Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump’s campaign has sent personal invitations to some of the telecom industry’s most powerful lobbying groups asking them to attend an “information session” that will give the lobbyists “an inside look on the work underway on planning for the transition,” should Donald Trump become the next president of the United States.

Communications Daily reports the secretive meeting will be held at the powerhouse D.C. law firm Baker Hostetler, and will feature Trump transition team leader Chris Christie, the current governor of New Jersey.¹

The Trump campaign has remained almost totally silent on telecom public policy issues, but the meeting will give some of the country’s biggest telecom companies face time to influence an incoming Trump Administration on telecom issues ranging from wireless spectrum to Net Neutrality to competition and regulation matters.

Transition team member Andrew Bremberg, a former aide to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) sent the invitations. Likely to attend are lobbyists from NCTA-The Internet Association (cable lobby) and the CTIA (the wireless industry’s principal lobbyist). Also expected are individuals representing some of the largest telecom companies in the country. Up to 100 lobbyists are expected to attend.

The Trump campaign has refused to confirm the event and efforts to reach lobbyists expected to attend to confirm the meeting have also been rebuffed.

Such meetings give lobbyists invaluable face time with important incoming administration officials and often stimulate political campaign contributions. Consumers or their representatives are never invited to attend.

The Trump campaign has proven elusive about the candidate’s views on telecom policies. The Clinton campaign has been more forthcoming, released dozens of pages outlining a comprehensive telecom policy with claims the candidate favors Net Neutrality and wants to spend a considerable sum of taxpayer dollars on enhancing rural broadband.

¹Telecom Officials Likely on Deck for Next Week’s Trump Transition Meeting – Communications Daily/Comm Daily® Notebook, 30 Sep 2016, Ref: 1609290070 – (Subscription req’d.)

The Federal Communications Commission should redefine broadband as speeds of at least 50/20Mbps, according to the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute.

The advocacy group argues that the FCC’s current definition of 25/3Mbps is too slow to support the growth of high-bandwidth online applications including high-definition video, cloud computing, and online gaming.

“People use their connections for many reasons, and often multitask,” the group writes in a filing submitted to the FCC this month. “It is easy to see how multiple people with multiple devices engaging in multiple online activities on the same residential connection can quickly lead to buffering, slow load times, and frustration even with a 25/3 connection.”

In general, consumer groups want the FCC to push providers to offer faster speeds, particularly telephone companies still relying on ADSL, a technology that first became widely available in the 1990s. There are millions of consumers still reliant on DSL technology on copper wire phone networks that can only support speeds of 6Mbps or less. Many of those are Verizon and AT&T customers, particularly in suburban and rural areas bypassed by Verizon FiOS or AT&T U-verse. Almost no AT&T or Verizon ADSL customers come close to achieving the FCC’s current minimum definition of broadband: 25/3Mbps.

The OTI argues that it isn’t just the speed required by applications, it is also the number of concurrent connections. As emerging technology like the Internet of Things introduces new devices that will share a user’s home broadband connection, faster internet speeds may be needed.

“The general consensus around IoT is that, with potentially billions of new devices connecting to the Internet via Wi-Fi or cellular signals, capacity will need to increase,” the organization writes.

But the OTI will have to contend with provider opposition to redefining broadband speeds upwards. The NCTA – the Internet and Television Association, the nation’s largest cable lobbying group, wants the current definition maintained by the FCC.

“The current benchmark accommodates the expected needs of even those households using an atypically large amount of bandwidth, accounting for multiple streams of bandwidth intensive applications like HD streaming video, in addition to web browsing, email, and other applications,” the NCTA wrote. “The Commission should reject the notion of adopting a future-oriented, ‘aspirational’ benchmark, which would be necessarily divorced from the realities of the marketplace.”

Many NCTA members already offer speeds in excess of 50Mbps, although many cable companies also cap their customers’ usage.

A Verizon Wireless employee is facing up to five years in prison for peddling customer phone records and location data to private investigators for as little at $50 a month.

The employee, Daniel Eugene Traeger, worked as a network technician for Verizon and agreed to supply a private investigator with private customer information for a pittance, making it perhaps the cheapest service ever offered with the Verizon Wireless name attached.

Traeger’s lawyer worked out a plea agreement with prosecutors that could substantially shorten his possible sentence for pleading guilty to a felony count prohibiting unauthorized access to a protected computer. The Consumerist obtained a copy of the plea agreement.

Traeger quickly adopted the Verizon Wireless way of doing business, substantially raising his snooping rate to as much as $750 a month by 2013.

In all, prosecutors claim he earned more than $10,000 selling customer data using network tools readily available to Verizon’s network technicians.

Dorothy Ayer said she was quoted a price of $69 a month for a package including landline phone and broadband service from Frontier Communications, but when she received her first bill, she claims she was charged $426.55.

Ayer filed a class action complaint against Frontier Communications Sept. 12 in U.S. District Court for the Central Division of California, claiming the phone company regularly engages in unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business practices including false advertising.

Ayer claims Frontier promised her all installation charges, activation fees and other miscellaneous costs found on her first bill would be waived, but now that the bill is in her mailbox, the company wants to be paid in full.

The lawsuit asks the court to recognize the economic harm and injury done not only to Ms. Ayer, but to other similarly situated Frontier customers. The lawsuit claims Frontier Communications benefits from falsely advertising the prices of its services without properly informing customers of the many other charges the company levies on the first bill.

If Ayer is successful, Frontier will be forced to notify all affected customers and presumably refund or credit their accounts.

The case is being handled by attorneys Todd M. Friedman and Adrian R. Bacon of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC in Woodland Hills, Calif.