I've Been Mugged Blog

Legislation Moving Through Congress To Loosen Regulations On Banks

Legislation is moving through Congress which will loosen regulations on banks. Is this an improvement? Is it risky? Is it a good deal for consumers? Before answering those questions, a summary of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (Senate Bill 2155):

"This bill amends the Truth in Lending Act to allow institutions with less than $10 billion in assets to waive ability-to-repay requirements for certain residential-mortgage loans... The bill amends the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 to exempt banks with assets valued at less than $10 billion from the "Volcker Rule," which prohibits banking agencies from engaging in proprietary trading or entering into certain relationships with hedge funds and private-equity funds... The bill amends the United States Housing Act of 1937 to reduce inspection requirements and environmental-review requirements for certain smaller, rural public-housing agencies.

Provisions relating to enhanced prudential regulation for financial institutions are modified, including those related to stress testing, leverage requirements, and the use of municipal bonds for purposes of meeting liquidity requirements. The bill requires credit reporting agencies to provide credit-freeze alerts and includes consumer-credit provisions related to senior citizens, minors, and veterans."

Well, that definitely sounds like relief for banks. Fewer regulations means it's easier to do business... and make more money. Next questions: is it good for consumers? Is it risky? Keep reading.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyzed the proposed legislation in the Senate, and concluded (bold emphasis added):

"S. 2155 would modify provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd Frank Act) and other laws governing regulation of the financial industry. The bill would change the regulatory framework for small depository institutions with assets under $10 billion (community banks) and for large banks with assets over $50 billion. The bill also would make changes to consumer mortgage and credit-reporting regulations and to the authorities of the agencies that regulate the financial industry. CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase federal deficits by $671 million over the 2018-2027 period... CBO’s estimate of the bill’s budgetary effect is subject to considerable uncertainty, in part because it depends on the probability in any year that a systemically important financial institution (SIFI) will fail or that there will be a financial crisis. CBO estimates that the probability is small under current law and would be slightly greater under the legislation..."

So, the propose legislation means there is a greater risk of banks either failing or needing government assistance (e.g., bailout funds). Are there risks to consumers? To taxpayers? CNN interviewed U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (Dem- Mass.), who said:

"Frankly, I just don't see how any senator can vote to weaken the regulations on Wall Street banks.. [weakened regulations] puts us at greater risk that there will be another taxpayer bailout, that there will be another crash and another taxpayer bailout..."

So, there are risks for consumers/taxpayers. How? Why? Let's count the ways.

First, the proposed legislation increases federal deficits. Somebody has to pay for that: with either higher taxes, less services, more debt, or a combination of all three. That doesn't sound good. Does it sound good to you?

Second, looser regulations mean some banks may lend money to more people they shouldn't have = persons who default on loan. To compensate, those banks would raise prices (e.g., more fees, higher fees, higher interest rates) to borrowers to cover their losses. If those banks can't cover their losses, then they will fail. If enough banks fail at about the same time, then bingo... another financial crisis.

If key banks fail, then the government will bail out (again) banks to keep the financial system running. (Remember too big to fail banks?) Somebody has to pay for bailouts... with either higher taxes, less services, more debt, or a combination of all three. Does that sound good to you? It doesn't sound good to me. If it doesn't sound good, I encourage you to contact your elected officials.

It's critical to remember banking history in the United States. Nobody wants a repeat of the 2008 melt-down. There are always consequences when government... Congress decides to help bankers by loosening regulations. What do you think?

New Data Breach Legislation Proposed In North Carolina

After a surge in data breaches in North Carolina during 2017, state legislators have proposed stronger data breach laws. The National Law Review explained what prompted the legislative action:

"On January 8, 2018, the State of North Carolina released its Security Breach Report 2017, which highlights a 15 percent increase in breaches since 2016... Health care, financial services and insurance businesses accounted for 38 percent, with general businesses making up for just more than half of these data breaches. Almost 75 percent of all breaches resulted from phishing, hacking and unauthorized access, reflecting an overall increase of more than 3,500 percent in reported hacking incidents alone since 2006. Since 2015, phishing incidents increased over 2,300 percent. These numbers emphasize the warning to beware of emails or texts requesting personal information..."

So, fraudsters have tricked many North Carolina residents and employees into both opening fraudulent e-mail and text messages, and then responding by disclosing sensitive personal information. Not good.

Details about the proposed legislation:

"... named the Act to Strengthen Identity Theft Practices (ASITP), announced by Representative Jason Saine and Attorney General Josh Stein, attempts to combat the data breach epidemic by expanding North Carolina’s breach notification obligations, while reducing the time businesses have to comply with notification to the affected population and to the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office. If enacted, this new legislation will be one of the most aggressive U.S. breach notification statutes... The Fact Sheet concerning the ASITP as published by the North Carolina Attorney General proposes that the AG take a more direct role in the investigation of data breaches closer to their time of discovery...  To accomplish this goal, the ASITP proposes a significantly shorter period of time for an entity to provide notification to the affected population and to the North Carolina Attorney General. Currently, North Carolina’s statute mandates that notification be made to affected individuals and the Attorney General without “unreasonable delay.” Under the ASITP, the new deadline for all notifications would be 15 days following discovery of the data security incident. In addition to being the shortest deadline in the nation, it is important to note that notification vendors typically require 5 business days to process, print and mail notification letters... The proposed legislation also seeks to (1) expand the definition of “protected information” to include medical information and insurance account numbers, and (2) penalize those who fail to maintain reasonable security procedures by charging them with a violation under the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act for each person whose information is breached..."

Good. The National Law Review article also compared the breach notification deadlines across all 50 states and territories. It is worth a look to see how your state compares. A comparison of selected states:

Time After Discovery of Breach	Selected States/Territories
10 calendar days	Puerto Rico (Dept. of Consumer Affairs)
15 calendar days	North Carolina (Proposed)
15 business	California (Protected Health Information)
30 calendar days	Florida
45 calendar days	Ohio, Maryland
90 calendar days	Connecticut
Most expedient time & without unreasonable delay	California (other), Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico (other)
As soon as possible	Texas

To learn more, download the North Carolina Security Breach Report 2017 (Adobe PDF), and the ASITP Fact Sheet (Adobe PDF).

U.S. Senate Moves Closer To Vote On Net Neutrality

Yesterday, The Hill reported:

"A Senate bill that would reverse the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) decision to repeal net neutrality received its 30th co-sponsor on Monday, ensuring it will receive a vote on the Senate floor. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) announced her support for the bill on Twitter, putting it over the top of a procedural requirement to bypass committee approval.

The bill, which is being pushed by Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.), would use Congress’s authority under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to reverse the FCC’s rollback of its popular net neutrality rules... Under the CRA, if a joint resolution of disapproval bill has enough support it can bypass committee review and be fast-tracked to a floor vote... Lawmakers have 60 legislative days after the FCC submits its regulations to Congress to pass the CRA. The repeal order is currently awaiting approval from the Office of Management and Budget.

With Republicans in control of both the House and Senate, the bill faces long odds to win the simple majorities it needs to reach the president’s desk."

More Year-End Considerations Given The Coming Likely Republican Tax Plan

A prior post discussed the questionable benefits and year-end considerations for middle-class taxpayers of the likely Republican tax reform plan making its way through Congress. The likely tax plan includes lower tax rates paired with many deductions eliminated.

The professional who prepares my taxes provided another warning:

"Dear clients:
It looks like almost a sure thing that, if you itemize deductions, beginning in 2018, you will no longer be able to take a deduction for the Excise Tax on your car or the income taxes that you pay to Massachusetts and other states. You will PROBABLY still be able to deduct your real estate property taxes up to $10,000 a year. If you currently pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (line 45 of your Form 1040), check with me before you follow these recommendations.

All others who itemize, I recommend that you consider the following actions this month (December):

1. If your total property taxes (including those for a second home) are more than $10,000, pay your city or town as much as you possibly can in December.
2. Be sure to pay... maybe even over-pay... as much of your State Income Tax as possible by December 31st. If you make estimated payments, your 4th quarter Massachusetts payment is due by January 15th. YOU SHOULD DEFINITELY PAY IT IN DECEMBER INSTEAD.
3. Even if you don't usually make Estimate Payments to Massachusetts, you should consider making one in December... For example, if you made a payment of $1,000, you might save $150 or $250 or more on your 2017 federal tax return. You will save NOTHING on any state income taxes that you pay in 2018.

I will reach out again if and when the tax bill is finalized and signed into law if there are any other changes that might affect your plans in December."

Obviously, you should consult the professional that prepares your income taxes, since your situation and state may dictate different actions. And, I am not an income tax professional. New legislation always has consequences, and it seems wise to be aware. hence, this informational blog post.

Some additional thoughts. Capping the real estate property tax deduction at $10,000 might help pay for the increased deficits the Republican tax plan would generate, but it will also hurt persons living in high-cost areas (e.g., cities, states with high state taxes, areas with high real estate prices). Plus, the tax cuts are temporary for individuals but permanent for corporations. Slick, eh? Is it fair? Seems not.

My college friends and I are discussing via e-mail the considerations listed above and in my prior blog post. The proposed elimination of deductions for state and local taxes (SALT) is a hot topic. You can find online articles discussing the advantages and disadvantages of eliminating SALT deductions. Regardless, more to discuss with your accountant and/or income tax professional.

