine:

"The results were ugly for value, too, with 28 of the 30 TV service providers earning our lowest score. The two exceptions—municipal broadband company EPB Fiber Optics-Chattanooga and Google Fiber—each earned high scores from the survey respondents. Both services offer super-fast 1-gigabit-per-second (Gbps) speeds. EPB Fiber Optics-Chattanooga ranked highest in the survey for overall satisfaction, edging out Google Fiber and cable company Armstrong."
In areas where the private market has failed, public or public/private partnerships have proven to be an effective way (if designed and funded properly) in shoring up coverage gaps for what has become an essential utility. Berke this week stated that by doing what local incumbent broadband providers refused to (aka give a damn), the city has been able to attract startups, lower the city's unemployment rate, and change the city's reputation for the better. And while not all of that is solely thanks to broadband, Berke makes it very clear that EPB was a huge part of it:
"It changed our conceptions of who we are and what is possible,” Berke said. “Before we had never thought of ourselves as a technology city."...Downtown has doubled its residents and landlords often advertise gigabit speeds that are included in monthly rents.

“It’s an explosion of growth in our technology sector,” he said. “That has sparked not only this (downtown) living but restaurants and bars and music and the quality of life that truly makes a city interesting, cool, hip, vibrant and energetic."
But if you've been playing along at home, regional incumbents like AT&T and Comcast almost kept EPB's network from ever being built. In 2008 Comcast unsuccessfully sued EPB to prevent the city's plan from taking root. AT&T and Comcast are also behind a state law preventing EPB from expanding, one of nineteen such laws lobbied for by incumbent ISPs to maintain the apathetic broadband status quo.

We've noted how state leaders (like Rep. Patsy Hazlewood, a former AT&T executive) have rushed to the defense of the state's broadband duopoly and their protectionist law. The pretense usually involves these politicians insisting they're just trying to protect taxpayers from themselves, ignoring the fact that letting AT&T and Comcast lawyers literally writing bad state telecom law has resulted in Tennessee being one of the least connected states in the nation.

Tennessee's fealty to regional duopolists recently bubbled over when EPB successfully petitioned the FCC to intervene on their behalf. The FCC is currently in court trying to argue that two such laws -- in both Tennessee and North Carolina -- run in stark contrast to the FCC's stated mission of ensuring even and timely broadband deployment. The FCC hopes that the case sets a legal precedent, resulting in the elimination of similar laws (many of which ban or hinder even public/private partnerships like Google Fiber) falling like dominoes.

But here too loyal Tennessee protectors of broadband sector dysfunction like Marsha Blackburn have tried to argue the FCC is violating state law -- by telling the state which giant corporations can or can't buy protectionist legislation. It's all part of a massive joke that has repeated itself in state after state, where companies like AT&T and Comcast have such a stranglehold over the legislative process, they've effectively codified shitty, uncompetitive broadband into law.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Posted on Techdirt - 16 June 2016 @ 3:31am

Consumer Groups Say AT&T, Comcast Violate Privacy Law By Hoovering Up Cable Box Data Without Full User Consent

from the informed,-empowered-consumers-cost-us-revenue dept

In addition to the $21 billion made annually by cable set top box rental fees, cable companies make untold billions from monetizing the user viewing data these boxes help collect. That captive revenue alone is the driving force behind the pay TV sectors histrionic opposition to the FCC's plan to open the sector up to third-party hardware competition. Consumer viewing and behavioral data is an immense cash cow, one the cable industry has occasionally threatened to take even further -- with patents on tech that lets the cable box literally watch or listen in on American living rooms.

While things haven't quite reached that level of total information awareness yet, consumer groups this week filed a formal complaint with both the FTC and FCC arguing that things have gone far enough. Public Knowledge, the Center for Digital Democracy and Consumer Watchdog have filed formal privacy complaints with both the FCC and FTC saying that major cable companies routinely fail to inform consumers about the degree in which their viewing data is collected, stored and monetized via ye olde cable box.

