FCC

FCC chair makes one last stand against Trump’s call to punish news stations

brendan carr, Donald Trump, FCC, jessica rosenworcel, Policy / Paul Patrick / January 16, 2025

FCC not the president’s speech police (yet)

Chair: Complaints “seek to weaponize the licensing authority of the FCC.”

FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel testifies during a House hearing on Thursday, May 16, 2024. Credit: Getty Images | Tom Williams

Taking action in the final days of the Biden administration, the Federal Communications Commission dismissed three complaints and a petition filed against broadcast television stations. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said the action is important because “the incoming President has called on the Federal Communications Commission to revoke licenses for broadcast television stations because he disagrees with their content and coverage.”

“Today, I have directed the FCC to take a stand on behalf of the First Amendment,” she said. “We draw a bright line at a moment when clarity about government interference with the free press is needed more than ever. The action we take makes clear two things. First, the FCC should not be the president’s speech police. Second, the FCC should not be journalism’s censor-in-chief.”

President-elect Donald Trump’s chosen replacement for Rosenworcel, Commissioner Brendan Carr, wants the FCC to punish news broadcasters that he perceives as being unfair to Trump or Republicans in general. Backing Trump’s various complaints about news stations, Carr has threatened to revoke licenses by wielding the FCC’s authority to ensure that broadcasters using public airwaves operate in the public interest.

Rosenworcel said the complaints and petition she is dismissing “come from all corners—right and left—but what they have in common is they ask the FCC to penalize broadcast television stations because they dislike station behavior, content, or coverage.” After Trump criticized CBS in October, Rosenworcel said the agency “does not and will not revoke licenses for broadcast stations simply because a political candidate disagrees with or dislikes content or coverage.”

Chair: Complaints aim to “weaponize” FCC authority

The Center for American Rights filed complaints supporting Trump’s claims of bias regarding ABC’s fact-checking during a presidential debate, the editing of a CBS 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris, and NBC putting Harris on a Saturday Night Live episode. Separately, the Media and Democracy Project filed a petition to deny a license renewal for WTXF-TV in Philadelphia, a station owned and operated by Fox, alleging that Fox willfully distorted news with false reports of fraud in the 2020 election that Trump lost.

Rejecting all four, Rosenworcel said “the facts and legal circumstances in each of these cases are different. But what they share is that they seek to weaponize the licensing authority of the FCC in a way that is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment. To do so would set a dangerous precedent. That is why we reject it here.”

Dismissing complaints isn’t likely to end the cases, said Jeffrey Westling, a lawyer at the conservative American Action Forum who has urged Congress to “limit or revoke the FCC’s authority to impose content-based restrictions on broadcast television.”

Westling said he agrees “substantively” with Rosenworcel, but added that “the DC Circuit Court has made clear that the FCC has to consider news distortion complaints (see Serafyn vs FCC) and not just dismiss them outright. If I am the complainants, I challenge these dismissals in court, win, and get more attention.”

When contacted by Ars today, the Center for American Rights provided a statement criticizing Rosenworcel’s decision as “political and self-serving.”

“We fundamentally believe that several actions taken by the three major networks were partisan, dishonest and designed to support Vice President Harris in her bid to become President,” the group said. “We will continue to pursue avenues to ensure the American public is protected from media manipulation of our Republic. The First Amendment does not protect intentional misrepresentation or fraud.”

The group previously touted the fact that Republican FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington urged FCC leadership to take its complaints seriously.

Fox ruling will be challenged

The Media and Democracy Project criticized Rosenworcel’s decision to dismiss its complaint against the Fox station in Philadelphia.

“We look forward to presenting on appeal the multiple court decisions that raise serious questions about the Murdochs’ and Fox’s character qualifications to remain broadcast licensees,” the Media and Democracy Project said in a statement provided to Ars. “As renowned First Amendment scholar Floyd Abrams stated in his filing with the Commission, the First Amendment is no bar to Commission action given the facts of this case. Our petition is clearly distinct from the other politically motivated complaints.”

The group’s petition pointed to a court ruling that found Fox News aired false statements about Dominion Voting Systems. Fox later agreed to pay Dominion $788 million to settle a defamation lawsuit.

“Our Petition to Deny is based on judicial findings that Fox made repeated false statements that undermined the electoral process and resulted in property damage, injury, and death; that Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch engaged in a ‘carefully crafted scheme’ in ‘bad faith’ to deprive Lachlan’s siblings of the control to which they are entitled under an irrevocable trust; and that ‘Murdoch knowingly caused the corporation to violate the law,'” the Media and Democracy Project said today.