The Consequences From Unchecked Development Without Zoning Laws

While there has been plenty of news about hurricane Harvey and the flood in Houston, there hasn't been much news about an important, related issue which affects all taxpayers. This report by the QZ site highlights the consequences of unchecked development while ignoring environmental concerns:

"... Houstonians have been treating its wetlands as stinky, mosquito-infested blots in need of drainage. Even after it became a widely accepted scientific fact that wetlands can soak up large amounts of flood water, the city continued to pave over them. The watershed of the White Oak Bayou river, which includes much of northwest Houston, is a case in point. From 1992 to 2010, this area lost more than 70% of its wetlands, according to research (pdf) by Texas A&M University."

Unchecked development affects all taxpayers when federal bailout money is spent to repair the damage in areas subject to repeated, frequent floods:

"... the flooding caused by Hurricane Harvey has raised water levels in some parts of the watershed high enough to completely cover a Cadillac. The vanished wetlands wouldn’t have prevented flooding, but they would have made it less painful, experts say. The Harvey-wrought devastation is just the latest example of the consequences of Houston’s gung-ho approach to development. The city, the largest in the US with no zoning laws, is a case study in limiting government regulations and favoring growth—often at the expense of the environment. As water swamps many of its neighborhoods, it’s now also a cautionary tale of sidelining science and plain common sense..."

The consequences from lax laws favoring unchecked development:

"Wetland loss... The construction of flood-prone buildings in flood plains is another one: The elderly residents of La Vita Bella, a nursing home in Dickinson, east of Houston, were up to their waists in water before they got rescued. The home is within the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) designated flood zone... too few people have flood insurance. Although federal rules require certain homeowners to carry it, those rules are based on outdated flood data. Only a little over a quarter of the homes in “high risk” areas in Harris County, where Houston sits, have flood insurance."

So, not everyone who should be is paying their fair share (via flood insurance). And, it seems that things will get worse. All of the above was:

"... before [President] Trump came into office and started removing layers of regulation. Just 10 days before Harvey struck, the president signed an executive order that rescinded federal flood protection standards put in place by his predecessor, Barack Obama. FEMA and the US Housing and Urban Development Department, the two federal agencies that will handle most of the huge pile of cash expected for the rebuilding of Houston, would have been forced to require any rebuilding to confirm to new, safer codes. Now, they won’t."

Lax laws allowing the repair and construction of new buildings in high-risk areas subject to repeated flooding sounds foolish. It's basically throwing taxpayers' hard-earned money out the window. Do you want to pay for this? I don't. A few local developers may get rich, but at the expense of taxpayers nationwide.

There are always consequences -- intended and unintended. Be sure to demand that your elected officials consider and understand them.

CFPB Issues New Rule Governing Arbitration Clauses

The products and services many consumers purchases include contractual agreements with arbitration clauses, which prohibit consumers from getting relief by joining class-action lawsuits. Those clauses also specify the out-of-court process to resolve disagreements and the upfront fees consumers must pay.

Many you have heard of the phrase, "binding arbitration." Regular readers of this blog are familiar with the issues with binding arbitration. Many popular mobile apps, websites, streaming video services, and some augmented-reality (AR) mobile games contain these clauses. The Public Citizen website lists the banks, retail stores, entertainment, online shopping, telecommunications, consumer electronics, software, nursing homes, and health care companies that include binding arbitration clauses in their contracts with customers.

To achieve a better balance between the needs of consumers versus the needs of corporations, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has issued new rules governing arbitration clauses. The CFPB explained:

"No matter how many people are harmed by the same conduct, most arbitration clauses require people to bring claims individually against the company, outside the court system, before a private individual (an arbitrator). Companies know that people almost never spend the time or money to pursue relief when the amounts at stake are small, so few people do this. Our new rule will restore the ability of groups of people to file or join group lawsuits. In some cases, not only will companies have to provide relief, they will also have to change their behavior moving forward.

People who would otherwise have to go it alone or give up, will be able to join with others to pursue justice and some remedy for their harm."

Richard Cordray, the Director of the CFPB, in a statement briefly discussed the history:

"Originally, arbitration was primarily used for disagreements between two businesses. But over the last quarter century or so, companies started adding arbitration clauses to their consumer contracts... In 2007, Congress passed the Military Lending Act, which disallows mandatory arbitration clauses in connection with certain loans made to servicemembers. Three years later, in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Congress went further and banned mandatory arbitration clauses in most residential mortgage contracts."

Supporters of binding arbitration clauses have long fought pro-consumer action by the CFPB. Director Cordray also discussed the new CFPB rule:

"A cherished tenet of our justice system is that no one, no matter how big or how powerful, should escape accountability if they break the law. But right now, many contracts for consumer financial products like bank accounts and credit cards come with a mandatory arbitration clause that makes it virtually impossible for people to sue the company as a group if things go wrong. On paper, these clauses simply say that either party can opt to have disputes resolved by private individuals known as arbitrators rather than by the court system. In practice, companies use these clauses to bar groups of consumers from joining together to seek justice by vindicating their legal rights..."

"The breadth and application of these clauses can be unexpected and severe. For example, when Wells Fargo opened millions of deposit and credit card accounts without the knowledge or consent of consumers, arbitration clauses in existing account contracts blocked their customers from bringing group lawsuits for the unauthorized account openings. Companies have argued that group lawsuits are unnecessary because the government can pursue enforcement actions to address the same problems. But consumers should be able to stand up for themselves and pursue their own legal rights without having to wait on the government. And the government has limited resources..."

The CFPB also produced this video:

What are your opinions of binding arbitration clauses? Were you aware of them? What are your opinions of the new CFPB rule?

3 Strategies To Defend GOP Health Bill: Euphemisms, False Statements and Deleted Comments

[Editor's Note: today's guest post is by the reporters as ProPublica. Affordable health care and coverage are important to many, if not most, Americans. It is reprinted with permission.]

by Charles Ornstein, ProPublica

Earlier this month, a day after the House of Representatives passed a bill to repeal and replace major parts of the Affordable Care Act, Ashleigh Morley visited her congressman's Facebook page to voice her dismay.

"Your vote yesterday was unthinkably irresponsible and does not begin to account for the thousands of constituents in your district who rely upon many of the services and provisions provided for them by the ACA," Morley wrote on the page affiliated with the campaign of Representative Peter King (Republican, New York). "You never had my vote and this confirms why."

The next day, Morley said, her comment was deleted and she was blocked from commenting on or reacting to King's posts. The same thing has happened to others critical of King's positions on health care and other matters. King has deleted negative feedback and blocked critics from his Facebook page, several of his constituents say, sharing screenshots of comments that are no longer there.

"Having my voice and opinions shut down by the person who represents me -- especially when my voice and opinion wasn't vulgar and obscene -- is frustrating, it's disheartening, and I think it points to perhaps a larger problem with our representatives and maybe their priorities," Morley said in an interview.

King's office did not respond to requests for comment.

As Republican members of Congress seek to roll back the Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare, and replace it with the American Health Care Act, they have adopted various strategies to influence and cope with public opinion, which polls show mostly opposes their plan. ProPublica, with our partners at Kaiser Health News, Stat and Vox, has been fact-checking members of Congress in this debate and we've found misstatements on both sides, though more by Republicans than Democrats. The Washington Post's Fact Checker has similarly found misstatements by both sides.

Today, we're back with more examples of how legislators are interacting with constituents about repealing Obamacare, whether online or in traditional correspondence. Their more controversial tactics seem to fall into three main categories: providing incorrect information, using euphemisms for the impact of their actions, and deleting comments critical of them. (Share your correspondence with members of Congress with us.)

Incorrect Information

Representative Vicky Hartzler (Republican, Missouri) sent a note to constituents this month explaining her vote in favor of the Republican bill. First, she outlined why she believes the ACA is not sustainable -- namely, higher premiums and few choices. Then she said it was important to have a smooth transition from one system to another.

"This is why I supported the AHCA to follow through on our promise to have an immediate replacement ready to go should the ACA be repealed," she wrote. "The AHCA keeps the ACA for the next three years then phases in a new approach to give people, states, and insurance markets plenty of time to make adjustments."

Except that's not true.

"There are quite a number of changes in the AHCA that take effect within the next three years," wrote ACA expert Timothy Jost, an emeritus professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law, in an email to ProPublica.

The current law's penalties on individuals who do not purchase insurance and on employers who do not offer it would be repealed retroactively to 2016, which could remove the incentive for some employers to offer coverage to their workers. Moreover, beginning in 2018, older people could be charged premiums up to five times more than younger people -- up from three times under current law. The way in which premium tax credits would be calculated would change as well, benefiting younger people at the expense of older ones, Jost said.

"It is certainly not correct to say that everything stays the same for the next three years," he wrote.

In an email, Hartzler spokesman Casey Harper replied, "I can see how this sentence in the letter could be misconstrued. It's very important to the Congresswoman that we give clear, accurate information to her constituents. Thanks for pointing that out."

Other lawmakers have similarly shared incorrect information after voting to repeal the ACA. Representative Diane Black (Republican, Tennessee) wrote in a May 19 email to a constituent that "in 16 of our counties, there are no plans available at all. This system is crumbling before our eyes and we cannot wait another year to act."

Black was referring to the possibility that, in 16 Tennessee counties around Knoxville, there might not have been any insurance options in the ACA marketplace next year. However, 10 days earlier, before she sent her email, BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee announced that it was willing to provide coverage in those counties and would work with the state Department of Commerce and Insurance "to set the right conditions that would allow our return."

