Pai

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is leading the charge to define text messaging (SMS, MMS) as an “information service,” allowing phone companies a clear right to censor or block messages they do not like.

On Tuesday, Pai proposed a Declaratory Ruling that would deny a petition from consumer group Public Knowledge asking the FCC to once and for all affirm text messaging as a telecommunications service. The request goes all the way back to a 2007 dispute between NARAL — a reproductive rights group and Verizon Wireless. The wireless carrier blocked a text message campaign from NARAL, claiming it had the right to block “controversial or unsavory” text messages. It was the only wireless company to reject NARAL’s text-message program, which invited consumers to sign up for alerts and other information.

Legal experts told the New York Times private companies like Verizon probably had the legal right to decide which messages to carry, because text messaging was never defined as a “common carrier” service. Verizon Wireless at the time insisted it did not accept text messaging programs from any group “that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users.”

Verizon claimed it was neutral on the subject of abortion, but the topic itself was forbidden to be discussed or raised in text messaging campaigns directed to customers.

That 2007 claim irritated then-NARAL president Nancy Keenan, who claimed Verizon was interfering with free speech and activism.

“No company should be allowed to censor the message we want to send to people who have asked us to send it to them,” Ms. Keenan told the newspaper in 2007. “Regardless of people’s political views, Verizon customers should decide what action to take on their phones. Why does Verizon get to make that choice for them?”

Pai says giving companies like Verizon the permanent right to manage the kinds of text messages allowed on their networks is a good way to stop texting spam.

“The spam rate for text messages is estimated at 2.8%, compared to a rate of over 50% for email. That’s not by accident,” Pai claimed. “Today’s wireless messaging providers apply filtering to prevent large volumes of unwanted messages from ever reaching your phone.”

Pai claimed that the effort underway to classify text messaging as a telecommunications service was anti-consumer and would open customers up to a lot more unwanted messages.

“This may not seem like a big deal, but such a classification would dramatically curb the ability of wireless providers to use robotext-blocking, anti-spoofing, and other anti-spam features,” Pai said in a blog post on Medium.

Feld

“It wouldn’t be the holiday season without Chairman Pai giving a great big gift basket to corporate special interests at the expense of American consumers,” said Harold Feld, senior vice president at Public Knowledge. “Chairman Pai proposes to grant the wireless industry’s request to classify text messages as Title I ‘information services,’ stripping away vital consumer protections. Worse, Chairman Pai’s action would give carriers unlimited freedom to censor any speech they consider ‘controversial,’ as Verizon did in 2007 when it blocked NARAL and prompted the Public Knowledge 2007 Petition.”

Feld claims Pai is only telling half the story.

“As the FCC made clear in 2016 (over then-Commissioner Pai’s dissent), text messages and robocalls are both ‘calls’ under the anti-robocall statute, and this Title II designation does not prevent filtering or other technological means to block unwanted robocalls or spam texts,” Feld said. “Indeed, Chairman Pai undermines his own argument by pointing out that email, which has always been an information service, has a 50 percent spam rate whereas text messaging, which the FCC treats as a ‘phone call,’ has a 2.5 percent spam rate.”

The FCC plans to vote on the matter, and is likely to adopt Pai’s proposal, at a meeting on Dec. 12.

An unhappy customer in Georgia.

Victor Brown, like many residential customers in rural northeastern Ohio, has one option for internet access — Windstream, an independent phone company that typically serves areas larger companies like AT&T, Verizon, and CenturyLink forgot. For 17 years, his internet speed has been absolutely consistent, and slow.

“It’s 1.2 Mbps day or night, no more and no less, and for that they are charging me $58 a month,” Brown told Stop the Cap! “In that time, there has never been an upgrade, a real commitment to improve service, or anything except repetitive sales calls and mailers offering to upgrade me to a faster speed level Windstream cannot actually deliver.”

Windsteam has told its investors that it expects to offer 60% of its customers at least 25 Mbps service by the end of 2018. In fact, Brown has already been offered that for nearly a year, but the service is not actually available.

“They will switch you to 25 Mbps today, with the higher bill to boot, but you won’t actually get any better speed than you have right now,” Brown said. “I know because we tried.”

