Category Archives: USA

5G, data protection, IoT, Networks, News & Analysis, USA

What does Clinton have in store for the tech industry?

Location United States. Red pin on the map.Hillary Clinton has recently released her campaign promises for the technology sector should she be elected as President Obama’s successor in November, reports Telecoms.com.

The technology agenda focused on a vast and varied number of issues within the technology industry, including the digital job-front, universal high-speed internet for the US, data transmission across jurisdictions, technological innovation and the adoption of technology in government. Although the statement does indicate a strong stance on moving technology to the top of the political agenda, there does seem to be an element of ‘buzzword chasing’ to gain support of the country’s tech giant.

“Today’s dynamic and competitive global economy demands an ambitious national commitment to technology, innovation and entrepreneurship,” the statement read. “America led the world in the internet revolution, and, today, technology and the internet are transforming nearly every sector of our economy—from manufacturing and transportation, to energy and healthcare.”

But what did we learn about America’s technology future?

Focus on 5G and new technologies

One of the more prominent buzzwords through the beginning of 2016 has been 5G as it is seemingly the turn-to phrase for the majority of new product launches and marketing campaigns. The Clinton has aligned themselves with the buzz in committing to deploying 5G networks (no timeframe), as well as opening up opportunities for a variety of next gen technologies.

“Widely deployed 5G networks, and new unlicensed and shared spectrum technologies, are essential platforms that will support the Internet of Things, smart factories, driverless cars, and much more—developments with enormous potential to create jobs and improve people’s lives,” the statement said.

The deployment of 5G has been split into two separate areas. Firstly, the use of the spectrum will be reviewed with the intention of identifying underutilized bands, including those reserved for the government, and reallocating to improve the speed of deployment. Secondly, government research grants will be awarded to various vendors to advance wireless and data technologies which are directed towards social priorities including healthcare, the environment, public safety and social welfare.

A recent report highlighted from Ovum highlighted the US is on the right track for the deployment of 5G, as the team believe it will be one of the leading countries for the technology. Ovum analysts predict there will be at least 24 million 5G subscribers by the end of 2021, of which 40% will be located in North America.

Europe US court of justiceData Transmission between US and EU

From a data transmission perspective, the Clinton team are seemingly taking offence to the European Court of Justice’s decision to strike down Safe Harbour, and the varied reception for the EU-US Privacy Shield. It would appear the Clinton team is under the assumption the deal between the EU and US was struck down for economic reasons, as opposed to data protection.

“The power of the internet is in part its global nature. Yet increasing numbers of countries have closed off their digital borders or are insisting on “data localization” to attempt to maintain control or unfairly advantage their own companies,” the statement said. “When Hillary was Secretary of State, the United States led the world in safeguarding the free flow of information including through the adoption by the OECD countries of the first Internet Policymaking Principles.

“Hillary supports efforts such as the U.S.-EU Privacy Shield to find alignment in national data privacy laws and protect data movement across borders. And she will promote the free flow of information in international fora.”

While it is could be considered encouraging that the mission of the Clinton team is to open up the channels between the two regions again, it does seem to have missed the point of why the agreement was shot down in the first place. The statement seemingly implies EU countries refused the agreement on the ground of promoting the interests of EU countries in the EU, as opposed to privacy concerns and the US attitude to government agencies access to personal information.

Safe Harbour, the initial transatlantic agreement, was shot down last October, though its proposed successor has come under similar criticism. Only last month, the European Data Protection Supervisor, Giovanni Buttarelli, outlined concerns on whether the proposed agreement will provide adequate protection against indiscriminate surveillance as well as obligations on oversight, transparency, redress and data protection rights.

“I appreciate the efforts made to develop a solution to replace Safe Harbour but the Privacy Shield as it stands is not robust enough to withstand future legal scrutiny before the Court,” said Buttarelli. “Significant improvements are needed should the European Commission wish to adopt an adequacy decision, to respect the essence of key data protection principles with particular regard to necessity, proportionality and redress mechanisms. Moreover, it’s time to develop a longer term solution in the transatlantic dialogue.”

The Clinton team can continue to discuss changes to the transatlantic data transmission policy should they choose, however it is highly unlikely any positive moves are to be made until it gets to grips with the basic concerns of EU policy makers.

Navigating big dataAccess to Government data

Currently there are certain offices and data sets which are accessible to the general public, though this is an area which will be expanded under a Clinton regime. The concept is a sound one; giving entrepreneurs and businesses access to the data could provide insight to how money could be saved, used more efficiently or even new technologies implemented to improve the effectiveness of the government, though there could be a downside.

