T-Mobile Reports First Quarter Surge in Fixed Wireless Access Subscribers

On April 27, T-Mobile reported that it gained 338,000 fixed wireless access (FWA) subscribers during the first quarter of 2022. T-Mobile ended the quarter with 984,000 FWA subscribers, and it reportedly has plans to gain as many as 7-8 million total FWA subscribers by 2025. 

This strong quarterly growth in T-Mobile's FWA subscribership was anticipated in my April 25 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "Fixed Wireless Access is Boosting Rural Broadband and Consumer Choice." That Perspectives focused on the tremendous potential for 5G-enabled FWA services to connect several million Americans in rural and small markets within the next few years. And FWA also could enhance competition in more populous local markets that already are served by fiber and cable broadband providers. 

 

As revealed by first quarter gains in fixed wireless subscribers by T-Mobile – and also by Verizon, 2022 is shaping up to be a big year for FWA. For more on the future of 5G-enabled FWA and policy priorities for ensuring that fixed wireless timely achieves its full potential to connect Americans to broadband, see my Perspectives. Free State Foundation Legal Fellow Andrew Magloughlin and I also touch on the competitive outlook and consumer benefits of FWA in our Perspectives, "The Broadband Internet Services Market in January 2022: 5G, Cable, Fixed Wireless, Wi-Fi 6, and Fiber are Benefitting Consumers."

US Trade Representative Report on Global IP Threats Focuses on China

On April 27, 2022, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) released the 2022 edition of its annual Special 301 Report (Report). The Report identifies 27 trading-partner nations where the threat to American Intellectual Property (IP) rights is particularly high.

Emphasizing that "[c]ombating … unfair trade policies will encourage domestic investment in the United States, foster American innovation and creativity, and increase economic security for American workers and families," the Report places seven countries – Argentina, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Russia, and Venezuela – on a "Priority Watch List" and twenty others on a "Watch List."

Among other concerns, the Report focuses on counterfeits, both physical and digital; online and broadcast piracy; trade secret protections; and "indigenous innovation" policies.

China, given statements by government officials suggesting that its approach to IP "should serve the needs of domestic innovation-driven development" at the expense of foreign IP rights holders, receives the lion's share of the Report's attention. Forced technology transfers, onerous licensing terms, IP-centered hacking, counterfeiting, and bad-faith trademarks are just some of the issues specific to China that the Report discusses.

Ukraine, which appeared on the "Priority Watch List" in the 2021 Special 301 Report, is excluded from the 2022 Report in light of its "premeditated and unprovoked further invasion" by Russia earlier this year. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, was removed from the list after implementing measures to improve its enforcement of IP rights.

The Report also targets the European Union's geographical indications (GI) policies, which can cause problems for certain U.S. trademark holders.

In a March 2022 post to the Free State Foundation's blog, I noted the release of a related USTR annual report, the Notorious Markets List, which "identifies illustrative examples of online and physical markets that reportedly engage in, facilitate, turn a blind eye to, or benefit from substantial copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting."

USPTO Report Shows IP's Tremendous Value to the U.S. Economy and Employment

Tuesday, April 26 was "World IP Day." The importance of copyrights to the U.S. economy and policy imperatives for better securing them were subjects of my Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "World IP Day 2022: Strengthen Copyright Protections for Creative Works." That Perspectives cited findings contained in a report by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office titled "Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy: Third Edition." Published in March 2022, USPTO's report focuses on so-called "IP-intensive" industries that primarily create or produce patents, trademarks, and copyrights. As described in my Perspectives:

[S]o-called "IP-intensive" industries … accounted for $7.8 trillion in U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). In 2019, IP-intensive industries supported 62.5 million jobs, or 44% of U.S. employment. The report concluded that copyright-intensive industries accounted for about $1.3 trillion in GDP that year. Yet the benefits to the U.S. economy from copyrights are much greater than that, since the USPTO's definition of "copyright-intensive industries" excludes several lucrative industries, including book and music stores that distribute copyrighted goods. Notably, "[c]opyright-intensive industries outpaced other IP-intensive industries with respect to GDP growth since 2014—rising by 4.2%" And copyright-intensive industries supported 6.6 million jobs in 2019, up from 5.7 million five years before. 