The FCC order denying the petition also granted the station’s application for a license renewal. The order said the allegations regarding “material carried on a cable network under common control with the Licensee that a state court found to be false” aren’t grounds to deny the individual station’s license renewal. While some “non-FCC-related misconduct” can be considered by the FCC in an evaluation of a licensee’s character, the finding in the defamation suit doesn’t qualify, the order said.

Former FCC official objects

Gigi Sohn, a longtime advocate whose nomination to the FCC was rejected by the Senate, also criticized the FCC today. Sohn, who also served as counselor for FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler during the Obama administration, called the dismissal of the Fox petition a “failure to lead.”

“As [Rosenworcel] herself points out, the facts of these petitions are very different,” Sohn wrote. “The [Media and Democracy Project] petition seeks a hearing on Fox Philadelphia licenses because they allege that Fox lacks the character to hold them because it lied to the American people about the 2020 election. The conservative complaints are all based on disagreements with editorial judgments of the various broadcast networks.”

“The decision to lump these filings together and overturn years of FCC precedent that broadcasters’ character is central to holding a license is contrary to the Communications Act’s mandate that licenses be granted in ‘the public interest, convenience and necessity,'” Sohn also wrote. The FCC rationale would mean that “anything and everything a broadcast licensee does or says would be a First Amendment issue that warrants automatic license renewal,” she added.

Media advocacy group Free Press agreed with the FCC’s decision. “We have an incoming administration quite literally threatening to jail journalists for doing their jobs, and an incoming FCC chairman talking about revoking broadcast licenses any time he disagrees with their political coverage,” the group said.

Free Press sided with the FCC despite noting that the Fox case involved “false information [that] had devastating consequences in the January 6 attack on the peaceful transition of power four years ago.”

“Lies knowingly aired by Fox News Channel and some Murdoch-owned Fox affiliates present a significantly different challenge to regulators than merely fact-checking, editing or scheduling equal time for candidates in ways that displease the president-elect,” Free Press said. “Yet we agree with the urgent need to prevent the weaponization of the government against journalists and media companies on the eve of the inauguration, and in light of the dire threats the new administration poses.”

Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.

FCC chair makes one last stand against Trump’s call to punish news stations Read More »

Appeals court blocks FCC’s efforts to bring back net neutrality rules

brendan carr, broadband providers, Donald Trump, FCC, Joe Biden, Net Neutrality, open Internet, Policy / Mike M. / January 2, 2025

“The key here is not whether Broadband Internet Service Providers utilize telecommunications; it is instead whether they do so while offering to consumers the capability to do more,” Griffin wrote, concluding that “they do.”

“The FCC exceeded its statutory authority,” Griffin wrote, at one point accusing the FCC of arguing for a reading of the statute “that is too sweeping.”

The three-judge panel ordered a stay of the FCC’s order imposing net neutrality rules—known as the Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet Order.

In a statement, FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel suggested that Congress would likely be the only path to safeguard net neutrality moving forward. In the federal register, experts noted that net neutrality is critical to boosting new applications, services, or content, warning that without clear rules, the next Amazon or YouTube could be throttled before it can get off the ground.

“Consumers across the country have told us again and again that they want an Internet that is fast, open, and fair,” Rosenworcel said. “With this decision it is clear that Congress now needs to heed their call, take up the charge for net neutrality, and put open Internet principles in federal law.”

Rosenworcel will soon leave the FCC and will be replaced by Trump’s incoming FCC chair pick, Brendan Carr, who helped overturn net neutrality in 2017 and is expected to loosen broadband regulations once he’s confirmed.

Appeals court blocks FCC’s efforts to bring back net neutrality rules Read More »

Cable companies and Trump’s FCC chair agree: Data caps are good for you

data caps, FCC, Policy / Kris Guyer / November 19, 2024

Many Internet users filed comments asking the FCC to ban data caps. A coalition of consumer advocacy groups filed comments saying that “data caps are another profit-driving tool for ISPs at the expense of consumers and the public interest.”

“Data caps have a negative impact on all consumers but the effects are felt most acutely in low-income households,” stated comments filed by Public Knowledge, the Open Technology Institute at New America, the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, and the National Consumer Law Center.