The complaints note that while most cable company privacy policies do alert consumers that they use personally identifiable information and third-party data for ads, these warnings don't go far enough to formally adhere to cable privacy rules on set-top box information:

"Federal law requires cable and satellite providers to obtain permission from subscribers prior to collecting and using their information for advertising purposes. Cable operators are also required to provide subscribers with a written statement that clearly describes the nature of the use of their personally identifiable information. Currently, cable operators obtain opt-out consent from consumers to use their information, which is insufficient to constitute prior consent under the law. And their privacy policies often fail to adequately disclose the extent to which they are sharing and combining customer data with third parties."
The complaints specifically single out Comcast, AT&T and Cablevision as "among the most egregious" when it comes to using consumer data without adequate consent. The complaint filed with the FCC (pdf) for example, notes that companies like AT&T often pull data from both the wireless and wireline empires to create mammoth databases of user behavior and personal information for targeted ads, without making the scope of this collection and usage clear to consumers or obtaining full, legal consent:
"AT&T’s TV Blueprint, for example, “gives advertisers working with AT&T the ability to reach people based on factors like device, operating system, whether or not they’re heavy data users or the status of their carrier contract,” using “sophisticated second-by-second set- top box data” and other information. AT&T pulls data “from millions of set-top boxes” and analyzes consumer viewing history and uses these data to target consumers based on their viewing profile. Companies like Cablevision leverage granular data and precise details of household viewing behavior, and combine it with third-party data covering other intimate details of consumers’ lives to analyze and target specific individuals with video advertising across a range of screens. In their own words, “this set-top box level targeting lets marketers target customers that fit particular trends, profiles, demographics and attributes, and they can also pair the Cablevision data with their own or third-party data."
With the FCC eyeing both set top box reform and new privacy rules for broadband providers, Public Knowledge is providing the commission with a little ammunition and fuel for thought on both fronts. Historically, consumer privacy in telecom and television has been feebly protected at best, and companies like AT&T have consistently pushed the barriers in their ever-expanding quest for more marketing data, whether that's the use of modified wireless packets to track users around the Internet, or charging a steep premium to opt out of deep packet inspection and data collection.

In the not-so-competitive realm of telecom, this is about as close to "innovation" as many sector companies get.

Specifically, Public Knowledge makes it clear they'd like to see such collection be made opt in instead of opt out, and argues that opting out doesn't go far enough to count as "consent" under existing privacy law:
"...The Commission should take the affirmative step of declaring that the use of customer information requires opt-in consent and that absent such consent, cable providers violate privacy rules by collecting customer information and using it to deliver marketing tailored to those customers."
As we've seen with the do not track debate, opting in is the bane of any data hoovering operation, given an informed and empowered consumer protected by a still-clawed regulator results in an obvious dent in the profit party. As such, telecom regulators have never been keen on supporting opt in, and it doesn't seem likely they'll start doing so anytime soon, despite the groups' request.

Meanwhile, AT&T was quick to unsurprisingly pooh pooh the groups' complaint as "bogus," while somehow arguing the attempt to protect consumer privacy would violate consumer privacy:
"AT&T’s use of anonymous and aggregate set-top box information is entirely consistent with the statute. Our disclosures tell our customers exactly how we use that data and provide tools for customers to opt out. Frankly, this complaint is bogus, and seems mainly designed to distract the public from the overwhelming bipartisan opposition to the FCC’s controversial set-top box plan.

That plan itself will erode existing consumer privacy protections, not to mention its many other harms. Because the plan’s few remaining supporters have no answer to that charge, they’ve decided to invent a false privacy claim. This smacks of desperation, and it also carries the whiff of hypocrisy. It’s further proof, if any is needed, that the plan’s supporters have lost the public policy debate on this issue."
AT&T somehow forgets to mention that most of the opposition to the FCC's set top box competition plan is entirely artificial -- generated in large part by AT&T and Comcast lobbying departments -- who've been busy filling editorial pages nationwide with absurd and misleading arguments.