To put the growth of copyright-intensive industries in context, the USPTO report explained that "GDP grew by 2.4% per annum between 2014 and 2019, which means that the share of total output accounted for by the copyright-intensive industries was the only share that grew signifcantly [sic] during this period." Additionally, the USPTO report found that copyright-intensive industries accounted for 7% of GDP in 2019 and 4% of U.S. employment. Furthermore, during the 2010s, "[j]ob growth was most rapid during this time in the copyright-intensive industries, adding nearly 30% more jobs and far outstripping the 18% gain made by the non-IP-intensive industries." 

These findings amplify the importance of having strong copyright protections in order to ensure that creative-minded individuals have the financial incentive and means to develop, invest in, and market their creative works. Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I wrote more about this in our book Modernizing Copyright Law for the Digital Age: Constitutional Foundations for Reform (Carolina Academic Press, 2020). 

The USPTO report also includes informative appendices. One appendix breaks down IP-intensive industries into 13 categories, including "Advertising and related services," "Computer systems design and related services," "Newspaper, periodical, book, and directory publishers," Motion picture and video industries," and "Sound recording industries." Another appendix provides shares of private sector workers in IP-intensive industries as of 2019, categorized by state. 

The USPTO's report on IP-intensive industries is available here.

Government's "Time, Place, and Manner" Authority Preserved by Supreme Court

Last week, the Supreme Court upheld regulatory distinctions between on-premise and off-premise roadway signs as lawful "content neutral" restrictions under the First Amendment in City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, LLC. This holding clarifies the Court's prior ruling in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, which held that viewpoint-based regulation of roadway signs violate the First Amendment.

City of Austin preserves government authority to restrict speech for reasons that do not relate to the underlying content of the message – so-called content-neutral "time, place, and manner" restrictions. Some courts and commentators had cited Reed v. Town of Gilbert to narrow government authority to implement such restrictions. A consensus had emerged that Town of Gilbert outlaws regulations that require government officials to read the potentially subjected speech to determine whether the regulation applies.



This is how my constitutional law professor taught me to read Town of Gilbert, and the Fifth Circuit opinion reversed in City of Austin likewise took this approach. The Fifth Circuit's opinion reasoned that, because a government official must read a roadway sign to determine whether the sign is on-premise or off-premise, Austin's sign code drawing distinctions on that basis was an unlawful "content-based" restriction.

But the Court disagreed with that simplistic "read the sign" test, noting that Austin's sign code did not discriminate based on the underlying message of the sign. All messages within the on-premises category faced the same regulations, and all messages within the off-premises category faced the same regulations. The only reason the regulator had to read the underlying message at all was to determine whether the sign was on- or off-premises, not what the message itself said. In other words, City of Austin involved a place restriction, which is not usually suspect under the First Amendment. This is a far-cry from the sign code that violated the First Amendment in Town of Gilbert, which would've applied different regulations to signs depending on whether their messages were "ideological" or "commercial," among other categories.

Justice Alito concurred in the outcome. Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett dissented, arguing that the Fifth Circuit correctly applied Town of Gilbert by holding that the on-vs-off premises distinction is unconstitutional.

City of Austin appears to credit the crux of Justice Breyer's Town of Gilbert concurrence. Breyer concurred in the outcome but refused to join the majority opinion in Town of Gilbert because he believed the simplistic "read the sign" test would eliminate too much government regulatory authority over subjects that do not involve serious First Amendment concerns like protecting political speech.

Moving forward, it appears the Court will respect broader authority to implement time, place, and manner restrictions.

Outstanding Speaker Lineup to Discuss Hot-Topic Telecom Issues at #FSFConf14 on May 6

MEREDITH BAKER, CHRIS LEWIS, MICHAEL POWELL, AND JONATHAN SPALTER DISCUSS HOT-TOPIC POLICY ISSUES IN POWER PANEL

 

SEE THE OUTSTANDING SPEAKER LINEUP!

BELOW!

 

REGISTER NOW!

 

WHAT:  FSF's Fourteenth Annual Policy Conference

 

WHERE:  National Press Club, Washington, DC

 

WHEN:  May 6, 2022 – 9:00 AM - 2:00 PM

 

The Free State Foundation's Fourteenth Annual Policy Conference is on Friday, May 6, 2022, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. This annual conference is widely acknowledged to be one of the nation's premier law and policy events.

 

The usual guarantee applies: A truly outstanding lineup of senior officials and prominent experts from the FCC, other government agencies, industry, and think tanks will discuss and debate the most important law and policy issues of the day. These issues include the most appropriate broadband deployment and adoption measures, universal service subsidy reform, Internet freedom and net neutrality regulations, the 5G rollout and spectrum management challenges, the changing video services market and regulatory environment, protecting competition, consumer protection, and free speech in the digital world, and more.