"We stand by our statement of the facts, and Congressman Black is working hard to repeal and replace Obamacare with a system that actually works for Tennessee families and individuals," her deputy chief of staff Dean Thompson said in an email.

On the Democratic side, the Washington Post Fact Checker has called out representatives for saying the AHCA would consider rape or sexual assault as pre-existing conditions. The bill would not do that, although critics counter that any resulting mental health issues or sexually transmitted diseases could be considered existing illnesses.

Euphemisms

A number of lawmakers have posted information taken from talking points put out by the House Republican Conference that try to frame the changes in the Republican bill as kinder and gentler than most experts expect them to be.

An answer to one frequently asked question pushes back against criticism that the Republican bill would gut Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for the poor, and appears on the websites of Representative Garret Graves (Republican, Louisiana) and others.

"Our plan responsibly unwinds Obamacare's Medicaid expansion," the answer says. "We freeze enrollment and allow natural turnover in the Medicaid program as beneficiaries see their life circumstances change. This strategy is both fiscally responsible and fair, ensuring we don't pull the rug out on anyone while also ending the Obamacare expansion that unfairly prioritizes able-bodied working adults over the most vulnerable."

That is highly misleading, experts say.

The Affordable Care Act allowed states to expand Medicaid eligibility to anyone who earned less than 138 percent of the federal poverty level, with the federal government picking up almost the entire tab. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia opted to do so. As a result, the program now covers more than 74 million beneficiaries, nearly 17 million more than it did at the end of 2013.

The GOP health care bill would pare that back. Beginning in 2020, it would reduce the share the federal government pays for new enrollees in the Medicaid expansion to the rate it pays for other enrollees in the state, which is considerably less. Also in 2020, the legislation would cap the spending growth rate per Medicaid beneficiary. As a result, a Congressional Budget Office review released Wednesday estimates that millions of Americans would become uninsured.

Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University, said the GOP's characterization of its Medicaid plan is wrong on many levels. People naturally cycle on and off Medicaid, she said, often because of temporary events, not changing life circumstances -- seasonal workers, for instance, may see their wages rise in summer months before falling back.

"A terrible blow to millions of poor people is recast as an easing off of benefits that really aren't all that important, in a humane way," she said.

Moreover, the GOP bill actually would speed up the "natural turnover" in the Medicaid program, said Diane Rowland, executive vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health care think tank. Under the ACA, states were only permitted to recheck enrollees' eligibility for Medicaid once a year because cumbersome paperwork requirements have been shown to cause people to lose their coverage. The American Health Care Act would require these checks every six months -- and even give states more money to conduct them.

Rowland also took issue with the GOP talking point that the expansion "unfairly prioritizes able-bodied working adults over the most vulnerable." At a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing earlier this year, GOP representatives maintained that the Medicaid expansion may be creating longer waits for home- and community-based programs for sick and disabled Medicaid patients needing long-term care, "putting care for some of the most vulnerable Americans at risk."

Research from the Kaiser Family Foundation, however, showed that there was no relationship between waiting lists and states that expanded Medicaid. Such waiting lists pre-dated the expansion and they were worse in states that did not expand Medicaid than in states that did.

"This is a complete misrepresentation of the facts," Rosenbaum said.

Graves' office said the information on his site came from the House Republican Conference. Emails to the conference's press office were not returned.

The GOP talking points also play up a new Patient and State Stability Fund included in the AHCA, which is intended to defray the costs of covering people with expensive health conditions. "All told, $130 billion dollars would be made available to states to finance innovative programs to address their unique patient populations," the information says. "This new stability fund ensures these programs have the necessary funding to protect patients while also giving states the ability to design insurance markets that will lower costs and increase choice."

The fund was modeled after a program in Maine, called an invisible high-risk pool, which advocates say has kept premiums in check in the state. But Senator Susan Collins (Republican, Maine) says the House bill's stability fund wasn't allocated enough money to keep premiums stable.

"In order to do the Maine model 2014 which I've heard many House people say that is what they're aiming for -- it would take $15 billion in the first year and that is not in the House bill," Collins told Politico. "There is actually $3 billion specifically designated for high-risk pools in the first year."

Deleting Comments

Morley, 28, a branded content editor who lives in Seaford, New York, said she moved into Representative King's Long Island district shortly before the 2016 election. She said she did not vote for him and, like many others across the country, said the election results galvanized her into becoming more politically active.

Earlier this year, Morley found an online conversation among King's constituents who said their critical comments were being deleted from his Facebook page. Because she doesn't agree with King's stances, she said she wanted to reserve her comment for an issue she felt strongly about.

A day after the House voted to repeal the ACA, Morley posted her thoughts. "I kind of felt that that was when I wanted to use my one comment, my one strike as it would be," she said.

By noon the next day, it had been deleted and she had been blocked.

"I even wrote in my comment that you can block me but I'm still going to call your office," Morley said in an interview.

Some negative comments about King remain on his Facebook page. But King's critics say his deletions fit a broader pattern. He has declined to hold an in-person town hall meeting this year, saying, "to me all they do is just turn into a screaming session," according to CNN. He held a telephonic town hall meeting but only answered a small fraction of the questions submitted. And he met with Liuba Grechen Shirley, the founder of a local Democratic group in his district, but only after her group held a protest in front of his office that drew around 400 people.

"He's not losing his health care," Grechen Shirley said. "It doesn't affect him. It's a death sentence for many and he doesn't even care enough to meet with his constituents."

King's deleted comments even caught the eye of Andy Slavitt, who until January was the acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Slavitt has been traveling the country pushing back against attempts to gut the ACA.

.@RepPeteKing, are you silencing your constituents who send you questions? Assume ppl in district will respond if this is happening.

-- Andy Slavitt (@ASlavitt) May 12, 2017

Since the election, other activists across the country who oppose the president's agenda have posted online that they have been blocked from following their elected officials on Twitter or commenting on their Facebook pages because of critical statements they've made about the AHCA and other issues.

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for their newsletter.

FCC Voted Yesterday To Start To Overturn Net Neutrality Rules

Yesterday, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to kill net neutrality rules it enacted a couple years ago. The FCC announcement:

"The Federal Communications Commission today took the first step toward restoring Internet freedom and promoting infrastructure investment, innovation, and choice by proposing to end utility-style regulation of broadband Internet access service. In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the FCC proposes to return to the bipartisan framework that preserved a flourishing free and open Internet for almost 20 years.  First, the Notice proposes to reverse the FCC’s 2015 decision to impose heavy-handed Title II utility-style government regulation on Internet service providers (ISPs) and return to the longstanding, successful light-touch framework under Title I of the Communications Act.

Second, the Notice proposes to return to the Commission’s original classification of mobile broadband Internet access service as a private mobile service.  Given the historical innovation and success of the wireless marketplace prior to the Title II Order, this proposal is expected to substantially benefit consumers and the marketplace.

Third, the Notice proposes to eliminate the catch-all Internet conduct standard created by the Title II Order.  Because the Internet conduct standard is extremely vague and expansive, ISPs must guess at what they are permitted to do.  Eliminating the Internet conduct standard is therefore expected to promote innovation and network investment by eliminating regulatory uncertainty."

The vote happened on the scheduled date, despite the unavailability for several hours Sunday morning, May 7, of the FCC website for public comments. The FCC said its site crashed due to a DDoS attack. Before the vote, more than 2 million persons and organizations submitted feedback to the FCC.

The vote was expected since Republicans dominate the three-member committee. FCC Chairman Pai and Commissioner Michael O'Rielly, voted for the change. Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, the only Democrat on the three-member committee, voted against it. In January of this year, President Donald Trump appointed Ajit Pai, a former lawyer with Verizon, as the FCC Chairman.

In a statement about the vote, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai repeated prior claims about "heavy-handed" regulation, an internet that wasn't broken, and decreased infrastructure investment by internet service providers (ISPs). All of these claims were discussed and debunked previously after Chairman Pai's speech in April.

C/Net reported:

"Eliminating the Open Internet Order takes away the internet's level playing field and would allow a select few corporations to choose winners and losers, preventing consumers from accessing the content that they want, when they want it," said Jonathan Schwantes, senior policy counsel for Consumers Union. Democratic Senator Al Franken of Minnesota called it "a major step toward destroying the internet as we know it."

CNN reported:

"More than 1,000 startups and investors have now signed an open letter to Pai opposing the proposal. The Internet Association, a trade group representing bigger companies like Facebook, Google, and Amazon, has also condemned the plan. "The current FCC rules are working for consumers and the protections need to be kept in tact," Michael Beckerman, president and CEO of the Internet Association, said at a press conference Wednesday."

USA Today reported:

"Congress could eventually have a say on the issue. At about the same time the FCC was considering the issue, Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., called for Congress to pass legislation "to protect the internet." Thune, who is the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, urged colleagues "to begin bipartisan work on such legislation without any further delay. Innovation and job creation should no longer take a backseat to partisan point-scoring," he said..."

After re-reading the FCC announcement several times, I noticed that it failed to mention nor summarize the feedback received from the public. This makes one wonder if Chairman Pai and the committee took the time to review the comments submitted. During the last thirty (3) days, the public submitted 2,174,196 filings and comments. (See image below.) The feedback included a mix of comments for and against the latest changes.

Did Chairman Pai and the committee read this feedback, or were their minds already made up? And if so, did they simply ignore more than 2 million comments? Fortunately, the public can continue to submit feedback about Proceeding 17-108 until August for the subsequent final FCC vote.

