Articles by: "Chris Pedigo, SVP Government Affairs – DCN"

FCC Close to Revealing New Net Neutrality Regulations

January 9, 2015 Chris Pedigo, SVP Government Affairs – DCN

FCC Chairman Wheeler is expected to unveil a new plan for Net Neutrality regulations in the coming weeks. If reports prove correct, the new rules would reclassify broadband as a Title II service, applying regulations to broadband and mobile internet that some have called “utility-style”.

The cable industry has vigorously opposed this approach for years, arguing that Title II would constrain the development and deployment of broadband. Meanwhile, wireless carriers believe Title II would be wholly inappropriate for mobile. At the same time, with a newly won majority in the House and Senate, Republicans may even try to proactively move legislation to head off the FCC’s efforts.

While the FCC’s intent is to require ISPs to treat all web traffic equally, with no blocking and no throttling, and to ensure that consumers have unfettered and non-discriminatory access to the internet – a laudable goal. The Chairman’s proposal is not likely to be black and white. The FCC could broadly apply Title II while also providing specific relief (or “forbearance”) from certain requirements and exempting certain parts of the ecosystem. Indeed, the FCC is widely expected to grant forbearance with regard to pricing – meaning they won’t regulate or set prices for broadband internet access. Also, the FCC has suggested that there may be instances in which prioritization of certain content may be acceptable. We would also suggest that–as we argued in our comments to the FCC–the regulations should not extend to websites or edge providers since the federal government should not be in the business of regulating content creation or distribution.

The FCC should carefully craft rules that will allow the Internet to continue serving as the open platform that has been its defining characteristic. It is critical that the FCC rules allow for the next generation of content creators to flourish and ensure that consumers can continue to enjoy access to all the content and services they demand and expect.

Innovation | Perspectives | Policy

Trust and the Future of The Internet of Things

December 10, 2014 Chris Pedigo, SVP Government Affairs – DCN

Earlier this week, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) released its 10 Policy Principles for Unlocking the Potential of the Internet of Things. While the report touts the enormous potential for a connected world, it unfortunately misses the point that industry needs to do more to build transparency and choice around data collection before this next component of our digital world becomes ubiquitous. The ability to capitalize on all of the amazing benefits from new technology won’t happen without consumer trust.

One of the potential consumer applications of The Internet of Things (IoT) that the ITIF study outlines in its report is a “smart ‘onesies’ with embedded sensors that help parents monitor their infants’ health.” I doubt I’m the only parent who would be uncomfortable with a company using data about my newborn without very clear and transparent rules. As a parent, there is no way that I would buy that onesie without some more information about who else could see that data. And, if I started to receive targeted advertising based on my son’s sleep schedule, I would be a little freaked out.

The Internet of Things has the potential to alter our lives in amazingly positive ways. However, as with many promising technologies, our industry must set rules of the road for responsible and ethical uses of data. And, we must find ways to provide consumers with transparency and choice about how their data is being collected, used and shared. This is going to be particularly challenging for “devices” that don’t have a screen where consumers can be educated at the time their data is being collected.

As a cautionary tale, take a look at digital advertising. Click-through rates for digital ads are astronomically low. Fraud is abundant. Consumers don’t trust that advertisers are using their data ethically. And, increasingly, consumers are going to great lengths to stop it – Ad Block Plus is one of the most popular Android apps and consumers are activating Do Not Track even though there’s no industry standard yet. Advertising isn’t inherently bad and data can be used in powerful ways not only to improve its effectiveness, but to make advertising more relevant and valuable to consumers. However, people have a right to know when their information is collected and in what ways it may be used. That transparency helps build trust.

As we seek to take the power of data and the connectedness of the internet and extend it into a wide range of “things” — to make them smarter, better and more effective — we must put trust first. Without trust-based consumer relationships we risk never fully realizing all of the benefits of the world of IoT.

Innovation | Policy

FAA Takes Shortsighted View of Drones

November 25, 2014 Chris Pedigo, SVP Government Affairs – DCN

According to reports, the FAA is set to publish rules governing the use of small UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) or drones which would smother innovation and jeopardize the current uses that provide immense benefits to the general public.

The FAA rules reportedly will require full pilot training in a manned aircraft which can cost between $6,000 and 9,000, according to the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. Placing high-cost barriers to entry will only hurt innovation – both in the uses of UAVs and the development of safety features in the industry.