 

Confirmed speakers include:

• Meredith Baker – President and CEO, CTIA
• Robert Branson, President and CEO, MMTC
• Brendan Carr – Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission 
• Mignon Clyburn - Former Commissioner and Acting Chairwoman, Federal Communications Commission
• Russell Hanser - Director, Communications Policy Initiatives, NTIA
• Chris Lewis - President and CEO, Public Knowledge
• Maureen Ohlhausen – Former Acting Chairman and Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
• Noah Phillips – Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
• Michael Powell – President and CEO, NCTA
• Nathan Simington – Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission 
• Jonathan Spalter – President and CEO, USTelecom
• Christine Wilson – Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission

REGISTRATION IS COMPLIMENTARY, INCLUDING CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST AND LUNCH.

 

BUT YOU MUST REGISTER TO ATTEND.

REGISTER NOW HERE !

 

PROOF OF COVID VACCINATION, ALONG WITH PROPER PHOTO IDENTIFICATION, REQUIRED FOR ENTRY.

 

Tweet: #FSFConf14

FSF Files Comments on FTC and DOJ Merger Enforcement

On April 21, the Free State Foundation submitted comments to Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice in response to their Request for Information on Merger Enforcement. The comments were written by FSF President Randolph May, Senior Fellow Andrew Long, and Legal Fellow Andrew Magloughlin. FSF's comments recommend that the FTC retain a case-by-case merger review process that weighs the totality of the circumstances, including merger-specific efficiencies and other contextual factors such as market structure and dynamic innovation. 

FSF's comments focus on the lessons to be learned from the T-Mobile/Spring merger, since it "exemplifies the probative value of an efficiency-centered, case-by-case approach." The introductory section of FSF's comments explain:

As predicted, that merger already has led to substantial pro-consumer efficiencies, including expedited deployment of next generation 5G service, network quality improvements, and continued downward pressure on prices. It also has confirmed the folly of relying on narrow market definitions in complex, dynamic markets. Indeed, that no consumer harm resulted is likely because, viewed through the appropriate lens – that is, the broader "broadband market" rather than the outdated mobile-only market – the T- Mobile/Sprint merger did not constitute a "4-to-3" merger as some alleged. 

Additionally, FSF's comments stated that "any revised guidelines should not adopt presumptions of harm." As the comments explain: 

There is no clear empirical evidence that vertical mergers are harmful on net. But there are numerous examples where predictions of harm have not materialized, including the AT&T/Time Warner, Comcast/NBC Universal, and AOL/Time Warner mergers, combinations with which Free State Foundation scholars are very familiar. The inaccuracy of those often overheated pre-merger prognostications of harm confirms that a case-by-case approach remains preferable to presumptions of harm for vertical mergers. 

FSF's comments to the FTC and DOJ on merger enforcement is available here.

Ninth Circuit Denies En Banc Rehearing on California's Net Neutrality Law

On April 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit denied a petition for a rehearing en banc of the January 2022 decision by a 3-judge panel in ACA Connects v. Bonta. In that decision, the Ninth Circuit panel upheld California's 2018 law imposing public utility regulation on broadband Internet access services. The petition of broadband Internet service providers who were seeking an en banc rehearing was the subject of my blog post from February 25 of this year. Among other things, petitioning ISPs argued that the panel decision incorrectly interpreted the FCC's Restoring Internet Freedom Order as an act of surrender or abandonment of the agency's statutory authority over broadband that extinguished the agency's conflict preemptive authority.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York reached a completely different conclusion on the issue of the preemptive authority of the Commission under the RIF Order. The District Court's decision in New York State Telecommunications Association v. James is analyzed in my June 2021 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "Court Halts New York Price Controls on Broadband Internet Services: California's Net Neutrality Law Should Suffer Similar Fate." Here's the paper's key paragraph on this point:

As the District Court rightly recognized, "[t]he FCC’s affirmative decision" in its 2018 Restoring Internet Freedom Order to reclassify broadband Internet as a Title I information service "is different from an abdication of jurisdiction writ large." Pursuant to that affirmative determination, the Commission may still impose regulatory obligations on the service under its Title I ancillary jurisdiction. Drawing on D.C. Circuit precedents, the District Court observed that the Communications Act confers on the Commission "various bases of jurisdiction and various tools to protect the public interest," and the agency has discretion in selecting the basis and corresponding regulatory tools to best accomplish that objective. Thus, the court wrote that choosing Title I "does not tender jurisdiction to the states to regulate interstate broadband providers as common carriers." Instead, the Commission "cement[ed] its long-standing policy choice concerning the propriety of imposing common-carrier rate regulations upon broadband internet service." 