The genuine reason for AT&T's opposition isn't surprising or complicated: ill-informed customers in un-competitive markets trapped in walled gardens are hugely profitable. Any deviation from this standard is treated as an egregious affront. But cable ops can't just come out and admit this is simply about protecting set top box monopoly money; that's why they've created groups like the "Future of TV Coalition" to try and complain -- like AT&T briefly does above -- that actually protecting cable customer privacy -- will somehow be a privacy violation in and of itself:
"But the new AllVid-style TV regulations being proposed by the FCC this week are an assault on consumer privacy. They will strip viewers of vital safeguards for their viewing choices and add “what we watch” to the mountains of data being mined and exploited by privacy scofflaws like Google, alongside their existing files of what we search for on the Internet; what we say in our gmail at home, work, and school; what happens in our “Nest”-connected homes; and where we go using Waze and Google Maps."
Cable companies could embrace opt in as a new standard and creatively offer small discounts to users who participate, but it's much easier to whine nebulously about Google. Companies like AT&T and Comcast desperately want to be regulated exactly like "edge providers" such as Google when it comes to privacy, ignoring the fact that their stranglehold over the broadband last mile -- and the cable box -- create a scenario whereby if regulators don't make at least a token effort to protect consumer privacy, the sky will be the limit in terms of abusing these captive markets and consumer walled gardens.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Posted on Techdirt - 15 June 2016 @ 6:27am

The Cable Industry Trots Out Mitch McConnell To Fight Against Cable Box Competition

from the nobody-believes-the-words-coming-out-of-your-mouth dept

We've been talking for weeks about how the cable industry has dramatically ramped up lobbying in an attempt to kill the FCC's plan to bring some competition to the set top box market. The cable industry opposes the idea for two reasons: competition would dramatically reduce the $21 billion the sector makes each year off of rental fees, but the flood of new, cheaper boxes would also likely direct users -- historically locked behind cable's walled gardens -- to a huge variety of streaming video alternatives.

But the cable industry can't just come out and admit that they're terrified of competition -- so they've been attacking the FCC's plan with a two pronged approach. One, pay for an absolute torrent of hysterically-misleading editorials that claim set top competition will hurt consumers, scare the children, ramp up piracy, and knock the planet off of its orbital axis. The other prong of their attack involves a lobbying mainstay: throwing money at politicians to take positions they don't have the slightest actual understanding of.

Case in point is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who this week was nudged by the cable sector to jump into the fray with comments like this one:

"Rather than applying a light regulatory touch," Senator McConnell wrote in a letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, "the FCC would require existing programming distributors to provide the copyrighted programming they have licensed from content providers to third party manufacturers and app developers, none of whom would be bound by the agreements to protect the content."
This is a line that the cable sector and its marionettes have been repeating, but it's simply not true. As the FCC's proposal outline notes (pdf), all the plan does is require that cable operators deliver the same expensive programming they do now -- using the same copy protection and business arrangements -- without requiring a CableCARD. A set top vendor can't just claim cable broadcasts as their own and ignore existing programming agreements, but that's one of several misleading arguments being put forth by the sector to kill the initiative.

Advertisers looking to protect legacy cash cow relationships have also been trying to derail the FCC's effort, claiming that the reform plan will somehow hurt consumers, violate copyright (as the EFF did a great job detailing that's not true either), and thrust the entire pay TV advertising ecosystem into "chaos":
"The current market structure for television advertising supports advertisers' ability to place their ads based on national, regional or local distribution; the type of programming or specific content; the audience composition; and the time of day or night that the ads appear," the ANA wrote. The proposed regulations could tilt that system toward chaos, it suggested."
Perhaps the ANA hadn't noticed, but the legacy pay TV advertising ecosystem already faces a wholesale revolution in terms of how consumers are served TV programming and the ads attached to them. If the existing "market structure" can't adapt behavioral and location advertising to consumers viewing TV content on a myriad of devices and hardware, they may want to change professions. In reality, advertiser opposition is based on little more than fear; fear that they may have to share revenues with new economy companies, and fear that these companies may actually give consumers what they want -- like the ability to skip ads.

But again it's not as if the FCC's proposal is even really that dramatic of an idea. It would simply act to accelerate a shift that -- thanks in large part to cable and broadcast lobbying power -- is already happening but could take another decade to fully materialize. The shift away from the traditional cable box and legacy TV is well underway, and it's hubris to think it can be stopped by pouting. Opposition to the set top box reform plan is little more than the dull creaking of yet another legacy sector behaving like a toddler because the uncompetitive markets they've built over a generation can't somehow, magically, live forever.