Brown and several of his neighbors all attempted to upgrade to the higher-speed service advertised. Windstream accepted their orders, charged them more, and delivered exactly the same 1.2 Mbps service they have always had.

“It took a service technician coming out to make it clear to us there was no way we would ever get faster speed because there was too much copper wiring between their office and our homes,” Brown said. “The technician felt for us, and about half of his service calls were disappointing customers like us.”

Brown explained the Windstream technician candidly told him that the company’s head office is behind the speed upgrades, but does not actually have a clear understanding of the state of the local network. Marketing then sells customers on better service Windstream’s network is not capable of providing.

“They need to spend money to replace some copper with fiber but there is no money for that,” Brown said. “The most the technician could suggest was installing a bonded DSL connection that would use two different phone lines and deliver 2.4 Mbps. That would come at a price, however.”

Ruth in Cochranton, Penn., is in exactly the same position.

“We are paying for internet speed that we aren’t receiving,” Ruth complained. “It is so slow that we have a hard time getting a short 50 second video to load. Forget watching a YouTube video, it’s not going to happen.”

Over in Lilitz, Penn., Eileen and her neighbors were also dealing with temporary phone lines Windstream installed by dropping both on their lawns and then leaving them unburied for nine months. She cannot get anyone from the company to bury the lines despite seven separate phone calls. Down the street, internet and phone outages can last a week after a strong rainstorm hits the area, and since the weather has turned much colder, hum and crackle on the neighborhood’s phone lines have disrupted phone calls and DSL service. Nobody from Windstream has come to fix the problem.

Windstream tells a very different story to its investors in the form of ‘upgrades by press release’ and cheerful investor conference calls that claim dramatic improvements in service and growth. While cable operators are touting increasing availability of gigabit service, phone companies like Windstream are promising to give a little more than half their customers the minimum definition of broadband service — 25/3 Mbps, by the end of this year. Many of Windstream’s other half get nothing close to those speeds, with 1-3 Mbps common in rural areas.

Wall Street balks at the dollar amounts it would take for Windstream to fully update its network to offer broadband speeds that were common for cable subscribers a decade ago. That kind of network investment would likely drive down the share price, impact shareholder dividends or stock buyback plans, and increase debt. Instead, many phone companies are hoping the federal government will come to the rescue and subsidize rural network improvements through the FCC’s Connect America Fund or government grants. But many of those grants won’t deliver service improvements to existing customers. Instead it will allow rural phone companies to bring broadband to customers who never had it before.

Even the threat of new competition has not inspired many investor-owned phone companies to embark on a spending spree. That competition may eventually come from new wireless broadband services like 5G, but most observers predict that will be years away in the rural communities Windstream traditionally serves. Where Windstream does face competition, it often still loses market share, usually to the local cable company.

“My sister has Comcast and although they are evil as can be, at least their internet speed matches what they sell, and it is shockingly fast in comparison to what DSL has given me for nearly 20 years,” Brown said. “Unfortunately, no cable company is going to wire us up. There are only a few houses on my street.”

Brown believes it is time for the federal government to start insisting that investor-owned phone companies do better.

“We have universal service laws for landlines but not for internet? That does not make sense to me,” Brown tells us. “Isn’t it time for the government to insist that all providers deliver at least 25 Mbps service to their customers? They are not going to do it without someone ordering them to.”

Amazon wants to be a major player in live regional sports television, aggressively bidding for the 22 regional sports network that Disney acquired from 21st Century Fox, according to a report from CNBC.

The undisclosed bid covers all of the Fox Sports networks plus YES – the New York Yankees network.

If successful, the e-commerce company would win broadcasting and streaming rights for 44 pro teams from the NBA (basketball), NHL (hockey), and MLB (baseball).

Amazon’s competing bidders include Wall Street funds and broadcasters, including Apollo Global Management, KKR, The Blackstone Group, Sinclair Broadcast Group and Tegna. The New York Yankees are also interested in taking a majority interest in YES, the cable network that features its games.

As part of a major asset sale, Fox sold many of its television and movie properties to Disney, but the federal government ordered Disney to divest its interest in Fox’s regional sports networks to win approval of the deal. There is a possibility Fox may attempt to buy back its sports networks. John Malone, a long time cable industry insider, predicts Fox is the most likely winner if they do bid, having sold the networks to Disney for $15 billion and potentially buying them back for as little as $8 billion.