The District Court's decision in James is now on appeal to the Second Circuit, as I discuss in a January 2022 Perspectives.

 

Getting back to ACA Connects v. Bonta: The Ninth Circuit's April 20 order likely will be followed by a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. Expect to hear more from Free State Foundation scholars as the case involving California's broadband Internet regulation law continues. 

Free State Foundation Files Brief Supporting Constitutional Challenges to USF Regime

On April 18, the Free State Foundation and FSF President Randolph May filed an amicus curiae brief in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case challenging the constitutionality of the FCC's universal service regime. The amicus brief, which is led by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and includes other telecommunications and administrative law experts, argues that the imposition of the USF contribution fee by the FCC and the Universal Service Administrative Company violates the nondelegation doctrine and the major questions doctrine, both of which are central to maintaining the separation of powers required by the Constitution. The case is Consumers' Research v. FCC.  

Here are two key paragraphs from the amicus brief's introduction:

Only Congress has the power to lay and to collect taxes for the general welfare of all Americans. Regardless of the public policy that it seeks to advance, Congress cannot delegate this power to the FCC or any other executive branch agency. Yet that is exactly what Congress did when it enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to create a universal service program for the Commission to raise revenue however it sees fit "for the protection of the public interest" in seeking to provide greater access to telecommunications services. 47 U.S.C. § 254(b)(7). 

 

The Constitution does not permit Congress to circumvent the legislative process by allowing an independent agency (guided by a private company owned by an industry trade group) to raise and to spend however much money it wants every quarter for "universal service" at the expense of every American who pays a monthly phone bill. Elected representatives of the people, not the Federal Communications Commission, must be responsible for making the difficult decisions to raise the revenue that funds this program. 

The amicus brief argues that the "contribution" mandated by Section 254 of the Communications Act is functionally a tax and that Congress's delegation of broad regulatory power to the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) – a private corporation – raises serious structural separation-of-power issues. As the brief states: 

The Company now rakes in nearly $10 billion each year in 'contributions' (ultimately borne by consumers), which it then disburses to libraries, schools, rural areas, and carriers providing services in high-cost areas... Yet Congress provided no direction as to how either the FCC or the Universal Service Administrative Company should calculate rates for service providers or how much money should be collected and distributed each year. 

As mentioned above, the amicus brief also argues that "[t]he major questions doctrine forecloses any interpretation of Section 254 that would allow the FCC to collect and to spend billions of dollars every year as it sees fit."

 

The amicus brief in Consumers' Research v. FCC is available for reading here. And thank you to the Competitive Enterprise Institute and their legal counsel. 

 

For more on the constitutional problems with the universal service regime, see FSF President Randy May's November 2021 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "A Nondelegation Doctrine Challenge to the FCC's Universal Service Regime," as well as our April 2021 Perspectives, "Congress Should Put Universal Service on a Firmer Constitutional Foundation." Additionally, the Free State Foundation filed comments in February 2022 and reply comments in March of this year in the FCC's proceeding for its upcoming Report on the Future of the Universal Service Fund.

FSF's Policy Conference Less Than Three Weeks Away! Register Now!

SEE THE OUTSTANDING SPEAKER LINEUP BELOW

 

REGISTRATION NOW OPEN!

 

WHAT:  FSF's Fourteenth Annual Policy Conference

 

WHERE:  National Press Club, Washington, DC

 

WHEN:  May 6, 2022 – 9:00 AM - 2:00 PM

 

The Free State Foundation will hold its Fourteenth Annual Policy Conference on Friday, May 6, 2022, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. This annual conference is widely acknowledged to be one of the nation's premier law and policy events.

 

The usual guarantee applies: A truly outstanding lineup of senior officials and prominent experts from the FCC, other government agencies, industry, academia, and think tanks will discuss and debate the most important law and policy issues of the day. These issues include the most appropriate broadband deployment and adoption measures, universal service subsidy reform, Internet freedom and net neutrality regulations, the 5G rollout and spectrum management challenges, the changing video services market and regulatory environment, protecting competition, consumer protection, and free speech in the digital world, and more.