Consumer groups: Caps don’t manage congestion

The consumer groups said the COVID-19 pandemic “made it more apparent how data caps are artificially imposed restrictions that negatively impact consumers, discriminate against the use of certain high-data services, and are not necessary to address network congestion, which is generally not present on home broadband networks.”

“Unlike speed tiers, data caps do not effectively manage network congestion or peak usage times, because they do not influence real-time network load,” the groups also said. “Instead, they enable further price discrimination by pushing consumers toward more expensive plans with higher or unlimited data allowances. They are price discrimination dressed up as network management.”

Jessica Rosenworcel, who has been FCC chairwoman since 2021, argued last month that consumer complaints show the FCC inquiry is necessary. “The mental toll of constantly thinking about how much you use a service that is essential for modern life is real as is the frustration of so many consumers who tell us they believe these caps are costly and unfair,” Rosenworcel said.

ISPs lifting caps during the pandemic “suggest[s] that our networks have the capacity to meet consumer demand without these restrictions,” she said, adding that “some providers do not have them at all” and “others lifted them in network merger conditions.”

Cable companies and Trump’s FCC chair agree: Data caps are good for you Read More »

Trump’s FCC chair is Brendan Carr, who wants to regulate everyone except ISPs

brendan carr, Donald Trump, FCC, fcc chairman, Policy / Mike M. / November 18, 2024

Trump makes FCC chair pick

Carr says he wants to punish broadcast media and dismantle “censorship cartel.”

Federal Communications Commission member Brendan Carr speaks during the 2024 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland on February 24, 2024. Credit: Getty Images | Anadolu

President-elect Donald Trump announced last night that he will make Brendan Carr the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Carr, who wrote a chapter about the FCC for the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, is a longtime opponent of net neutrality rules and other regulations imposed on Internet service providers.

Although Carr wants to deregulate telecom companies that the FCC has historically regulated, he wants the FCC to start regulating Big Tech and social media firms. He has also echoed Trump’s longtime complaints about the news media and proposed punishments for broadcast networks.

Trump’s statement on Carr said that “because of his great work, I will now be designating him as permanent Chairman.”

“Commissioner Carr is a warrior for Free Speech, and has fought against the regulatory Lawfare that has stifled Americans’ Freedoms, and held back our Economy,” Trump wrote. “He will end the regulatory onslaught that has been crippling America’s Job Creators and Innovators, and ensure that the FCC delivers for rural America.”

Carr is a sitting FCC commissioner and therefore no Senate approval is needed to confirm the choice. The president can elevate any commissioner to the chair spot.

Carr wants to punish broadcasters

Carr thanked Trump in a post on his X account last night, then made several more posts describing some of the changes he plans to make at the FCC. One of Carr’s posts said the FCC will crack down on broadcast media.

“Broadcast media have had the privilege of using a scarce and valuable public resource—our airwaves. In turn, they are required by law to operate in the public interest. When the transition is complete, the FCC will enforce this public interest obligation,” Carr wrote.

We described Carr’s views on how the FCC should operate in an article on November 7, just after Trump’s election win. We wrote:

A Carr-led FCC could also try to punish news organizations that are perceived to be anti-Trump. Just before the election, Carr alleged that NBC putting Kamala Harris on Saturday Night Live was “a clear and blatant effort to evade the FCC’s Equal Time rule” and that the FCC should consider issuing penalties. Despite Carr’s claim, NBC did provide equal time to the Trump campaign.

Previous chairs defended free speech

Previous FCC chairs from both major parties have avoided punishing news organizations because of free speech concerns. Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel, the current FCC chairwoman, last month criticized Trump’s calls for licenses to be revoked from TV news organizations whose coverage he dislikes.

“While repeated attacks against broadcast stations by the former President may now be familiar, these threats against free speech are serious and should not be ignored,” Rosenworcel said at the time. “As I’ve said before, the First Amendment is a cornerstone of our democracy. The FCC does not and will not revoke licenses for broadcast stations simply because a political candidate disagrees with or dislikes content or coverage.”

Former Chairman Ajit Pai, a Republican, rejected the idea of revoking licenses in 2017 after similar calls from Trump. Pai said that the FCC “under my leadership will stand for the First Amendment” and that “the FCC does not have the authority to revoke a license of a broadcast station based on the content of a particular newscast.”

Carr believes differently. After the Saturday Night Live incident, Carr told Fox News that “all remedies should be on the table,” including “license revocations” for NBC.

