Netflix Changes its Wording about Net Neutrality (Jun 16, 2017)
More Fraudulent Comments Submitted to FCC on Net Neutrality (May 29, 2017)
I had an earlier comment on a report that many fraudulent comments had been submitted to the FCC over its proposed net neutrality action, though the vast majority of those were against the policy proposals. Now, it’s emerged that there have also been some number of identical comments submitted in support of the proposals, at least some of which are being submitted in the names of individuals who have publicly opposed them. Those individuals have quite reasonably asked that those fraudulent comments be removed from the site, and also that the FCC investigate the fraud (something which, as far as I am aware, the FCC isn’t planning to do with the earlier comments either). There’s also an accusation – completely unsubstantiated as far as I can tell – that Comcast is somehow behind these comments. This FCC process has been dogged from the start by “astroturfing” – the process of either faking or at least dramatically magnifying apparent public comments on a controversial topic, through a combination of legitimate streamlining methods like form letters and online submission forms and illegitimate ones like these fake comments. That, in turn, seriously muddies the water in terms of what real people actually believe about all this – the only survey I’ve seen on this was sponsored by the industry and predictably showed that people broadly oppose regulation on the Internet but without being very specific about net neutrality. As I’ve said from the start, though, this FCC doesn’t seem particularly likely to bend even in the fact of significant (real) public opposition.
via Ars Technica
Apple has filed a letter with the California DMV requesting some changes to its reporting requirements for the testing of self-driving cars as well as some of the definitions it uses, in response to a request for feedback from the DMV in March. Apple formally received permission to test its cars a couple of weeks back, and is now taking a more active role in helping to shape policy around the topic, partly because at the end of the year it’ll have to report its performance to the DMV and the public. Apple’s biggest request relates to the reporting requirements for disengagements, the name given to a situation in which a driver has to take over from the autonomous system. Apple wants the definition of a disengagement to be narrowed to include only those necessary to avoid either crashes or traffic violations, and to exclude cases which are pre-determined (such as driving through a construction zone) or for which the technology explicitly isn’t designed. That would have the effect of reducing significantly the number of disengagements reported, which would further Apple’s stated goal (as outlined in the letter) of increasing public confidence in autonomous systems. It would also have the side effect of making Apple’s first year of testing look better than the first years of other companies which began testing earlier under the current definitions. The other changes Apple proposes are relatively minor and mostly appear intended to provide greater clarity and remove unintended restrictions on reasonable testing.
via CA DMV
This has been in the offing for weeks, with lots of reporting since Ajit Pai took over as FCC Chair about his intentions to dismantle net neutrality regulations, but today it finally become official with a speech by Pai outlining his proposed approach. For now, all that will happen is that the FCC will tomorrow publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking outlining plans to reclassify broadband services as Title I, and inviting public comment. The significance of that is that the 2015 reclassification of broadband as Title II was what enabled the agency to pass net neutrality rules which stood up in court, so reversing that decision would also remove the net neutrality regulations. What Pai didn’t do in his speech today was outline how net neutrality rules, which he says he broadly supports, would be enforced going forward, though reporting has suggested he favors handing enforcement to the FTC with providers drawing up voluntary codes of conduct. The providers themselves, meanwhile, have been piping up in praise of the proposal while reiterating their commitment to a version of net neutrality they can live with: not blocking or degrading competing traffic. Once again, how you feel about all this depends on what you think net neutrality should mean: if you agree with that basic definition from the providers, things should be fine, but if you think it should also mean no paid prioritization, no zero rating, and so on, then you’ll have a problem with how this plays out. Pai’s fundamental argument here is that the providers were largely self-regulating before the rules, and that they will be again. The counterargument is that the threat of rules was enough to keep the carriers in line without them, and with rules eliminated and no immediate prospect of their reintroduction, carriers would be emboldened to push the limits in a way they weren’t in 2015. Also, as I argued a few weeks back, though the proposal released tomorrow will be up for public comment, I wouldn’t expect it to change much in the face of even very strong negative feedback.
Google Forced to Unbundle Services from Android and Open to Search Competitors in Russia (Apr 17, 2017)
The EU is currently taking action against Google over what it sees as anticompetitive practices including bundling of its own services and blocking competing ones from being pre-installed in Android. As such, this Russian case takes on more importance than it might otherwise have, because it presents one possible outcome of the EU case, which is forcing Google to unbundle its own services from Android and allow competing search engines like Yandex to be pre-installed. That’s certainly a possibility in the EU case too, and would mirror the action taken years ago against Microsoft over browsers in Windows. If that were to happen, I’m skeptical many people (or OEMs) would choose alternative search engines on an Android phone, but it would potentially threaten Google’s Android business model, which is entirely about the apps and services it runs on the device (and the advertising they enable). For what it’s worth, as I wrote in this piece at the time the EU action was announced, I still think it’s misguided.
Silicon Valley is (quietly) beginning to fight the Trump administration’s net neutrality plan (but probably won’t succeed) (Apr 12, 2017)
This was somewhat inevitable given the earlier fight about net neutrality, but it appears tech companies are starting to make their views known on FCC chair Ajit Pai’s plans to roll back net neutrality regulations and hand oversight to the FTC instead. So far, though, none of them are saying anything publicly, and I’m skeptical that we’ll see the same vocal fight over this as we did last time around on the part of the big companies. More to the point, I suspect even if we do it won’t make much difference. When Tom Wheeler came to the FCC many doubted that he would be tough on the ISPs he had previously represented as head of a cable lobbying group, and so he was particularly sensitive to criticisms of his policy along those lines. He also, of course, represented a Democratic administration which favored net neutrality rules. Pai, on the other hand, is a familiar figure with well-known views on net neutrality, who was in turn appointed by a president who backs his agenda. As such, even though Wheeler strengthened his stance on net neutrality as a result of public pressure, I can’t see Pai caving in the same way. We might see a slight moderation of the approach, and perhaps a slowdown in the transition to ensure the FTC is ready to pick up the gavel, but I can’t see any substantive change to the plan occurring because of opposition from big tech companies. Meanwhile, of course, this sets up yet another potential fight between the tech industry and the Trump administration, which may be another reason they choose to stay fairly quiet, given all the fronts on which they’re fighting.
Google accused of ‘extreme’ gender pay discrimination by US labor department – The Guardian (Apr 7, 2017)
The Department of Labor is suing Google over an alleged failure to adequately disclose its compliance with equal opportunity laws as a federal contractor. During the course of the court case, the DoL has accused Google of having a significant gender pay disparity, something Google strongly denies. Were the allegations to be true, it would be extremely damaging for Google’s reputation as an employer, but given that Google hasn’t given the DoL all the documents it’s asking for, you have to ask whether the Department has a full picture of Google’s pay practices. Google, in turn, has argued that the DoL has gone too far in its request for documents and that it has already adequately complied with the applicable regulations. Recent surveys have shown significant gender and race pay disparities within the industry, so it wouldn’t be surprising if those patterns held at Google too, but it claims its own data shows no such disparity. The court case will presumably eventually come down one way or another both on this question and whether Google has adequately complied with regulations, so it’s worth keeping an eye on how this develops.
via The Guardian