FCC Says Denial-Of-Service Attacks Caused Its Site To Crash Sunday Morning

Last weekend, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) website crashed during a key period when the public relied upon it to submit feedback about proposed changes to net neutrality rules. Dr. David Bray, the FCC Chief Information Officer, released a statement on Monday that the crash was due to a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack:

"Beginning on Sunday night at midnight, our analysis reveals that the FCC was subject to multiple distributed denial-of-service attacks (DDos). These were deliberate attempts by external actors to bombard the FCC’s comment system with a high amount of traffic to our commercial cloud host. These actors were not attempting to file comments themselves; rather they made it difficult for legitimate commenters to access and file with the FCC. While the comment system remained up and running the entire time, these DDoS events tied up the servers and prevented them from responding to people attempting to submit comments. We have worked with our commercial partners to address this situation and will continue to monitor developments going forward."

The FCC’s , Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) is the site the public users to submit and review feedback about proposed changes. Bray's statement did not identify the "bad actors" responsible for the DDoS attack, did not state the countries or locations of the illegitimate site traffic, nor offer much in the way of any substantial details.

A DDoS attack is when hundreds or thousands of internet-connected devices, often coordinated by malware and/or criminals, overwhelm a targeted website by trying to access it simultaneously. This type of attack prevents legitimate users from accessing the targeted site to perform desired tasks (view/buy products, register for services, view videos, get help, contact representatives, etc.). This can easily disable the targeted website for hours, days, or weeks. It can also disrupt businesses, and cause financial losses.

This blog and its hosting service experienced a DDoS attack in 2014 when offshore advertisers retaliated after the hosting service implemented stronger measures to block illegitimate traffic. An October, 2016 DDoS attack against Dyn, a major DNS provider, interrupted many popular websites and services including Spotify, Reddit, and Twitter. Some DDoS attacks are about politics or censorship. A September, 2016 DDoS attack disabled the Krebs On Security blog.

Generally, security experts are concerned about botnets, collections of internet-connected devices used to perform DDoS attacks. These devices can include home WiFi routers, security cameras, and unprotected computers infected with malware. Often, home devices are used without consumers' knowledge nor consent.

Others were skeptical of the FCC's explanation. Some people attributed the crash to John Oliver, the host of the "This Week Tonight" show on HBO. In 2014, the show's viewers crashed the FCC site trying to submit feedback about net neutrality. Oliver published a similar video this past weekend in support of net neutrality.

Broadcasting & Cable reported:

"Fight for the Future is calling on the FCC to release logs on the attack to an independent third party—a security researcher or media outlet—to independently verify the attack. "The agency has a responsibility to maintain a functioning website to receive large numbers of comments and feedback from the public," said Evan Greer campaign director for Fight for the Future. "They can't blame DDoS attacks without proof, they need to fix this problem and ensure that comments on this important issue are not lost."

MediaPost reported that at least two U.S. Senators have demanded answers:

"Senators Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and Brain Schatz (D-Hawaii) are also seeking answers from the FCC. "As you know, it is critical to the rulemaking and regulatory process that the public be able to take part without unnecessary technical or administrative burdens," the lawmakers write. "Any potentially hostile cyber activities that prevent Americans from being able to participate in a fair and transparent process must be treated as a serious issue."

They are asking the FCC to provide details about any malicious traffic, including how many devices sent malicious traffic to the agency. The lawmakers also have asked the FCC whether it requested investigatory assistance from other federal agencies, and whether it uses any commercial protection services."

A reasonable demand for the FCC to provide proof. If the DDoS attack was a new form of 21st-centry censorship to stop concerned citizens (e.g., voters) from submitting feedback in support of net neutrality, then we all need to know. And, we need to know what the FCC is doing to protect its systems.

Net Neutrality II: Last Week Tonight With John Oliver (Video)

Today's post is for readers who prefer lighter, more entertaining fare. After watching the video, submit your comments at the FCC website (Proceeding 17-108).

To learn more, go here.

Seattle Strengthens Privacy Protections For Broadband And Cable Users

The city of Seattle has strengthened it privacy rules to better protect residents using cable-TV services and high-speed internet services (a/k/a broadband). The new rules go into effect on May 24, and mirrors the FCC broadband privacy rules which Congress revoked earlier this year.

The announcement by the Seattle Mayor's office explained:

"Seattle Municipal Code (SMC 21.60) grants the City of Seattle authority to issue rules related to the privacy practices of cable operators. These rules govern not only cable television services but also non-cable services, such as internet service. The new rule states cable operators must obtain opt-in consent before sharing a customer’s web browsing history or otherwise using such information for a purpose other than providing a customer with their requested service.

Comcast, CenturyLink, and Wave have cable franchise agreements with the City of Seattle and will be subject to the new rule. Under the terms of the rule, these cable operators must report their compliance by Sept. 30, 2017 and annually thereafter."

Earlier this year, a national poll found the the Republican rollback of FCC broadband privacy rules very unpopular among consumers. Despite this, President Trump signed the privacy-rollback legislation on April 3.

The new rules in Seattle, ITD Director's Rule 2017-10 (Adobe PDF), state in part:

"- Prohibit Cable Operators from collecting or disclosing any information regarding the extent of any individual customer's viewing habits, or other use by a customer of a cable service or other service provided such as web browsing activity, without the prior affirmative consent of the customer, unless such information is necessary to render a service requested by the customer, or a legitimate business purpose related to the service.
- Require Cable Operators to fully and completely disclose customer rights and the limitations imposed on a Cable Operator's collection, use, and disclosure of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) in clear language that a customer can radily understand.
- Require Cable Operators to destroy within 90 days any PII if the PII is no longer necessary for the purpose for which it was collected and there are no pending requests or orders for access to shuch PII... Require Cable Operators to provide stamped, self-addressed post cards that customers can mail in to have their names and addresses removed form any lists the Cable Operators might use for purposes other than the direct provision of service to those customers.
- Establish without ambiguity that a customer, once "opting out" of the Cable Operator's mailing list, is permanently removed from that list unless that customer subsequently requests inclusion on such list."

This is a great start. The rules define PII as:

"... specific information about a customer, including, but not not limited to, a customer's (a) login information, (b) extent of viewing of video programming or other services, (c) shopping choices, (d) interests and opinions, (e) energy uses, (f) medical information, (g) banking data or information, (h) web browsing activities, or (i) any other personal or private information..."

Mayor Edward B. Murray commented about the new rules:

"Where the Trump administration continues to roll back critical consumer protections, Seattle will act... I believe protecting the privacy of internet users is essential and this policy allows the City to do just that. Because of regulation repeals at the national level, we must use all of the powers at our disposal to protect the rights of our residents."

Citizens in other major cities across the United States may want to ask what consumer-friendly privacy actions their mayors are taking.

Update: Net Neutrality, Administrative Law, The Courts, And Next Steps

A lot has happened since Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai disclosed his plan last week to kill net neutrality. While the FCC commissioners will vote on May 18 about the rules changes, a federal law could affect the outcome. First, Wired reported:

"A 1946 law called the Administrative Procedure Act bans federal agencies making “capricious” decisions. The law is meant, in part, to keep regulations from yo-yoing back and forth every time a new party gained control of the White House. The FCC successfully argued in favor of Title II reclassification in federal court just last summer. That effort means Pai might have to make the case that things had changed enough since then to justify a complete reversal in policy."

Read the text of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Learn more here.

The recent actions (e.g., privacy, net neutrality) by the Republican-led FCC have definitely resulted in both uncertainty and a yo-yoing of rules. At times, it feels like watching a tennis match. While Pai and other advocates of killing net neutrality have claimed that infrastructure investment has declined due to the reclassification by the FCC, the reality:

"During a hearing earlier this year, senator Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts) pointed to US Census Bureau estimates that broadband investment increased slightly from $86.6 in 2014 to $87.2 billion in 2015..."

Data for 2016 isn't available yet. As I mentioned in a prior post, telecommunications companies made conscious decisions and could have diverted money from other spending to infrastructure. They didn't and chose this legislation path instead. Again from Wired's analysis:

"Other business considerations could also play into changes in telecom spending on network infrastructure, such as a desire to wait and let previous investments pay for themselves before making new ones. The CEO of Verizon, for example, told shareholders that Title II didn’t affect the company’s investment plans. And Martin points out that a recent auction in which companies spent $19.8 billion to buy rights to use more of the wireless spectrum doesn’t exactly look like an industry shy of investing."

"If the infrastructure argument doesn’t fly, Pai could also argue that the rules are unnecessary because proverbial fast and slow lanes for the internet never existed. The problem is that’s not true. The Bush-era FCC ordered Comcast to stop throttling BitTorrent traffic in 2008... Under a secret agreement with AT&T, Apple blocked iPhone users from making Skype calls over the carrier’s network until the FCC pressured the companies into reversing the policy in 2009..."

Read the entire Wired analysis. It makes it crystal clear how corporate ISPs are trying to rig the system for themselves and against consumers.

Second, a recent decision by a federal court rejected big telecom's petition to have the existing FCC's net neutrality rules overturned. On Monday, Ars Technica reported:

"The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied the broadband industry's petition for a rehearing of a case that upheld net neutrality rules last year. A three-judge panel ruled 2-1 in favor of the FCC in June 2016, but ISPs wanted an en banc review in front of all of the court's judges. The request for an en banc review was denied in the order issued today."