27 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Posted on Net Neutrality Special Edition - 14 June 2016 @ 8:04am

Appeals Court Fully Upholds FCC's Net Neutrality Rules

from the pop-the-bubbly dept

After months of anticipation the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has upheld the FCC's Open Internet Order, an indisputably-massive win for net neutrality advocates. The full court ruling (pdf) supports the FCC's arguments across the board, including the FCC's decision to classify internet providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. That's not only big for net neutrality, but it solidifies the FCC's authority as it looks to move forward on other pro-consumer initiatives such as the exploration of some relatively basic new privacy protections for broadband users.

Historically the DC Appeals court has been a mixed bag for the FCC, but in this instance the court declared the FCC's neutrality protections rest on solid legal ground from beginning to end, dismantling arguments by the likes of US Telecom, AT&T, and advocacy groups like TechFreedom from stem to stern. That includes industry attempts to prevent the rules from being applied to wireless networks (a split decision whereby fixed-line services were covered by wireless was not was something that had worried many telecom sector consumer advocates).

The court also repeatedly shot down ISP claims that the rules somehow violate their First Amendment rights:

"Because a broadband provider does not— and is not understood by users to—“speak” when providing neutral access to internet content as common carriage, the First Amendment poses no bar to the open internet rules."
The court also fully supports the FCC's contention that thanks to limited competition, broadband providers have plenty of incentive to act anti-competitively against "edge" providers like Netflix, and that this threat required FCC action:
"We also determined that the Commission had “adequately supported and explained its conclusion that, absent rules such as those set forth in the [2010 Open Internet Order], broadband providers represent[ed] a threat to Internet openness and could act in ways that would ultimately inhibit the speed and extent of future broadband deployment.” Id.at 645. For example, the Commission noted that “broadband providers like AT&T and Time Warner have acknowledged that online video aggregators such as Netflix and Hulu compete directly with their own core video subscription service,” id.,and that, even absent direct competition, “[b]roadband providers... have powerful incentives to accept fees from edge providers, either in return for excluding their competitors or for granting them prioritized access to end users,” id.at 645–46.
Ironically, the internet has Verizon to thank for today's ruling. The telco sued to overturn the FCC's flimsy 2010 rules, which didn't cover wireless and quite by design included massive, tractor-trailer-sized loopholes. But in overturning the rules the previous court decisions gave the FCC a path forward -- in effect urging it to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under Title II. It may also be worth noting (again) that despite industry claims that this reclassification would result in telecom Armageddon, the internet and broadband investment (at least in marginally competitive areas) has rumbled along happily.

While a huge win for net neutrality fans everywhere, it's important to understand that the open internet isn't out of the woods yet. The fight could still stumble its way to the Supreme Court. The Presidential election could similarly culminate in a total dismantling of the current FCC and a restocking of the agency with ISP-allies eager to roll back the protections -- as well as the myriad other efforts the FCC's currently engaged in (cable set top box reform).

And as we've noted a few times zero rating and usage caps also play a huge role in determining what constitutes a level playing field for startups and other smaller companies, and the rules don't specifically address such concerns. In other words, we've noted that even while legally sound the FCC's rules have plenty of loopholes allowing ISPs to hinder net neutrality -- just as long as they're somewhat clever about it.

The FCC has stated they'll be looking at the potential anti-competitive ramifications of zero rating and usage caps on a "case by case basis." With the court's full support, hopefully that inquiry will culminate in a harder policy decision sooner rather than later.

Read More | 13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Posted on Techdirt - 14 June 2016 @ 6:31am

Cable Industry Proclaims More Competition 'Hurts Consumers' & 'Damages Economic Efficiency'

from the bigger-ain't-better dept

As part of the conditions attached to Charter's $79 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks, the FCC imposed a requirement that Charter expand broadband service to another two million locations, one million of which must already be served by an ISP delivering speeds of 25 Mbps or greater. Unfortunately these kinds of conditions historically don't mean much; merger broadband expansion promises are almost always volunteered by the ISPs themselves, who already planned the expansion regardless of their merger plans.