We’ve pointed out repeatedly that the FCC doesn’t actually license TV networks such as CBS or NBC. But the FCC could punish affiliates. The FCC’s licensing authority is over broadcast stations, many of which are affiliated with or owned by a big network.

Carr targets “censorship cartel”

Carr wrote last night that “we must dismantle the censorship cartel and restore free speech rights for everyday Americans.” This seems to be referring to making social media networks change how they moderate content. On November 15, Carr wrote that “Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft & others have played central roles in the censorship cartel,” along with fact-checking groups and ad agencies that “helped enforce one-sided narratives.”

During his first presidential term, Trump formally petitioned the FCC to reinterpret Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in a way that would limit social media platforms’ legal protections for hosting third-party content when the platforms take down content they consider objectionable.

Trump and Carr have claimed that such a step is necessary because of anti-conservative bias. In his Project 2025 chapter, Carr wrote that the FCC “should issue an order that interprets Section 230 in a way that eliminates the expansive, non-textual immunities that courts have read into the statute.”

Carr’s willingness to reinterpret Section 230 is likely a big plus in Trump’s eyes. In 2020, Trump pulled the re-nomination of FCC Republican member Michael O’Rielly after O’Rielly said that “we should all reject demands, in the name of the First Amendment, for private actors to curate or publish speech in a certain way. Like it or not, the First Amendment’s protections apply to corporate entities, especially when they engage in editorial decision making.”

Carr to end FCC diversity policies

Last night, Carr also said he would end the FCC’s embrace of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) policies. “The FCC’s most recent budget request said that promoting DEI was the agency’s second highest strategic goal. Starting next year, the FCC will end its promotion of DEI,” Carr wrote.

The FCC budget request said the agency “will pursue focused action and investments to eliminate historical, systemic, and structural barriers that perpetuate disadvantaged or underserved individuals and communities.” The Rosenworcel FCC said it aimed to create a diverse staff and to help “underserved individuals and communities” access “digital technologies, media, communication services, and next-generation networks.”

Carr dissented last year in the FCC’s 3-2 decision to impose rules that prohibit discrimination in access to broadband services, describing the rulemaking as “President Biden’s plan to give the administrative state effective control of all Internet services and infrastructure in the US.”

Another major goal for Carr is forcing Big Tech firms to help subsidize broadband network construction. Carr’s Project 2025 chapter said the FCC should “require that Big Tech begin to contribute a fair share” into “the FCC’s roughly $9 billion Universal Service Fund.”

Media advocacy group Free Press said yesterday that “Brendan Carr has been campaigning for this job with promises to do the bidding of Donald Trump and Elon Musk” and “got this job because he will carry out Trump and Musk’s personal vendettas. While styling himself as a free-speech champion, Carr refused to stand up when Trump threatened to take away the broadcast licenses of TV stations for daring to fact-check him during the campaign. This alone should be disqualifying.”

Lobby groups representing Internet service providers will be happy to have an FCC chair focused on eliminating broadband regulations. USTelecom CEO Jonathan Spalter issued a statement saying that “Brendan Carr has been a proven leader and an important partner in our shared goal to connect all Americans. With his deep experience and expertise, Commissioner Carr clearly understands the regulatory challenges and opportunities across the communications landscape.”

Pai, who teamed up with Carr and O’Rielly to eliminate net neutrality rules in 2017, wrote that Carr “was a brilliant advisor and General Counsel and has been a superb Commissioner, and I’m confident he will be a great FCC Chairman.”

Trump’s FCC chair is Brendan Carr, who wants to regulate everyone except ISPs Read More »

Verizon, AT&T tell courts: FCC can’t punish us for selling user location data

AT&T, FCC, Location Data, Policy, T-Mobile, verizon / Paul Patrick / November 8, 2024

Supreme Court ruling could hurt FCC case

Both AT&T and Verizon cite the Supreme Court’s June 2024 ruling in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, which held that “when the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.”

The Supreme Court ruling, which affirmed a 5th Circuit order, had not been issued yet when the FCC finalized its fines. The FCC disputed the 5th Circuit ruling, saying among other things that Supreme Court precedent made clear that “Congress can assign matters involving public rights to adjudication by an administrative agency ‘even if the Seventh Amendment would have required a jury where the adjudication of those rights is assigned to a federal court of law instead.'”