 

So far, confirmed speakers include:

• Meredith Baker – President and CEO, CTIA
• Brendan Carr – Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission 
• Mignon Clyburn - Former Commissioner and Acting Chairwoman, Federal Communications Commission
• Chris Lewis - President and CEO, Public Knowledge
• Maureen Ohlhausen – Former Acting Chairman and Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
• Noah Phillips – Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
• Michael Powell – President and CEO, NCTA
• Nathan Simington – Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission 
• Jonathan Spalter – President and CEO, USTelecom
• Christine Wilson – Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission

REGISTRATION IS COMPLIMENTARY, INCLUDING CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST AND LUNCH.

 

BUT YOU MUST REGISTER TO ATTEND.

REGISTER NOW HERE !

 

Tweet: #FSFConf14

Maryland Sees Modest Improvement on Tax Foundation's Latest Tax Burden Report

On April 7, the Tax Foundation released its "State and Local Tax Burdens, Calendar Year 2022" report, and I have some good news – Maryland modestly improved its tax burden and its rank among the fifty states. Maryland's tax burden dropped to 11.3% from its 2020 high of 12.6%, and its ranking improved from 43rd to 35th among the states.

We shouldn't break out the most expensive champagne. Maryland is still a bottom-half performer. However, there are some positive signs for the future, as Governor Hogan recently signed almost $2 billion worth of tax cuts into law. So, for now, we celebrate.

 

The Tax Foundation's metric for "tax burden" is the percent of income the average resident of each state paid in state and local taxes for a calendar year. Or, in the language of tax wonks, the Tax Foundation divides the total "state and local taxes paid by a state’s residents divided by that state’s share of net national product."

Maryland has long been a low performer on this report, often posting tax burdens above 12% in recent years and throughout the late 20^th century. While Maryland's 2022 tax burden (11.3%) was its lowest in a while, it had a lower tax burden as recently as 2010 (10.9%) and 2000 (10.6%), so there is plenty of room for improvement. Nonetheless, the state is heading in the right direction for now, and the fresh tax cuts Governor Hogan just signed could add to the momentum.

Notably, the Tax Foundation cautions that Maryland's consistently high tax burden is partly explained by the fact that the state is also one of the nation's biggest spenders. To the extent that Maryland provides its residents with consistently high quality government services – a proposition about which there is legitimate debate – the state's high burden may be somewhat justified. That means that, perceivably, achieving a meaningfully lower tax burden could require fewer government services or serious crackdowns on waste, fraud, and abuse. But not right now.

Maryland's current high tax burden will be more difficult to defend because it also has an overflowing budget surplus. Free State Foundation President Randolph May's recent Maryland Reporter op-ed urging broader tax cuts explained that the Maryland's Bureau of Revenue Estimates projects a $7.6 billion surplus through the end of fiscal year 2023. That estimate has ballooned by $1.6 billion since the Bureau's previous estimate of $6 billion just five months ago in December 2021.

As Mr. May explained, a massive budget surplus and high tax burden makes now the appropriate time for tax reform. That Governor Hogan and the Democrat-led supermajority in the state legislature agreed to almost $2 billion in tax cuts shows Mr. May hit the nail on the head. While those tax cuts fell short of Hogan's original $4.6 billion proposal, some meaningful tax cuts are surely better than none. Mr. May urged passage of Governor Hogan's original, broader proposal in the Washington Post.

However, some of the cuts in the reform package signed by Governor Hogan may worsen Maryland's tax structure. This should be no surprise – poor tax structure is about as native to Maryland as OLD BAY® on blue crabs. As I detailed back in December 2021, Maryland plunged to an all-time low of 46th place on the Tax Foundation's State Business Tax Climate Index, a separate report that grades each state on the prudence of their tax structure rather than tax burden. One of many reasons for Maryland's low tax structure grade is that the state has about a million sales tax exemptions, which drives up overall sales tax rates by narrowing the sales tax base. A multitude of sales tax exemptions can also distort business decisions and increase compliance costs – especially for businesses that sell a mixture of taxable and exempted goods and services.

The tax cuts Governor Hogan signed included new sales tax exemptions for consumers goods that might be characterized as family necessities, such as diapers, baby bottles, oral hygiene products, diabetic care products, and certain medical devices, so the impact on structure is not so clearly positive. Cutting taxes on family necessities is certainly appealing, and likely popular, but contributes to poor tax structure. However, the sales tax exemptions are a relatively small piece of the package, so the overall effect could still be positive.