That isn't stopping a lobbying organization representing Charter's cable competitors from crying and stomping their feet over the condition. In a filing by the American Cable Association (ACA, pdf), the organization's lawyers try to claim that not only would an influx of competition somehow harm consumers, the group claims that adding competitors to what are frequently stagnant markets will somehow "damage economic efficiency":

"That overbuild condition is unlawful. It is not tailored to mitigate a merger-specific harm or confirm a merger-specific benefit. It will exacerbate the merger harms the Order identifies, damage economic efficiency, injure small providers, and harm consumers. The condition should be stricken."
Another coalition of cable providers, the NTCA, tried to claim the same thing in a filing of its own:
"While the commission’s intentions in proposing the buildout requirement were undoubtedly good, the reality is imposing such a condition creates artificial competition in areas that cannot support it, which will ultimately undermine, rather than further, broadband availability and affordability in higher-cost areas in particular."
When is competition "artificial?" When we say it is! The thing is, it's not really competition these companies are worried about. It's the inevitable hoovering up of their businesses by Charter down the road. Charter CEO Tom Rutledge recently made it clear at an investor conference that he won't be targeting cable companies under the condition -- rather, he'll be targeting phone companies. Why? Phone companies, usually unwilling or unable to invest in fiber, make easier targets. There's no need to compete with smaller cable operators, when you can just gobble them up at a later date:
"When I talked to the FCC, I said I can’t overbuild another cable company, because then I could never buy it, because you always block those,” Rutledge said at the MoffettNathanson event. “It’s really about overbuilding telephone companies.” “Why would we go where we could get killed,” Rutledge said.
In other words, Charter doesn't want to compete with cable companies, because the FCC would then prohibit them from merging with them later for fear of lessening competition. Instead, Charter plans to take aim at the already struggling second-tier telcos in these areas, then acquire smaller cable operators down the road. So despite the FCC's intentions, the deal creates another homogeneous giant just like Comcast with little to no real competition to keep it in check, and the conditions are little more than regulatory band-aids for what's ultimately going to end badly for every individual and organization not-named Charter.

While the FCC's conditions do include a few useful nuggets for consumers and small businesses (a ban on caps and net neutrality violations for seven years), with the pace at which the cable industry is looking to defang and hamstring the agency, it's not clear there's going to be much of an FCC left to enforce the conditions during the latter stretch of that window. While the FCC certainly tried to shine up these conditions to downplay the negative aspects of deal approval, it's still abundantly clear that giant telecom mergers like this only ultimately benefit the companies involved.

That's a lesson that for whatever reason we seem utterly unwilling to learn despite our collective disdain for the end result.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Posted on Techdirt - 13 June 2016 @ 10:38am

House Attacks Net Neutrality, Cable Box Reform With Sneaky Budget Rider

from the dysfunction-junction dept

As we've noted a few times, there's really only two ways the telecom sector can successfully destroy U.S. net neutrality rules. Broadband providers could prevail on part or all of their multi-headed lawsuit against the FCC, a decision on which is expected any day now. Or the rules could be dismantled by the next President, who could repopulate the FCC with the usual assortment of revolving-door sector sycophants, reverting the agency back to its more consistent, historical role as a dumbly nodding enabler of broadband sector dysfunction.

Every other attempt to kill the rules is just politicians barking loudly for their campaign contribution dinners -- though that's not to say the barking doesn't get very loud from time to time.

The latest example is the House Appropriations Committee's 29-17 vote to approve an FCC appropriations bill (pdf), part of a larger Financial Services Bill determining the 2017 budgets for multiple agencies. The bill was passed last week with amendment language intended to hobble the FCC's net neutrality rules -- and its quest to bring competition to the cable set top box. More specifically, the bill prohibits the FCC from enforcing its net neutrality rules until the ongoing court case is settled. But it also would relegate the FCC's attempt to bring competition to the cable box to committee purgatory.