What to make of this? The bottom line is that the circuit court decided to uphold the reclassification of broadband ISPs as common carriers and the FCC's net neutrality rules. While big telecom could appeal the decision with the Supreme Court, that seems unlikely since they know that the FCC, led by Chairman Ajit Pai, a Republican, has a majority of Republican commissioners who will vote to overturn net neutrality rules on May 18. And, Chairman Pai will have to overcome any challenges with the APA.

In response to the court decision, FCC Chairman Pai issued this statement:

"In light of the fact that the Commission on May 18 will begin the process of repealing the FCC’s Title II regulations, it is not surprising, as Judges Srinivasan and Tatel pointed out, that the D.C. Circuit would decide not to grant the petitions for rehearing en banc. Their opinion is important going forward, however, because it makes clear that the FCC has the authority to classify broadband Internet access service as an information service..."

Chairman Pai seems hell-bent upon ignoring the historical problems in the broadband industry that plagued consumers, in order to change the rules in favor of big telecom. Those problems led to the reclassification by the FCC. A prior blog post listed some of those problems:

"The lack of ISP competition in key markets meant consumers in the United States pay more for broadband and get slower speeds compared to other countries. Rural consumers and low-income areas lacked broadband services. There were numerous complaints by consumers about usage Based Internet Pricing. There were privacy abuses and settlement agreements by ISPs involving technologies such as deep-packet inspection and 'Supercookies' to track customers online, despite consumers' wishes not to be tracked. Many consumers didn't get the broadband speeds ISP promised. Some consumers sued their ISPs, and the New York State Attorney General invited residents to check their broadband speed with this tool. Tim Berners-Lee, the founder of the internet, cited in March three reasons why the Internet is in trouble. His number one reason: consumers had lost control of their personal information... Some consumers found that their ISP hijacked their online search results without notice nor consent. An ISP in Kansas admitted in 2008 to secret snooping after pressure from Congress."

Third, big telecom is engaged in some savvy, deceptive maneuvering. Ars Technica discussed bizarre claims by Verizon:

"... Verizon's general counsel, Craig Silliman, wants you to believe that Verizon never opposed net neutrality rules, even though it sued the FCC to eliminate them. He's also making the claim that the FCC isn't even talking about eliminating the net neutrality rules, even though FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is proposing to do exactly that."

Watch the Verizon video with Verizon's Silliman. When Silliman said, "changing the legal footing," he is referring to comments by others that the FTC should regulate broadband services, and not the FCC. That places the burden on consumers and the FTC to sue when broadband providers don't deliver the services promised; assuming that broadband providers disclose in their terms-of-service and privacy policies what they will deliver. With regulation by the FCC, consumers would have been in charge of their privacy, big telecom would have been forced to be transparent and explain what they were doing, and big telecom couldn't slice up the internet into slow and fast lanes forcing consumers to pay more to access certain sites.

During the last fight about neutrality in 2014, about about 90 tech companies sent a letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler (Adobe PDF) encouraging the FCC to support for a free and open internet, where consumers decide where to go online with the broadband services purchased. Several notable companies signed that 2014 letter: Amazon, Dropbox, Ebay, Facebook, Gawker, Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, Netflix, Twitter, Vonage, and Yahoo. I did not see Verizon (nor Comcast) in the list of signers.

That's some brilliant and deceptive maneuvering. Big telcom can appear reasonable and deny talking about killing net neutrality rules while knowing that their representative, Chairman Pai and his fellow Republican commissioners at the FCC, will do it for them. Again, from Ars Technica:

"No major Internet service provider has done more to prevent implementation of net neutrality rules in the US than Verizon. After years of fighting the rules in courts of law and public opinion, Verizon is about to get what it wants as the FCC—now led by a former Verizon lawyer—prepares to eliminate the rules and the legal authority that allows them to be enforced."

Fourth, the FCC released its Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM): Proceeding 17-108, "Restoring Internet Freedom" - April 26, 2017 (Adobe PDF). Just as before in 2014 - 15, the new rule is open to public comments. This means, it is time for citizens and voters to take action.

FCC Chairman Pai and others claim that the Internet was working well before, and net neutrality rules are unnecessary and a government intrusion. Ordinary broadband customers can have a great impact. It is time for consumers to submit comments to the FCC. About 25,578 people have already submitted comments. For example, a comment by Darion from Austin, Texas:

"The FCC Open Internet Rules (net neutrality rules) are extremely important to me. I urge you to protect them. Most Americans only have one choice for true high speed Internet access: our local cable company. Cable companies (and wireless carriers) are actively lobbying Congress and the FCC for the power to: i) Block sites and apps, to charge them "access fees;" ii) Slow sites and apps to a crawl, to establish paid "fast lanes" (normal speed) and slow lanes (artificially low speeds); and iii) Impose arbitrarily low data caps, so they can charge sites to escape those caps, or privilege their own services ("zero rating").
They're doing it so they can use their monopoly power to stand between me and the sites I want to access, extorting money from us both. I'll be forced to pay more to access the sites I want, and sites will have to pay a kind of protection money to every major cable company or wireless carrier—just to continue working properly!

The FCC's Open Internet Rules are the only thing standing in their way. I'm sending this to letter to my two senators, my representative, the White House, and the FCC. First, to the FCC: don’t interfere with my ability to access what I want on the Internet, or with websites' ability to reach me. You should leave the existing rules in place, and enforce them.

To my senators: you have the power to stop FCC Chair Ajit Pai from abusing the rules by refusing to vote for his reconfirmation. I expect you to use that power. Pai, a former Verizon employee, has made it clear he intends to gut the rules to please his former employer and other major carriers, despite overwhelming support for the rules from voters in both parties... To the White House: Ajit Pai, a former Verizon employee, is acting in the interests of his former employer, not the American people. America deserves better... To my representative: please publicly oppose Ajit Pai's plan to oppose the rules... I would be happy to speak more with anyone on your staff about the rules and why they’re so important to me. Please notify me of any opportunities to meet with you or your staff."

Be brief. Use your own words. Submit your comments soon, since the deadline fast approaches. Also, tell your elected officials. Participate in local marches and protests. Join the Fight For The Future. Support the EFF.

Speech By FCC Chairman. Time For Citizens To Fight To Keep Net Neutrality Protections

Earlier today, Ajit Pai, the Chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), gave a speech titled, "The Future Of Internet Freedom" at the Newseum in Washington, DC. He discussed the history of the Internet, regulation, business investment, innovation, and jobs. He also shared his views on regulation and a desire for the FCC's to pursue a "light touch" regulatory approach:

"First, we are proposing to return the classification of broadband service from a Title II telecommunications service to a Title I information service—that is, light-touch regulation drawn from the Clinton Administration.  As I mentioned earlier, this Title I classification was expressly upheld by the Supreme Court in 2005, and it’s more consistent with the facts and the law.

Second, we are proposing to eliminate the so-called Internet conduct standard. This 2015 rule gives the FCC a roving mandate to micromanage the Internet... The FCC used the Internet conduct standard to launch a wide-ranging investigation of free-data programs. Under these programs, wireless companies offer their customers the ability to stream music, video, and the like free from any data limits. They are very popular among consumers, particularly lower-income Americans... Following the presidential election, we terminated this investigation before the FCC was able to take any formal action. But we shouldn’t leave the Internet conduct standard on the books for a future Commission to make mischief.

And third, we are seeking comment on how we should approach the so-called bright-line rules adopted in 2015. But you won’t just have to take my word about what is in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. I will be publicly releasing the entire text of the document tomorrow afternoon..."

This should not be a surprise. We've heard much of this before from Congresswoman Blackburn, the author of the recently passed House legislation to roll back consumers' online privacy protection. Blackburn said the same about FCC reclassification; that it was bad, and that the internet wasn't broken. Well it was broken prior to to 2014, and in several specific ways.

The lack of ISP competition in key markets meant consumers in the United States pay more for broadband and get slower speeds compared to other countries. Rural consumers and low-income areas lacked broadband services. There were numerous complaints by consumers about usage Based Internet Pricing. There were privacy abuses and settlement agreements by ISPs involving technologies such as deep-packet inspection and 'Supercookies' to track customers online, despite consumers' wishes not to be tracked. Many consumers didn't get the broadband speeds ISP promised. Some consumers sued their ISPs, and the New York State Attorney General invited residents to check their broadband speed with this tool. Tim Berners-Lee, the founder of the internet, cited in March three reasons why the Internet is in trouble. His number one reason: consumers had lost control of their personal information. With all of this evidence, how can Pai and Blackburn claim the internet wasn't broken?

There are more examples. Some consumers found that their ISP hijacked their online search results without notice nor consent. An ISP in Kansas admitted in 2008 to secret snooping after pressure from Congress. Given all of this, something had to be done. The FCC stepped up to the plate and acted when it was legally able to; and reclassified broadband after open hearings. Then, the FCC adopted new privacy rules in November, 2016. Proposed rules were circulated prior to adoption. It was done in the open. It made sense.

Meanwhile, the rollback of FCC broadband privacy rules is very unpopular among consumers. Comments by Pai and Blackburn seem to ignore both that and key events (listed above) in broadband history. That is practicing the "revisionist history" Pai said in his speech he disliked. That leaves me questioning whether they can be trusted to develop reasonable solutions that serve the interests of consumers.