“The Obama Administration broke new ground in making open and machine-readable the default for new government information, launching Data.gov and charging each agency with maintaining data as a valuable asset,” the statement said. “Hillary will continue and accelerate the Administration’s open data initiatives, including in areas such as health care, education, and criminal justice.”

The downside has the potential to ruin any politician. The program is opening the door for criticism from all sides, and will offer ammunition to any opposition.

Connecting American Citizens

One of the most focused points of the document was around the country’s commitment to ensuring each household and business has the opportunity to be connected to high-speed broadband. While this could be considered an effective sound-bite for the party, it is not a new idea by any means. A recent report highlighted there is currently a surprising number of Americans who do not currently have access to broadband. Although it may be expected those in the rural communities would struggle at times, the report indicated 27% and 25% of New York and Los Angeles respectively would be classed in the “Urban Broadband Unconnected” category, which could be considered more unusual.

Connect America Fund, Rural Utilities Service Program and Broadband Technology Opportunities Program are all well-established operations (Rural Utilities Service Program has been around since 1935) which had been drums for previous presidents to bang also. Clinton has said very little new here or has made little commitment to the initiatives.

The team have however committed to a $25 billion Infrastructure Bank which will enable local authorities to apply for grants to make improvements. This is a new concept which Clinton plans to introduce though the details on how it will be funded, what the criteria for application will be or whether there are any stipulations on which vendors the money can be spend with, are not detailed.

Broadband, ISPs, net neutrality, News & Analysis, Operator, USA

Court of Appeals hits back at US telco industry with net neutrality ruling

Lady Justice On The Old Bailey, LondonThe District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals has hit back at the US telcos industry, ruling in favour of government net neutrality regulations, reports Telecoms.com.

Although the decision will be appealed to the US Supreme Court, the decision marks a victory for FCC chairman Tom Wheeler’s camp in the FCC, which has been split over the dispute. Republican commissioner Michael O’Rielly championed efforts opposing Wheeler’s Democratic team, though the decision does appear to move US carriers closer to the realms of utilities.

“Today’s ruling is a victory for consumers and innovators who deserve unfettered access to the entire web, and it ensures the internet remains a platform for unparalleled innovation, free expression and economic growth,” said Wheeler in a statement. “After a decade of debate and legal battles, today’s ruling affirms the Commission’s ability to enforce the strongest possible internet protections – both on fixed and mobile networks – that will ensure the internet remains open, now and in the future.”

The decision itself will now ensure US carriers cannot block, degrade or promote internet traffic, which has been strongly opposed by the telecoms industry and members of the Republican Party. The argument against has been based around the idea of an ‘open internet’ where free-trade rules the roost. Texas Senator Ted Cruz once described the move towards net neutrality as “Obamacare for the internet”, believing it is burdensome and would create an environment of over-regulation for the internet.

The ruling also hits back at claims made by industry attorneys that ISPs are like newspaper editors, and thus have the right to edit content which flows over its network. This has been struck down by the DC Court of Appeals stating ISPs should view themselves as ‘conduits for the messages of others’ as opposed to dictating the opinions which are viewed on the internet.

While this would be considered a victory for the Wheeler camp inside the FCC, the dispute is likely to continue for some time. AT&T has already announced it will be appealing the decision and Verizon has stated its investments in Verizon Digital Media Services would be at risk without an open Internet.

The dispute on the whole has seen conflicting opinions at every level. The ruling from the DC Court of Appeals also demonstrated similar conflicts, with Senior Circuit Judge Stephen Williams stating “the ultimate irony of the Commission’s unreasoned patchwork is that, refusing to inquire into competitive conditions, it shunts broadband service onto the legal track suited to natural monopolies.”

In terms of opposition within the FCC itself, O’Rielly said in a statement “If allowed to stand, however, today’s decision will be extremely detrimental to the future of the Internet and all consumers and businesses that use it. More troubling is that the majority opinion fails to apprehend the workings of the Internet, and declines to hold the FCC accountable for an order that ran roughshod over the statute, precedent, and any comments or analyses that did not support the FCC’s quest to deliver a political victory.”

The other Republican Commissioner at the FCC Ajit Pai stated “I am deeply disappointed by the D.C. Circuit’s 2-1 decision upholding the FCC’s Internet regulations. The FCC’s regulations are unnecessary and counterproductive.”

The end of this dispute will unlikely to be seen for some time, and there are strong arguments for both camps. On the commercial side represented by the Republican Party and the telco industry, there has to be a means to commercialize the billions of dollars invested infrastructure. AT&T, Verizon, etc are not charities. However, the net neutrality camp containing the Democrat Party and the FCC Chairman insists there has to be an element of control. There is a requirement for telcos to be held accountable, and invoking the First Amendment right to free speech in this context could potentially have dangerous consequences from a commercial and political perspective.