This attempt to force the FCC's cable box reform plan into a "study" that never ends -- despite an already scheduled extensive public comment period -- has been a constant drum beat among telecom lobbyists, who've masterfully enjoyed having a laundry list of Senators parrot their claims that cable set top box reform will somehow hurt consumer privacy, spike piracy rates, and even harm minorities. The real reason for the sector's opposition is the $21 billion in captive annual set top rental fees the cable sector enjoys, and the fact that more set top box competition means better, cheaper hardware that will highlight streaming alternatives to legacy television (the horror).

As is usually the case, politicians supporting the hamstringing of the FCC profess they're wasting taxpayer money and legislative time not because they're paid allies of the telecom duopolists, but because they're just breathlessly worried about the health of the nation. For example, Chairman of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, Florida Representative Ander Crenshaw, issued a statement making it abundantly clear he's not happy with a regulator actually doing its job:

"In addition, this Committee has strong concerns that the FCC seems to be prolonging their pattern of regulatory overreach with its recent set-top box proposal. And so, we include language that requires the FCC to stop and study this controversial rule before they can move any further. The telecommunications industry is more competitive than ever. And yet, the Commission has been more active than ever in trying to exert regulatory control over market innovation. To return the FCC’s focus towards mission critical work and away from politically charged rule makings, the bill requires the FCC to do less with less."
And by "mission critical work" Crenshaw means joining him in pretending that the broadband sector is actually competitive, and that forcing consumers to pay thousands of dollars for sub-standard, closed cable hardware is the pinnacle of innovation. Like past efforts of this type, the rider language won't make it very far, but it's always entertaining to see folks like Crenshaw dressing up cronyism as a noble assault on the very dysfunction he covertly enables.

Read More | 19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Posted on Techdirt - 10 June 2016 @ 9:28am

Latest Absurd Moral Panic: Parents Complain Amazon Echo Is Creating Rude Children

from the I'm-sorry-I-can't-do-that,-Dave dept

It wouldn't be a month at Techdirt without one group or another engaging in a fit of moral hysteria over something they really don't need to spend precious calories worrying about. Whether it's the false claim that video games create deadly assassins, VR makes us slaves to Mark Zuckerberg, smartphones have demolished cultural civility or having Google at our fingertips makes us dumber, there's always something new to waste time having a hissy fit over.

The latest case in point is Amazon's smart home play known as the Amazon Echo, a glorified speaker PC combo that will take voice commands, play music, or tell you the weather when asked -- all useful but not exactly revolutionary fare. Still, an unspecified number of parents are apparently now worried that the Echo AI (Alexa) is turning their children into nasty little savages:

"But while artificial intelligence technology can blow past such indignities, parents are still irked by their kids’ poor manners when interacting with Alexa, the assistant that lives inside the Amazon Echo. “I’ve found my kids pushing the virtual assistant further than they would push a human,” says Avi Greengart, a tech analyst and father of five who lives in Teaneck, New Jersey. “[Alexa] never says ‘That was rude’ or ‘I’m tired of you asking me the same question over and over again.'”
At this point a concerned parent could do several things, the most sensible being to tell their child to stop yelling at the cheap, plastic, defenseless computer. But no, apparently some parents believe something must be done -- because the cheap plastic computer doesn't say "please" often enough:
"The syntax is generally simple and straightforward, but it doesn’t exactly reward niceties like “please.” Adding to this, extraneous words can often trip up the speaker’s artificial intelligence. When it comes to chatting with Alexa, it pays to be direct—curt even. “If it’s not natural language, one of the first things you cut away is the little courtesies,” says Dennis Mortensen, who founded a calendar-scheduling startup called x.ai. For parents trying to drill good manners into their children, listening to their kids boss Alexa around can be disconcerting."
This is, I think we can all agree, well beyond "disconcerting" and far into nightmare territory. Imagine, millions of homes in which little monsters are being created daily because Amazon didn't make Alexa...nicer and more verbose. Truly a concern for the ages:
"For parents trying to drill good manners into their children, listening to their kids boss Alexa around can be disconcerting. “One of the responsibilities of parents is to teach your kids social graces,” says Greengart, “and this is a box you speak to as if it were a person who does not require social graces.” It’s this combination that worries Hunter Walk, a tech investor in San Francisco. In a blog post, he described the Amazon Echo as “magical” while expressing fears it’s “turning our daughter into a raging asshole."
One, there's an assumption here that a child can't really differentiate between a computer and a human being, and that a few months with the Amazon Echo somehow demolishes all previous years of social training, which on its face is more than a little absurd. Two, if you're truly concerned that a little plastic computer is turning your child into a drunk, socially-incompetent werewolf, you could -- turn the product off? As with all moral hysteria of this type, actual parenting can go a long way toward dulling technology's clearly nefarious and diabolical influence in the home.