With their victory last month to roll back the FCC's online privacy protections, pro-big-telecom advocates claim they are acting in consumers' best interests. What bull. With that rollback, consumers are no longer in control of their information. (The opt-in and other controls were killed.) Plus, we live in a capitalist society where the information that describes us is valuable property. That's why so many companies want to collect it. Consumers should be in control of their online privacy and the information that describes them, not corporate ISPs.

Corporate ISPs' next target is "net neutrality." Pai referred to it in the "bright lines" portion of his speech. For those who don't know or have forgotten, net neutrality is when consumers are in control -- consumers choose where to go online with the broadband they've purchased, and when ISPs must treat all content equally. That means no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. Net neutrality means consumers stay in control of where they go online.

Pai claimed this was unclear. Again, more bull. The FCC's no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization position was crystal clear.

Without net neutrality, ISPs decide where consumers can go online, which sites you can visit, and which sites you can visit only if you pay more. ISPs would likely group web sites into tiers (e.g., slow vs. fast "lanes"), similar to premium cable-TV channels. Do you want your monthly internet bill as confusing, complicated, and expensive as your cable-TV bill? I don't, and I doubt you do either.

Pai and Blackburn claim that net neutrality (and privacy) kills innovation. I guess that depends how you define "innovation." If you define innovation as the ability of ISPs to carve up the internet to maximize they profits where consumers pay more, then it should be killed. That's not innovation. That's customer segmentation by price and paid prioritization.

In his speech, Pai provided an appealing explanation about how ISPs spent less on infrastructure. He neglected to mention that decreased infrastructure spending was a choice by ISPs. They could have cut expenses elsewhere and continued infrastructure spending, but they didn't. Instead, ISPs chose the path we see: utilize a compliant, sympathetic Republican-led Congress and White House to get what they wanted -- the ability to charge higher broadband prices -- and use slick, misleading language to appear to be consumer friendly.

The Pai-led FCC isn't consumer friendly. The GOP-led Congress isn't, either. Regardless of how they spin it. Don't be fooled.

Anyone paying attention already knows this. Concerned citizens fought for and won net neutrality in 2014. Sadly, we might fight the net neutrality fight again.

It will be an uphill fight for two reasons. First, Republicans control the White House, House of Representatives, and Senate. Second, the Trump Administration is working simultaneously on rollbacks for several key issues (e.g., health care, immigration, wall along Mexican border, tax reform, environment, education, terrorism, etc.), making it easier to distract opponents with other issues (and with outrageous midnight tweets). Yet, people demonstrated last week at an open FCC meeting. (Video is also available here.) Now is the time for more concerned citizens to rise, speak up, and fight back. Write to your elected officials. Tell your friends, classmates, coworkers, and family members. Use this action form to contact your elected officials. Participate in local marches and protests. Join the Fight For The Future. Support the EFF.

Some elected officials have already committed to defend net neutrality protections:

W/out #NetNeutrality, ISPs could slow down a specific co's internet traffic bc that co can’t afford or didn’t pay for the internet fast lane

— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) April 26, 2017

#NetNeutrality is the principle that internet content shouldn’t be favored, blocked, or slowed down based on where it’s coming from.

— Sen. Al Franken (@SenFranken) April 26, 2017

Trump admin is threatening to disrupt a hallmark of American innovation & democratization -a free & open internet- by gutting #NetNeutrality

— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) April 26, 2017

Pres.Trump took away your internet privacy rights. Now he plans to gut #NetNeutrality. We must protect the open internet. pic.twitter.com/RtR2bO5LVj

— Rep. Doris Matsui (@DorisMatsui) April 26, 2017

If @AjitPaiFCC thinks we'll let him tear #netneutrality to shreds, he's in for a surprise. I'll fight tooth & nail for free, open internet.

— Richard Blumenthal (@SenBlumenthal) April 26, 2017

800+ companies from all 50 states are calling on @AjitPaiFCC to protect a free & open internet. #NetNeutrality https://t.co/d63lc3KvR7

— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) April 26, 2017

What about your elected officials? Have they made a commitment to defend net neutrality? Ask them. Don't be silent. Now is not the time to sit on the sideline and wait for others to do the fighting for you.

Security Experts State Privacy Issues With Proposed NHTSA Rules For Vehicle Automation

The Center For Democracy & Technology (CDT) and four cryptographers have stated their security and privacy concerns regarding proposed rules by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for vehicle automation and communications. In a CDT blog post, Chief Technologist Lorenzo Hall stated that the group's concerns about NHTSA's:

"... proposed rulemaking to establish a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), No. 150, which intends to mandate and standardize vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications for new light vehicles... Our comments highlight our concern that NHTSA’s proposal standard may not contain adequate measures to protect consumer privacy from third parties who may choose to listen in on the Basic Safety Message (BSM) broadcast by vehicles. Inexpensive real-time tracking of vehicles is not a distant future hypothetical. Vehicle tracking will be exploited by a multitude of companies, governments, and criminal elements for a variety of purposes such as vehicle repossession, blackmail, gaining an advantage in a divorce settlement, mass surveillance, commercial espionage, organized crime, burglary, or stalking.

Our concern is that the privacy protections currently proposed for V2V communications may be easily circumvented by any party determined to perform large-scale real-time tracking of multiple vehicles at once. This poses a serious costs for both individual privacy and society at large..."

FMVSS Standards include regulations automobile and vehicle manufacturers must comply with. Read the proposed FMVSS Rule 150 in the Federal Register. The proposed rule specifies how vehicles will automatically broadcast Basic Safety Messages (BSM).

The group's detailed submission (Adobe PDF) to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) described specific privacy concerns. One example:

"2.1 Linking a vehicle to an individual
The NPRM proposes that vehicle location accurate to within 1.5 meters be included in every BSM. Such high accuracy is sufficient to identify a vehicle’s specific parking spot. Assuming a suburban environment where the parking spot is a driveway, this information is enough to identify the owners or tenants... Vehicles can be further disambiguated among members of a household or people sharing parking spots by when they leave and where they go. For instance, shift workers, 9-to-5 office workers, high school students, and stay-at-home parents will all have different, distinguishable patterns of vehicle use. Even among office commuters, the first few turns after leaving the driveway will be very useful for disambiguating people working at different locations..."

So, when you leave home and the route you take can easily identify individuals. You don't have to be the registered owner of the car. Yes, your smartphone broadcasts to the nearest cellular tower and that identifies your location, but not as precisely. Privacy is needed because the bad guys -- stalkers, criminals -- could also use BSMs to spy upon individuals.

The security experts found the proposed BSM privacy statement by NHTSA to be one-sided and incomplete:

"The examples of third-party collection provided in paragraph (b) of the privacy statement mention only benign collection for beneficial purposes, such as accident avoidance, transit maintenance, or valuable commercial services. They selectively highlight the socially beneficial uses of V2V information without mentioning commercial services [which] may not [be] valuable for consumers; or other potential, detrimental, or even criminal uses. This is especially troubling..."

The CDT and security experts recommended that due to the privacy risks described:

"... we firmly believe that, unless a considerably more privacy-conscious proposal is put forward, consumers should be given the choice to opt-in or opt-out (without a default opt-in), and should be made clearly aware of what they are opting in to..."

I agree. A totally sensible and appropriate approach. The group's detailed submission also compared several vehicle tracking methods:

"... physically following a car or placing a GPS device on it, do not allow for mass tracking of most vehicles in a given area. Some options, such as cellphone tracking or toll collection history, require specialized access to a private infrastructure. Cellular data does not provide precise position information to just anyone who listens in... Moreover, cellular technology is evolving rapidly — today it provides more privacy than in the past... license-plate-based tracking requires a line of sight to a given vehicle, and thus is usually neither pervasive nor real-time. A vehicle can be observed driven or parked, but not tracked continuously unless followed. Only a few vehicles can be observed by a camera at any given time. Thus, license-plate-based tracking provides only episodic reports of locations for most vehicles. In contrast, because receiving the BSM does not require a line of sight and the BSM is transmitted ten times per second, multiple vehicles can be tracked simultaneously, continuously, and in real time.

The Privacy Technical Analysis Report concluded that the only option other than BSMs that may be viable for large-scale real-time tracking without any infrastructure access is via toll transponders."

License-plate tracking and the cameras used are often referred to as Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR). Law enforcement uses four types of ALPR technologies: mobile cameras, stationary cameras, semi-stationary cameras, and ALPR databases.

So, BSM provides large-scale real-time tracking. And, while toll transponders provide consumers with a convenient method to pay and zoom through tolls, the technology can be used to track you. Read the full CDT blog post.

Poll Finds Republicans Rollback of Broadband Privacy Very Unpopular

A recent poll found that the Republican rollback of broadband privacy rules is very unpopular. Very unpopular. The poll included 1,000 Americans, and the results cut across age, gender, and political affiliations. Despite this, President Trump signed the privacy-rollback legislation on April 3. Since then, many consumers have sought online tools to protect their privacy.

Vox reported the survey results:

Late last week, several Republicans in the House of Representatives sent a letter (Adobe PDF) to Ajit Pai, the Chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), urging the FCC to regulate broadband service providers. The letter read, in part:

"We write to ensure that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) stands ready to protect consumer privacy... The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has long been the standard bearer for striking the right balance of consumer protection with a pro-innovative construct that encourages consumer choice, opportunities, and new jobs... An FCC approach that mirrors the FTC will continue to protect consumers in this tumultuous time... Until such time as the FCC rectifies the Title II reclassification that inappropriately removed ISPs from the FTC's jurisdiction, we urge the FCC to hold Internet service providers (ISPs) to their privacy promises..."