Of course, the FCC will have a tougher time disputing the Jarkesy ruling now that the Supreme Court affirmed the 5th Circuit. Verizon pointed out that in the high court’s Jarkesy decision, “Justice Sotomayor, in dissent, recognized that Jarkesy was not limited to the SEC, identifying many agencies, including the FCC, whose practice of ‘impos[ing] civil penalties in administrative proceedings’ would be ‘upend[ed].'”

Verizon further argued: “As in Jarkesy, the fact that the FCC seeks ‘civil penalties… designed to punish’ is ‘all but dispositive’ of Verizon’s entitlement to an Article III court and a jury, rather than an agency prosecutor and adjudicator.”

Carriers: We didn’t get fair notice

Both carriers said the FCC did not provide “fair notice” that its section 222 authority over customer proprietary network information (CPNI) would apply to the data in question.

When it issued the fines, the FCC said carriers had fair notice. “CPNI is defined by statute, in relevant part, to include ‘information that relates to… the location… of a telecommunications service,'” the FCC said.

Verizon, AT&T tell courts: FCC can’t punish us for selling user location data Read More »

Please ban data caps, Internet users tell FCC

data caps, FCC, fcc data caps, Policy / Mike M. / October 23, 2024

It’s been just a week since US telecom regulators announced a formal inquiry into broadband data caps, and the docket is filling up with comments from users who say they shouldn’t have to pay overage charges for using their Internet service. The docket has about 190 comments so far, nearly all from individual broadband customers.

Federal Communications Commission dockets are usually populated with filings from telecom companies, advocacy groups, and other organizations, but some attract comments from individual users of telecom services. The data cap docket probably won’t break any records given that the FCC has fielded many millions of comments on net neutrality, but it currently tops the agency’s list of most active proceedings based on the number of filings in the past 30 days.

“Data caps, especially by providers in markets with no competition, are nothing more than an arbitrary money grab by greedy corporations. They limit and stifle innovation, cause undue stress, and are unnecessary,” wrote Lucas Landreth.

“Data caps are as outmoded as long distance telephone fees,” wrote Joseph Wilkicki. “At every turn, telecommunications companies seek to extract more revenue from customers for a service that has rapidly become essential to modern life.” Pointing to taxpayer subsidies provided to ISPs, Wilkicki wrote that large telecoms “have sought every opportunity to take those funds and not provide the expected broadband rollout that we paid for.”

Republican’s coffee refill analogy draws mockery

Any attempt to limit or ban data caps will draw strong opposition from FCC Republicans and Internet providers. Republican FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington last week argued that regulating data caps would be akin to mandating free coffee refills:

Suppose we were a different FCC, the Federal Coffee Commission, and rather than regulating the price of coffee (which we have vowed not to do), we instead implement a regulation whereby consumers are entitled to free refills on their coffees. What effects might follow? Well, I predict three things could happen: either cafés stop serving small coffees, or cafés charge a lot more for small coffees, or cafés charge a little more for all coffees.

Simington’s coffee analogy was mocked in a comment signed with the names “Jonathan Mnemonic” and James Carter. “Coffee is not, in fact, Internet service,” the comment said. “Cafés are not able to abuse monopolistic practices based on infrastructural strangleholds. To briefly set aside the niceties: the analogy is absurd, and it is borderline offensive to the discerning layperson.”

Please ban data caps, Internet users tell FCC Read More »

Smart TVs are like “a digital Trojan Horse” in people’s homes

ads, FCC, ftc, generative ai, Policy, streaming, Tech, TVs / Tim Belzer / October 7, 2024

Similarly, the report’s authors describe concerns that the CTV industry’s extensive data collection and tracking could potentially have a political impact. It asserts that political candidates could use such data to run “covert personalized campaigns” leveraging information on things like political orientations and “emotional states”:

With no transparency or oversight, these practices could unleash millions of personalized, manipulative and highly targeted political ads, spread disinformation, and further exacerbate the political polarization that threatens a healthy democratic culture in the US.

“Potential discriminatory impacts”

The CDD’s report claims that Black, Hispanic, and Asian-Americans in the US are being “singled out by marketers as highly lucrative targets,” due to fast adoption of new digital media services and brand loyalty. Black and Hispanic communities are key advertising targets for FAST channels, per the report. Chester told Ars:

There are major potential discriminatory impacts from CTV’s harvesting of data from communities of color.

He pointed to “growing widespread racial and ethnic data” collection for ad targeting and marketing.