The FAA rules may also require that the UAV remain within “line of sight” of the operator. This requirement is particularly shortsighted as it would completely shut down one of the most promising benefits of UAVs – their ability to reach areas where humans cannot. There would be very little incentive to innovate around UAVs if the FAA place an arbitrary, regulatory tether on them. News organizations use drones to help with the reporting of news – to fly over war-torn areas, survey environmental hazards. UAVs can get to places where humans cannot or where it would take an extraordinary amount of time and effort not to mention the potential risk of harm. In fact, CNN and the Georgia Institute of Technology are studying the safe and effective use of UAVs for news-gathering.

If the news reports are correct, the FAA needs to reevaluate these potential regulations in order to allow for a world where we have safety and innovation. High-cost barriers and arbitrary tethers would stifle technological advances. At the same time, other countries with forward-looking approaches will take the lead in the UAV industry – with investments, jobs and innovation flowing out of America.

Perspectives | Policy

Verizon’s Unique ID: Tracking the Damage to Trust

November 7, 2014 Chris Pedigo, SVP Government Affairs – DCN

Recent news reports about Verizon using a tracking number that broadcasts a Unique ID Header (UIDH) to track the internet activity of its subscribers may have been missed among election news, trailing Ebola coverage and other big tech stories. But it’s important to stop and take the time to understand what this somewhat generically-named tracker actually does. Fundamentally, I believe it breaches consumer trust and, because of its poor design, it seriously risks consumer data getting into the hands of bad actors.

For the last two years, Verizon has used this Unique ID to identify consumers and serve targeted advertising. While they do offer consumers a way to opt-out, nobody knew about it until press reports started covering it a few weeks ago. In fact, a Verizon executive vice president told a Senate Committee in 2008 that “Verizon believes that before a company captures certain Internet-usage data. it should obtain meaningful, affirmative consent from consumers.” Such practices go beyond lack of transparency and head into the realm of consumer deception.

On top of the lack of transparency, the Verizon program is poorly designed. That Unique ID can be used by random, unknown companies to track consumers across apps and websites. The Company claims they reset the ID periodically but they won’t say how often – again showing a propensity for lack of transparency. Even then, there are questions about whether resetting the ID really matters if companies can correlate all the data to a cookie.

In essence, the flawed opt-out removes any benefit of targeted ads while not addressing any of the privacy concerns. Verizon’s program seems sloppy and smacks of a “consumer comes last” mentality.

Think of that UIDH as much like a phone number assigned to a device. If a customer makes a phone call then the recipient of the call can see that phone number using Caller ID. Now imagine if the customer activated Caller ID Blocking. In response, Verizon promised not to use your number for marketing but still displayed the number. The consumer likely would feel betrayed. And an opaque promise that the number changes from time to time isn’t likely to provide much comfort.

Consumer trust is undermined with this kind of lack of transparency, minimalist effort to educate consumers and sloppy engineering. ISPs like Verizon and AT&T know all kinds of highly sensitive information about us: who we are, who we interact with, precise location, the apps and websites we use and visit. In light of this unique and protected relationship with consumers, we should hold them to a higher standard when it comes to how they identify us and how they broadcast that to the world.

Perspectives | Policy

The Politics of Net Neutrality

November 4, 2014 Chris Pedigo, SVP Government Affairs – DCN

Today, on the Wall Street Journal’s Digits blog, Gautham Nagesh wrote a post called “The Politics of Net Neutrality: Five Things to Watch” in which he outlines key facets of this issue. Gautham points out that:

Companies and Internet consumer advocates – not to mention lawyers and lobbyists – are parsing the news from last week that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler is laying the groundwork for a new plan on how broadband Internet service is regulated. His emerging plan would expand the agency’s authority over broadband service. While the issue is highly technical, and legal, there are some strong political undercurrents as well.

He wisely points to these five things to watch (and takes a closer look at each in his column):

1. The plan’s effect on merger reviews
2. The timing
3. Control of Congress
4. The players
5. The markets

With regards for #2 on Nagesh’s list, even if the FCC gets a rule done by Dec 11, there is going to be a lawsuit to challenge this hybrid proposal. Verizon pretty much guaranteed it last week. That could stretch out the Net Neutrality debate over the next couple of years. And that’s the whole reason we’re in this position in the first place – because the FCC’s original plan was successfully challenged in court.

And as for #3, Nagesh may be overstating the impact of a Republican-controlled Congress on Net Neutrality or even telecom law. First, even if Congress could pass a law to stop the FCC from moving forward with these Net Neutrality rules, the President would surely veto it. As for telecom overhaul, the 1996 law got passed after about 5 years of debate and wrangling in Congress. And most agree that it looks like Senate Republicans face a very challenging election landscape in 2016.