The letter was signed by Greg Walden (Chairman, Committee on Energy & Commerce), Marsha Blackburn (Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications & Technology), and 48 other representatives.

Tumultuous times? The tumult was created by the rollback of privacy rules -- a situation created by Republicans. All would have been fine if they'd left the FCC's broadband privacy rules in place; rules consumers clear want -- rules that keep users in control of their online privacy.

Representative Blackburn and her fellow Republicans either doesn't know history or have chosen to ignore it. Several problems have plagued the industry: a lack of ISP competition in key markets, consumers in the United States pay more for broadband and get slower speeds compared to other countries, and numerous privacy violations and lawsuits:

• 13,000 Complaints Submitted By Consumers About Comcast's Usage Based Internet Pricing
• Verizon WIreless Settles With the FCC Regarding 'Supercookies' And Online Tracking
• Attorney General Invites New York State Residents To Check Their Internet Speed
• Customers Sue Internet Service Provider For Failing To Provide Promised Broadband Speeds
• Filing Supports Claims That ISPs Already Throttle And Violate Net Neutrality Rules
• 4 Reasons Why Your Internet Access Is Expensive And Slow... And Could Get A Lot Worse
• Several Internet Service Providers Hijack And Replace Consumers' Search Results
• SIMON Says... DON'T SPY!
• ISPs Begin To Spy And Abuse Consumer Privacy
• Under Pressure From Congress, ISP Admits To Secret Snooping In Kansas

Clearly, the FCC had to act, it did, it held hearings, and then finalized improved broadband privacy rules to help consumers. Now, the Congress and President undid all of that creating the tumult they now claim to want to solve.

Clearly, Representative Blackburn and others are happy to comply with the wishes of their corporate donors -- who don't want broadband classified as a utility. Internet access is a basic consumer need for work, entertainment, and school -- just like water, electricity, and natural gas (for cooking). Internet access is a utility, like it or not. The FCC under Chairman Wheeler had the right consumer-friendly approach, despite the spin by Blackburn and others.

What are your opinions?

President Trump Signed Legislation Revoking FCC's Broadband Privacy Rules. Lots Of Consequences

Late yesterday, President Trump signed legislation revoking broadband privacy rules adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The rules would have kept consumers in control of their information online. Instead, internet service providers (ISPs) are free to collect, archive, and share at will without notice nor consent information about consumers' online activities (e.g., far more than browsing histories).

The legislation narrowly passed both in the Senate (50 - 48) and in the House (210 - 205). Proponents of the legislation claimed duplicate legislation. Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who introduced the legislation in the House, said plenty recently according to Breitbart News:

"What we are doing is recalling a privacy rule that the FCC issued right at the end of the Obama administration, and the reason we are doing this is because it is additional and duplicative regulation... What the FCC did was clearly overreach. It gives you two sets of regulators that you’re trying to comply with, not one. So we are recalling the FCC’s rule, and that authority will go back to the FTC...”

"What the Obama administration did... they reclassified your Internet service as Title II, which is a common carrier classification. It is the rule that governs telephone usage... Those rules were put on the books in the thirties. So what the Democrats did... they reclassified Internet, which is an information service, as a telephone service, and then put those 1930s-era rules on top of your Internet service... They did that so they could tax it, so they could begin to regulate it..."

"You don’t need another layer of regulation. It’s like flashing alerts: We don’t need net neutrality. We don’t need Title II. We don’t need additional regulations heaped on the Internet under Title II. The Internet is not broken. It has done just fine without the government controlling it."

Not broken? The founder of the internet, Tim Berners-Lee gave three solid reasons why the internet is broken. His number one reason: consumers have lost control over their personal information.

And, Representative Blackburn either doesn't know history or has chosen to ignore it. Several problems have plagued the industry: a lack of ISP competition in key markets, consumers in the United States pay more for broadband and get slower speeds compared to other countries, and numerous privacy violations and lawsuits:

• 13,000 Complaints Submitted By Consumers About Comcast's Usage Based Internet Pricing
• Verizon WIreless Settles With the FCC Regarding 'Supercookies' And Online Tracking
• Attorney General Invites New York State Residents To Check Their Internet Speed
• Customers Sue Internet Service Provider For Failing To Provide Promised Broadband Speeds
• Filing Supports Claims That ISPs Already Throttle And Violate Net Neutrality Rules
• 4 Reasons Why Your Internet Access Is Expensive And Slow... And Could Get A Lot Worse
• Several Internet Service Providers Hijack And Replace Consumers' Search Results
• SIMON Says... DON'T SPY!
• ISPs Begin To Spy And Abuse Consumer Privacy
• Under Pressure From Congress, ISP Admits To Secret Snooping In Kansas

Clearly, the FCC had to act, it did, it held hearings, and then finalized improved broadband privacy rules to help consumers. Now, the Congress and President undid all of that.

There are plenty of consequences. To regain some online privacy lost due to the new legislation, many consumers have considered Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) and other online tools to prevent ISPs from spying on them. VPNs are not a cure-all. ISPs can still block or throttle consumers' VPN connection, and VPNs won't protect e-mail nor internet-of-things devices installed in homes.

Basically, there is no substitute for consumers being in control of their online privacy with transparent notice by ISPs. The impact upon consumers: less online privacy and higher internet prices. Consumers are forced to spend more money on VPN and other tools.

Blackburn and others claimed that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) should regulate ISPs. Regulation by the FTC is not a slam-dunk. AdAge reported:

"If the FTC does regain its oversight, the result is likely to be weaker privacy protections than what the FCC intended with its rules, as well as a relatively clear path for telcos to pursue their data-revenue-generating goals... One legal peak to climb: precedent set by a U.S district court ruling siding with AT&T against the FTC last year which carved out an exemption for companies that provide bundled phone and ISP services which effectively protected AT&T from FTC regulations protecting consumers from unfair or deceptive practices.

Even if the FTC eventually garners ISP jurisdiction, argued [Gigi Sohn, a senior counselor to former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler], "it will lead to some privacy protection but much weaker than what people just lost." She pointed to FTC Chairman Ohlausen's high bar for showing harm against consumers before actions against companies are taken, noting, "She wants to see harm first. Well, rules protect you before you're harmed." "

Despite the claims by Blackburn and others, the bottom line is:

"... what we're left with is a period of uncertainty where the carriers may do certain things but it's unclear. Does the FCC have jurisdiction or does the FTC have jurisdiction?"

The Los Angeles Times reported:

"The FTC is empowered to bring lawsuits against companies that violate its privacy guidelines, but it has no authority to create new rules for industry. It also cannot enforce its own guidelines against Internet providers because of a government rule that places those types of companies squarely within the jurisdiction of the FCC and out of the reach of the FTC. As a result, Internet providers exist in a "policy gap" in which the only privacy regulators for the industry operate at the state, not federal, level, analysts say."

Ambiguity. Lack of clarity. Policy gap. None of those are good for business, or for consumers.

Read more about President Trump's signing of the legislation at C/Net and Reuters.

Congress Passed Joint Resolution To Revoke New Online Privacy Rules By The FCC. Plenty of Consequences

On Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives approved legislation to revoke new online privacy rules the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted in 2016 to protect consumers by govern the data collection and sharing of consumers' personal information by Internet Service providers (ISPs). Several cable, telecommunications, and advertising lobbies sent a letter in January asking Congress to remove the new broadband privacy rules, which they viewed as burdensome.

Congress quickly complied. The new legislation consisted of two companion bills: Senate Joint Resolution 34 (S.J. Res. 34) and House Joint Resolution 86 (H.J. Res. 86). The House vote was close: 210 to 205 with 215 Republican representatives voting for S.J. Res. 34. 190 Democratic and 15 Republican representatives voted against it. Consumers can view H.J. Res. 86 votes by their elected officials.

Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) introduced the legislation in the House. Blackburn said plenty in an interview published on Breitbart News:

"What we are doing is recalling a privacy rule that the FCC issued right at the end of the Obama administration, and the reason we are doing this is because it is additional and duplicative regulation... What the FCC did was clearly overreach. It gives you two sets of regulators that you’re trying to comply with, not one. So we are recalling the FCC’s rule, and that authority will go back to the FTC...”

"What the Obama administration did... they reclassified your Internet service as Title II, which is a common carrier classification. It is the rule that governs telephone usage... Those rules were put on the books in the thirties. So what the Democrats did... they reclassified Internet, which is an information service, as a telephone service, and then put those 1930s-era rules on top of your Internet service... They did that so they could tax it, so they could begin to regulate it..."

"You don’t need another layer of regulation. It’s like flashing alerts: We don’t need net neutrality. We don’t need Title II. We don’t need additional regulations heaped on the Internet under Title II. The Internet is not broken. It has done just fine without the government controlling it."

Not broken? Really? The founder of the internet, Tim Berners-Lee gave three solid reasons why the internet is broken. His number one reason on his list: consumers have lost control over their personal information.