“We believe this is sensitive information that should not be applied to the data profiles used for targeting on CTV and across other platforms. … Its use in political advertising on CTV will enable widespread disinformation and voter suppression campaigns targeting these communities,” Chester said.

Regulation

In a letter sent to the FTC, FCC, California attorney general, and CPPA , the CDD asked for an investigation into the US’ CTV industry, “including on antitrust, consumer protection, and privacy grounds.” The CDD emphasized the challenges that streamers—including those who pay for ad-free streaming—face in protecting their data from advertisers.

“Connected television has taken root and grown as an unregulated medium in the United States, along with the other platforms, devices, and applications that are part of the massive internet industry,” the report says.

The group asks for the FTC and FCC to investigate CTV practices and consider building on current legislation, like the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act. They also request that antitrust regulators delve deeply into the business practices of CTV players like Amazon, Comcast, and Disney to help build “competition and diversity in the digital and connected TV marketplace.”

Smart TVs are like “a digital Trojan Horse” in people’s homes Read More »

Congress lets broadband funding run out, ending $30 low-income discounts

affordable connectivity program, FCC, Policy / Mike M. / May 2, 2024

Affordable Connectivity Program —

ACP gave out last $30 discounts in April; only partial discounts available in May.

Jon Brodkin – May 1, 2024 8: 45 pm UTC

Illustration of fiber Internet cables — Getty Images | Yuichiro Chino

The Federal Communications Commission chair today made a final plea to Congress, asking for money to continue a broadband-affordability program that gave out its last round of $30 discounts to people with low incomes in April.

The Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) has lowered monthly Internet bills for people who qualify for benefits, but Congress allowed funding to run out. People may receive up to $14 in May if their ISP opted into offering a partial discount during the program’s final month. After that there will be no financial help for the 23 million households enrolled in the program.

“Additional funding from Congress is the only near-term solution for keeping the ACP going,” FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel wrote in a letter to members of Congress today. “If additional funding is not promptly appropriated, the one in six households nationwide that rely on this program will face rising bills and increasing disconnection. In fact, according to our survey of ACP beneficiaries, 77 percent of participating households report that losing this benefit would disrupt their service by making them change their plan or lead to them dropping Internet service entirely.”

The ACP started with $14.2 billion allocated by Congress in late 2021. The $30 monthly ACP benefit replaced the previous $50 monthly subsidy from the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program.

Biden urges Republicans to support funding

Some Republican members of Congress have called the program “wasteful” and complained that most people using the discounts had broadband access before the subsidy was available. Rosenworcel’s letter today said the FCC survey found that “68 percent of ACP households stated they had inconsistent or zero connectivity prior to ACP.”

Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) included $7 billion for the program in a draft spectrum auction bill on Friday, but previous proposals from Democrats to extend funding have fizzled out. The White House today urged Congress to fund the program and blamed Republicans for not supporting funding proposals.

“President Biden is once again calling on Republicans in Congress to join their Democratic colleagues in support of extending funding for the Affordable Connectivity Program,” the White House said.

Some consumer advocates have called on the FCC to fund the ACP by increasing Universal Service Fund collections, which could involve raising fees on phone service or imposing Universal Service fees on broadband for the first time. Rosenworcel has instead looked to Congress to allocate funding for the ACP.

“Time is running out,” Rosenworcel’s letter said. “Additional funding is needed immediately to avoid the disruption millions of ACP households that rely on this program for essential connectivity are already starting to experience.”

Congress lets broadband funding run out, ending $30 low-income discounts Read More »

Apple’s iMessage is not a “core platform” in EU, so it can stay walled off

Apple, beeper, beeper mini, brendan carr, Digital Markets Act, European Union, FCC, federal communications commission, iMessage, IPhone, messaging, Policy, SMS, Tech / Paul Patrick / February 14, 2024

Too core to fail —

Microsoft’s Edge browser, Bing search, and ad business also avoid regulations.

Kevin Purdy – Feb 13, 2024 7: 06 pm UTC

Apple Messages in a Mac dock — Getty Images

Apple’s iMessage service is not a “gatekeeper” prone to unfair business practices and will thus not be required under the Fair Markets Act to open up to messages, files, and video calls from other services, the European Commission announced earlier today.