Should Amazon win control of the regional sports networks, it will become an even larger player in live sports entertainment. Amazon Prime began streaming NFL games to subscribers on Thursday evenings in 2017, reportedly paying the NFL $65 million per year under the deal.

CNBC reports Amazon is bidding to take control of 22 Fox regional sports networks now owned by Disney. (4:44)

Altice USA is upgrading the firmware powering its much-promoted Altice One set-top box to introduce new functionality and integrate popular web services into the viewing experience.

Altice One v2.0 is rolling out to about 200,000 customers that have the advanced box. Among the new features:

• Recorded DVR content stored in the cloud can now be played back anywhere using the Altice One mobile app.
• YouTube Kids and a variety of streaming services will enhance viewing options beyond YouTube, Netflix, and a few other supported streaming services.
• More 4K content will be available, including Premier League soccer, available on channel 200.
• Remote control voice search will be available for the YouTube app.
• Show restart feature expanding to 20 extra channels, including A&E, History Channel, Lifetime, Viceland, Fox News, Fox Sports 1, FX and National Geographic.

The Altice One box, which carries a higher rental fee than traditional cable set-top boxes, has now been rolled out to about 80% of its Cablevision/Optimum and Suddenlink service areas. But only a minority of subscribers choose the box, and it gets poor reviews from customers because of bugs and other unexpected behavior.

Altice One v2.0 promotional video, courtesy of Altice. (0:30)

Homeowners in Greenhills, Ohio woke up one morning recently to discover anonymous contractors unspooling cable and planting orange-colored PVC pipes along a Hamilton County right of way on Sharon Road, straddling the communities of Greenhills and Forest Park.

Technological mysteries are uncommon in Greenhills, a planned community built in the 1930s as part of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal program. Greenhills was designed to be surrounded by a “belt” of nature, drawing people out of dilapidated urban settings and into quiet, tree-filled neighborhoods. Many who were offered homes in Greenhills by the Resettlement Administration never left, and their descendents still live in the homes their parents or grandparents once did.

Considering the slow pace of change and the desire to stay a quiet enclave, it should come as no surprise that many residents are disturbed about the quiet invasion of 5G small cells that will be going up all over town, especially because the owner won’t come forward and explain the project.

That layer of secrecy has brought suspicion among neighbors, even those younger ones that understand how much faster 5G service could be over 4G service available today.

“For me, I’d rather not be the guinea pig,” Andrew Steele told WCPO-TV. “That would be terrible,” Anna Steele, Andrew’s wife, added. “That would be horrible. Also, do we really even need it?”

A closer inspection of the infrastructure being installed shows Verizon is the most likely silent operator, which makes the prospect of millimeter wave 5G service for the community of 3,600 very likely. That could mean a new home broadband competitor in the area. But many residents do not want an option that includes small cell antennas.

Monique Maisenhalter told the TV station she was concerned about cell tower radiation causing damage to health and the environment, although such evidence is open to debate.

She and nearly 50 of her neighbors have signed a petition asking for the construction to cease until “more is known.”

Some believe there is no need for 5G service when 4G works well enough. Others are concerned about property values being lowered by the presence of multitudes of small cell antennas. Others object to the fact the equipment is being installed without full disclosure about exactly who is behind it. Even town leaders are flummoxed, as WCPO reports:

The mayor of Greenhills, David Moore, said he has no say over the fiber line installation because the lines are actually going up across the border in Forest Park, on a Hamilton county right-of-way on Sharon Road.

So we went to Hamilton County engineer Ted Hubbard, who said he, too, is struggling to find out who is laying the fiber and what their plan might be.

“The ownership is a big question,” Hubbard said. “And I have asked that. We are having a hard time finding out who actually owns it.”

Hubbard said several small contractors have received permits to install the lines but won’t tell the county who is behind the whole project.

“Who’s going to operate it?” Hubbard asked. “And who do we contact if there is an issue?’

WCPO in Cincinnati investigates mysterious new 5G infrastructure appearing in northern suburbs of Cincinnati (3:19)