40 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Posted on Techdirt - 9 June 2016 @ 3:45pm

Mitsubishi Outlander Just The Latest 'Smart' Car That's Trivial To Hack And Control

from the not-so-smart dept

Yet another vehicle heavily advertised as being "smart" has proven to be notably less secure than its older, dumber counterparts. This week, researchers discovered that flaws in the Mitsubishi Outlander leave the vehicle's on-board network vulnerable to all manner of hacker attack, allowing an intruder to disable the alarm system, drain the car's battery, control multiple vehicle functions, and worse.

The app for most "smart" vehicles connects to a web-based service hosted by the manufacturer. This service in turn connects to a GSM module inside of the automobile, letting a user control the vehicle from anywhere. While convenient, this has proven to be problematic when poorly implemented -- something Nissan recently discovered after the company failed to implement any real authentication, letting an attacker use the Leaf app to track a driver's driving behavior, physically control the Leaf's heating and cooling systems, and drain the car's battery.

Analysis of the Mitsubishi Outlander's security flaw found that Mitsubishi did things differently, requiring users connect to an on-board Wi-Fi hotspot before controlling the vehicle using the associated app (presumably to save money on an online hosting service). But the researchers found that the Wi-Fi key was relatively trivial to hack:

"The Wi-Fi pre shared key is written on a piece of paper included in the owners’ manual. The format is too simple and too short. We cracked it on a 4 x GPU cracking rig at less than 4 days. A much faster crack could be achieved with a cloud hosted service, or by buying more GPUs."
Given the embedded access point has a unique SSID, an attacker can use public resources like Wigle.net to easily geolocate any Outlander PHEVs they might like to target. With the PSK and the SSID, the security firm was able to compromise the remainder of the car's rudimentary security using a man-in-the-middle attack to sniff the traffic flowing between the car and the app. Once inside, researchers noted that like the Leaf hack they could drain the car's battery, turn various vehicle functions on and off, and turn off the alarm. But they also note the vulnerability goes much deeper than with the Leaf:
"Once unlocked, there is potential for many more attacks. The on board diagnostics port is accessible once the door is unlocked. Whilst we haven’t looked in detail at this, you may recall from a hack of some BMW vehicles which suggested that the OBD port could be used to code new keys for the car. We also haven’t looked at connections between the Wi-Fi module and the Wi-Fi module and the Controller Area Network (CAN). There is certainly access to the infotainment system from the Wi-Fi module. Whether this extends to the CAN is something we need more time to investigate."
Like with so many vulnerabilities, the researchers say that when they brought the problem to the attention of Mitsubishi, the company showed "disinterest" in a dialogue. At least until they contacted the BBC, at which point Mitsubishi got chatty:
"Initial attempts by us to disclose privately to Mitsubishi were greeted with disinterest. We were a bit stumped at this point: As so often happens, the vendor takes no interest and public disclosure becomes an ethical dilemma. So, we involved the BBC who helped us get their attention. Mitsubishi have since been very responsive to us! They are taking the issue very seriously at the highest levels."
We've noted for a few years now that in-car security -- as with most products on board the "internet of things" hype train -- is aggressively atrocious. And it's not really clear it's getting any better despite several government warnings and bad press. Many car manufacturers still aren't quick to respond to disclosures, and even if they can, they often take far too long to patch problems when found. That's of great benefit to government, private or criminal entities that surely appreciate the easy new way to spy on, stall or even potentially kill via methods most police departments likely don't have the chops to adequately investigate.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

More posts from Karl Bode >>