Apple was one of many companies, including Google, Amazon, Alphabet (Google’s parent company), Meta, and Microsoft to have its “gatekeeper” status investigated by the European Union. The iMessage service did meet the definition of a “core platform,” serving at least 45 million EU users monthly and being controlled by a firm with at least 75 billion euros in market capitalization. But after “a thorough assessment of all arguments” during a five-month investigation, the Commission found that iMessage and Microsoft’s Bing search, Edge browser, and ad platform “do not qualify as gatekeeper services.” The unlikelihood of EU demands on iMessage was apparent in early December when Bloomberg reported that the service didn’t have enough sway with business users to demand more regulation.

Had the Commission ruled otherwise, Apple would have had until August to open its service. It would have been interesting to see how the company would have complied, given that it provides end-to-end encryption and registers senders based on information from their registered Apple devices.

Google had pushed the Commission to force Apple into “gatekeeper status,” part of Google’s larger campaign to make Apple treat Android users better when they trade SMS messages with iPhone users. While Apple has agreed to take up RCS, an upgraded form of carrier messaging with typing indicators and better image and video quality, it will not provide encryption for Android-to-iPhone SMS, nor remove the harsh green coloring that particularly resonates with younger users.

Apple is still obligated to comply with the Digital Markets Act’s other implications on its iOS operating system, its App Store, and its Safari browser. The European Union version of iOS 17.4, due in March, will offer “alternative app marketplaces,” or sideloading, along with the tools so that those other app stores can provide updates and other services. Browsers on iOS will also be able to use their own rendering engines rather than providing features only on top of mobile Safari rendering. Microsoft, among other firms, will make similar concessions in certain areas of Europe with Windows 11 and other products.

While it’s unlikely to result in the same kind of action, Brendan Carr, a commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission, said at a conference yesterday that the FCC “has a role to play” in investigating whether Apple’s blocking of the Beeper Mini app violated Part 14 rules regarding accessibility and usability. “I think the FCC should launch an investigation to look at whether Apple’s decision to degrade the Beeper Mini functionality… was a step that violated the FCC’s rules in Part 14,” Carr said at the State of the Net policy conference in Washington, DC.

Beeper Mini launched with the ability for Android users to send fully encrypted iMessage messages to Apple users, based on reverse-engineering of its protocol and registration. Days after its launch, Apple blocked its users and issued a statement saying that it was working to stop exploits and spam. The blocking and workarounds continued until Beeper announced that it was shifting its focus away from iMessage and back to being a multi-service chat app, minus one particular service. Beeper’s experience had previously garnered recognition from Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.).

Ars has reached out to Apple, Microsoft, and Google for comment and will update this post if we receive responses.

Apple’s iMessage is not a “core platform” in EU, so it can stay walled off Read More »

Republicans slam broadband discounts for poor people, threaten to kill program

affordable connectivity program, FCC, Policy / Rejus Almole / December 19, 2023

Senate Minority Whip John Thune gestures with his right hand while speaking to reporters. — Enlarge / Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) speaks to reporters after the weekly Senate Republican caucus lunch on November 14, 2023, in Washington, DC.

Getty Images | Anna Rose Layden

Republican members of Congress blasted a program that gives $30 monthly broadband discounts to people with low incomes, accusing the Federal Communications Commission of being “wasteful.” The lawmakers suggested in a letter to FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel that they may try to block funding for the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), which is expected to run out of money in April 2024.

“As lawmakers with oversight responsibility over the ACP, we have raised concerns, shared by the FCC Inspector General, regarding the program’s effectiveness in connecting non-subscribers to the Internet,” the lawmakers wrote. “While you have repeatedly claimed that the ACP is necessary for connecting participating households to the Internet, it appears the vast majority of tax dollars have gone to households that already had broadband prior to the subsidy.”

The letter was sent Friday by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), and Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio). Cruz is the top Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, and Thune is the top Republican on the Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and Broadband. McMorris Rodgers is chair of the House Commerce Committee, and Latta is chair of the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.

The letter questioned Rosenworcel’s testimony at a recent House hearing in which she warned that 25 million households could lose Internet access if Congress doesn’t renew the ACP discounts. The ACP was created by congressional legislation, but Republicans are wary of continuing it. The program began with $14.2 billion a little less than two years ago.

“At a hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on November 30, 2023, you asserted—without evidence and contrary to the FCC’s own data—that ’25 million households’ would be ‘unplug[ged]…from the Internet’ if Congress does not provide new funding for the ACP,” the letter said. “This is not true. As Congress considers the future of taxpayer broadband subsidies, we ask you to correct the hearing record and make public accurate information about the ACP.”