Maryland's improvement on the Tax Foundation's "State and Local Tax Burdens, Calendar Year 2022" report is welcome news. A dig through the FSF Blog archives will show much negativity over the years regarding Maryland taxation because there has been little to celebrate. The burden has remained high and the structure has remained poor. And our usual refrain has been lamenting worsening performance or chastising failure to improve, a beat that Free State Foundation Director of Policy Studies Seth Cooper maintained for the FSF Blog for over a decade.

So today, we relish the good news, and I look forward to Maryland's hopefully smaller tax burden next year in light of the implementation of Governor Hogan's tax cut package.

More Speakers Announced for FSF's Fourteenth Annual Policy Conference on May 6

MEREDITH BAKER, MICHAEL POWELL, AND JONATHAN SPALTER JOIN OTHERS ALREADY IN THE SPEAKER LINEUP

 

REGISTRATION NOW OPEN!

 

WHAT:  FSF's Fourteenth Annual Policy Conference

 

WHERE:  National Press Club, Washington, DC

 

WHEN:  May 6, 2022 – 9:00 AM - 2:00 PM

 

The Free State Foundation will hold its Fourteenth Annual Policy Conference on Friday, May 6, 2022, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. This annual conference is widely acknowledged to be one of the nation's premier law and policy events.

 

The usual guarantee applies: A truly outstanding lineup of senior officials and prominent experts from the FCC, other government agencies, industry, academia, and think tanks will discuss and debate the most important law and policy issues of the day. These issues include the most appropriate broadband deployment and adoption measures, universal service subsidy reform, Internet freedom and net neutrality regulations, the 5G rollout and spectrum management challenges, the changing video services market and regulatory environment, protecting competition, consumer protection, and free speech in the digital world, and more.

 

So far, confirmed speakers include:

 

·       Meredith Baker – President and CEO, CTIA

·       Brendan Carr – Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission 

·       Mignon Clyburn - Former Commissioner and Acting Chairwoman, Federal Communications Commission

·       Maureen Ohlhausen – Former Acting Chairman and Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission

·       Noah Phillips – Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission

·       Michael Powell – President and CEO, NCTA

·       Nathan Simington – Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission 

·       Jonathan Spalter – President and CEO, USTelecom

·       Christine Wilson – Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission

 

REGISTRATION IS COMPLIMENTARY, INCLUDING CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST AND LUNCH.

 

BUT YOU MUST REGISTER TO ATTEND.

REGISTER NOW HERE !

 

#FSFConf14

FCC Builds Partnership with States to Combat Robocall and Spoofing Scams

On April 7, FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel announced that a majority of states have joined into a partnership with the Commission to investigate unwanted robocalls and caller ID spoofing scams. 

It is widely known that most of these consumer-harming scams originate from overseas, but the partnership will hopefully enhance investigations into illegal robocalls and spoofing – and help to significantly reduce them. According to the announcement, other states have been invited to participate in the partnership to investigate and combat bad robocalls and spoofing. Aside from this public sector initiative, my blog post from March 2 highlighted private sector efforts of the Industry Traceback Group (ITG) to protect consumers from these hazards. 

US Beats the EU in Head-to-Head Comparison of Broadband Trends

On April 4, USTelecom released a report titled US vs. EU Broadband Trends: 2012-2020. The new report highlights several different metrics by which the broadband Internet services market in America is outperforming the market in European Union nations.

Among its contents, USTelecom's report includes these key findings:

• Deployment: US leads by 11 percentage points ≥30 Mbps; +25 pp ≥100 Mbps 
• Adoption: US leads by 10 pp ≥25 Mbps; +21 pp ≥100 Mbps 
• Competition: US benefits from nearly twice the fixed facilities-based competition of the EU overall; when comparing rural areas, the US lead extends to 7x. 

The US beats the EU by a particularly wide margin when it comes to high-speed fixed broadband in rural areas. USTelecom found that 91% of rural areas in America were covered with fixed broadband compared to 60% in the EU – a staggering 31% difference. Indeed, fixed broadband coverage in the US even exceeded fixed broadband coverage for all areas in the EU, 91% to 87%.

 

A critical reason for America's broadband advantage over the EU is the heavy investment in broadband infrastructure in the US, as seen in the following charts excerpted from the report:

 

(click to magnify)

For more on US versus EU comparisons on broadband, see USTelecom's report.