“Reckless spending spree”

The letter criticizes what it calls “the Biden administration’s reckless spending spree” and questions whether the ACP is worth paying for:

It is incumbent on lawmakers to protect taxpayers and make funding decisions based on clear evidence. Unfortunately, your testimony pushes “facts” about the ACP that are deeply misleading and have the potential to exacerbate the fiscal crisis without producing meaningful benefits to the American consumer. We therefore ask you to supplement your testimony from November 30, 2023, with the correct information about the number of Americans that will “lose” broadband if the ACP does not receive additional funds, and correct the hearing record accordingly by January 5, 2024.

During the November 30 hearing, Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) said she will introduce legislation to re-fund the program. The ACP has widespread support from consumer advocates and the telecom industry. Additionally, the governors of 25 US states and Puerto Rico urged Congress to extend the ACP in a November 13 letter.

The Biden administration has requested $6 billion to fund the program through December 2024. Rosenworcel’s office declined to comment on the Republicans’ letter when contacted by Ars today.

Although the FCC operates the discount program, it has to do so within parameters set by Congress. The FCC’s ACP rulemaking noted that the income-eligibility guidelines were determined by Congress.

Republicans slam broadband discounts for poor people, threaten to kill program Read More »

SpaceX blasts FCC as it refuses to reinstate Starlink’s $886 million grant

FCC, Policy, spacex starlink / Rejus Almole / December 13, 2023

A Starlink broadband satellite dish placed outside on the ground. — Enlarge / Starlink satellite dish.

Getty Images | olegda88

SpaceX is furious at the Federal Communications Commission after the agency refused to reinstate an $886 million broadband grant that was tentatively awarded to Starlink during the previous administration.

The FCC announced yesterday that it rejected SpaceX’s appeal. “The FCC followed a careful legal, technical and policy review to determine that this applicant had failed to meet its burden to be entitled to nearly $900 million in universal service funds for almost a decade,” FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said.

In December 2020, shortly before the departure of then-FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, Starlink was tentatively awarded $885.51 million in broadband funding from the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF). But the satellite provider still needed FCC approval of a long-form application to receive the money, which is meant to subsidize deployment in areas with little or no high-speed broadband access.

The Rosenworcel FCC rejected the long-form application in August 2022, and SpaceX appealed the decision the next month. The FCC also rejected the long-form application of LTD Broadband, a fixed wireless provider that was originally slated to get $1.3 billion. LTD recently renamed itself “GigFire.”

The Starlink and LTD rejections were the two biggest changes to a $9.2 billion round of grants that, in the Rosenworcel FCC’s words, fueled “complaints that the program was poised to fund broadband to parking lots and well-served urban areas.” The FCC denied LTD’s appeal last week and proposed a fine of $21.7 million for defaulting on grant bids.

SpaceX “disappointed and perplexed”

After yesterday’s Starlink denial, SpaceX quickly filed a response saying the company “is deeply disappointed and perplexed by the Commission’s decision to exclude SpaceX’s Starlink satellite broadband service from the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund.”

“This decision directly undermines the very goal of RDOF: to connect unserved and underserved Americans,” SpaceX told the FCC. “Starlink is demonstrably one of the best options—likely the best option—to accomplish the goals of RDOF. Indeed, Starlink is arguably the only viable option to immediately connect many of the Americans who live and work in the rural and remote areas of the country where high-speed, low-latency Internet has been unreliable, unaffordable, or completely unavailable, the very people RDOF was supposed to connect.”

We asked SpaceX whether it plans to appeal in court and will update this article if we get an answer.

Starlink’s grant was intended to subsidize deployment to 642,925 rural homes and businesses in 35 states. The August 2022 ruling that rejected the grant called Starlink a “nascent LEO [low Earth orbit] satellite technology” with “recognized capacity constraints.” The FCC questioned Starlink’s ability to consistently provide low-latency service with the required download speeds of 100Mbps and upload speeds of 20Mbps.

In rejecting SpaceX’s appeal, yesterday’s FCC order said the agency’s Wireline Competition Bureau “followed Commission guidance and correctly concluded that Starlink is not reasonably capable of offering the required high-speed, low-latency service throughout the areas where it won auction support.”

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has acknowledged Starlink’s capacity limits several times, saying for example that it will face “a challenge [serving everyone] when we get into the several million user range.”

SpaceX blasts FCC as it refuses to reinstate Starlink’s $886 million grant Read More »