Plus, Representative Blackburn either doesn't know history or has chosen to ignore it. Several problems have plagued the industry: a lack of ISP competition in key markets, consumers in the United States pay more for broadband and get slower speeds compared to other countries, and numerous privacy violations and lawsuits:

• 13,000 Complaints Submitted By Consumers About Comcast's Usage Based Internet Pricing
• Verizon WIreless Settles With the FCC Regarding 'Supercookies' And Online Tracking
• Attorney General Invites New York State Residents To Check Their Internet Speed
• Customers Sue Internet Service Provider For Failing To Provide Promised Broadband Speeds
• Filing Supports Claims That ISPs Already Throttle And Violate Net Neutrality Rules
• 4 Reasons Why Your Internet Access Is Expensive And Slow... And Could Get A Lot Worse
• Several Internet Service Providers Hijack And Replace Consumers' Search Results
• SIMON Says... DON'T SPY!
• ISPs Begin To Spy And Abuse Consumer Privacy
• Under Pressure From Congress, ISP Admits To Secret Snooping In Kansas

Clearly, the FCC had to act; and it did. Congress held hearings, too.

The Senate passed S.J. Res. 34 about a week before the House vote Tuesday. The Senate vote was also close: 50 to 48. Senator Jeff Flake (R-Arizona) introduced the legislation in the Senate, and he repeated the same over-reach claims:

"The FCC’s midnight regulation has the potential to limit consumer choice, stifle innovation, and jeopardize data security by destabilizing the internet ecosystem. Passing my resolution is the first step toward restoring a consumer-friendly approach to internet privacy regulation that empowers consumers to make informed choices on if and how their data can be shared. It will not change or lessen existing consumer privacy protections.”

Consumers can view S.J. Res 34 votes by their elected officials. The press release by Senator Flake's office also stated:

"Flake’s resolution, S.J.Res. 34, would not change or lessen existing consumer privacy regulations. It is designed to block an attempt by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to expand its regulatory jurisdiction and impose prescriptive data restrictions on internet service providers. These restrictions have the potential to negatively impact consumers and the future of internet innovation."

Flake's spin of "midnight regulation" is unfair and inaccurate. The new FCC privacy rules were proposed in April 2016, and enacted in October. That provided plenty of time for discussion and input from consumers, experts, and companies. In March 2016, the FCC released a broadband privacy Fact Sheet, which explained the need for the new privacy rules:

"Telephone networks have had clear, enforceable privacy rules for decades, but broadband networks currently do not... An ISP handles all of its customers’ network traffic, which means it has an unobstructed view of all of their unencrypted online activity – the websites they visit, the applications they use. If customers have a mobile device, their provider can track their physical and online activities throughout the day in real time. Even when data is encrypted, broadband providers can still see the websites that a customer visits, how often they visit them, and the amount of time they spend on each website. Using this information, ISPs can piece together enormous amounts of information about their customers – including private information such as a chronic medical condition or financial problems. A consumer’s relationship with her ISP is very different than the one she has with a website or app. Consumers can move instantaneously to a different website, search engine or application. But once they sign up for broadband service, consumers can scarcely avoid the network for which they are paying a monthly fee."

To distinguish spin from facts, it is critical to read the FCC announcement of its new broadband privacy rules from last year:

"Opt-in: ISPs are required to obtain affirmative “opt-in” consent from consumers to use and share sensitive information. The rules specify categories of information that are considered sensitive, which include precise geo-location, financial information, health information, children’s information, social security numbers, web browsing history, app usage history and the content of communications.

Opt-out: ISPs would be allowed to use and share non-sensitive information unless a customer “opts-out.” All other individually identifiable customer information – for example, email address or service tier information – would be considered non-sensitive and the use and sharing of that information would be subject to opt-out consent, consistent with consumer expectations.

Exceptions to consent requirements: Customer consent is inferred for certain purposes specified in the statute, including the provision of broadband service or billing and collection. For the use of this information, no additional customer consent is required beyond the creation of the customer-ISP relationship.

Transparency requirements that require ISPs to provide customers with clear, conspicuous and persistent notice about the information they collect, how it may be used and with whom it may be shared, as well as how customers can change their privacy preferences;

A requirement that broadband providers engage in reasonable data security practices and guidelines on steps ISPs should consider taking, such as implementing relevant industry best practices, providing appropriate oversight of security practices, implementing robust customer authentication tools, and proper disposal of data consistent with FTC best practices and the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.

Common-sense data breach notification requirements to encourage ISPs to protect the confidentiality of customer data, and to give consumers and law enforcement notice of failures to protect such information."

Sounds clear, reasonable, and appropriate. Not perfect, but an improvement of what was before. Addressed transparency concerns, too. To summarize, the new FCC broadband privacy rules kept consumers in control of their sensitive personal information. By revoking those rules, Congress is effectively telling consumers they shouldn't be in control of their own information and ISPs should be in control.

Do you want to be in control of your personal information online? I do, and I suspect you do, too.

Think about the consequences. Once the legislation is signed by President Trump, ISPs will be free to collect, use, and share information describing your online activities. Your ISP is in a unique position because it can scan all un-encrypted data flowing through your internet connection. That typically includes: a) the websites you visit and apps you use; b) which items in "a" you use repeatedly, when and how long; c) the searches you perform online at search engine sites, and via personal assistants, d) activity generated by appliances, televisions, thermostats, security systems, and other devices connected to your home WiFi; and d) the geo-location or where in the physical world your perform online activities. (Besides your smartphone, several devices including your car, fitness bands, smart watches, and wearables collect and share your geo-location data.) Perhaps most importantly, your ISP won't need your consent and probably won't tell you what it is sharing and with whom.

Think about the consequences.

It's not just porn. Your online activities reveal plenty: 1) appointment confirmation emails from your doctor reveal the type of doctor and imply certain medical conditions or procedures; 2) online visits to your bank(s) reveal the types of money and the location of your bank accounts; 3) online activities by your CHILDREN reveal much, including the types of toys and devices they use; 4) work-from-home can reveal proprietary information your employer does not want disclosed; and 5) simple curiosity becomes dangerous. Example: a rash appears on your skin, so you surf over to WebMD to read about symptoms and what it might be. Or, maybe you're reading about a condition of an elderly parentor family member. Problem is: your ISP can infer from your online activities conditions and diseases relate to you, even though they may not. Another example: health care organizations have to comply with HIPPA regulations to protect patients' privacy. Many patients use online healthcare portals by their hospital to coordinate care by several doctors and surgeons. Will your ISP honor HIPPA regulations? They probably won't.

Think about the consequences.

All of that information collected about your online activities could be used against you someday... when you apply for a job, when you sign up for insurance, when you apply for a loan, when you try to adopt a baby or child. Remember, two huge industries exist to help companies buy, sell, and trade information (data brokers); the second (data mining) to help companies merge, manipulate, and analyze the data they've collected and bought.

Think about the consequences. Your ISP may not allow you to decline (e.g., opt out of) the data collection, tracking, usage, and sharing. Or your ISP may charge more fees for online privacy. Don't think that can't happen. Comcast and industry lobbyists have already stated that they want "pay-for-privacy" schemes. So, with Congress' latest action, consumers may soon see price increases and higher monthly internet and wireless bills.

Some consumers are worried, and are exploring technical solutions to thwart ISPs that snoop. The problem: there is no cure-all solution. Some people are angry. To show lawmakers how terrible their decision was, a crowd-funding campaign was started to raise money to buy (and then publish publicly) the internet histories of leading Republicans (e.g., Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker Paul Ryan, House Representative Marsh Blackburn) and FCC members who voted for and support the privacy-busting legislation. So, we may then learn which members of Congress watch the most porn.

Lawmakers in some states are already responding to voters' online privacy concerns. In Illinois, lawmakers have introduced two items of legislation: the Geolocation Privacy Protection Act (GPPA) and the Right To Know Act (RTKA). Lawmakers in Nevada introduced geolocation privacy legislation. More states will likely follow.

With the FCC broadband privacy rules revoked, there are five creepy things your ISP could do. What are your opinions of Congress revoking FCC broadband privacy rules?

[Editor's note: this blog post was revised on Friday, March 31 with links to new legislation in Illinois and Nevada.]

We Fact-Checked Lawmakers' Letters To Constituents on Health Care

[Editor's Note: today's guest post, by the reporters at ProPublica, explores the problem of "fake news" and whether elected officials contribute to the problem while discussing health care legislation. The article was originally published yesterday, and is reprinted with permission. Interested persons wanting to help ProPublica's ongoing fact-checking efforts can share with ProPublica messages you have received from your elected officials.]

by Charles Ornstein, ProPublica

When Louisiana resident Andrea Mongler wrote to her senator, Bill Cassidy, in support of the Affordable Care Act, she wasn't surprised to get an email back detailing the law's faults. Cassidy, a Republican who is also a physician, has been a vocal critic.

"Obamacare" he wrote in January, "does not lower costs or improve quality, but rather it raises taxes and allows a presidentially handpicked 'Health Choices Commissioner' to determine what coverage and treatments are available to you."

There's one problem with Cassidy's ominous-sounding assertion: It's false.

The Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare, includes no "Health Choices Commissioner." Another bill introduced in Congress in 2009 did include such a position, but the bill died 2014 and besides, the job as outlined in that legislation didn't have the powers Cassidy ascribed to it.

As the debate to repeal the law heats up in Congress, constituents are flooding their representatives with notes of support or concern, and the lawmakers are responding, sometimes with form letters that are misleading. A review of more than 200 such letters by ProPublica and its partners at Kaiser Health News, Stat and Vox, found dozens of errors and mis-characterizations about the ACA and its proposed replacement. The legislators have cited wrong statistics, conflated health care terms and made statements that don't stand up to verification.

It's not clear if this is intentional or if the lawmakers and their staffs don't understand the current law or the proposals to alter it. Either way, the issue of what is wrong -- and right -- about the current system has become critical as the House prepares to vote on the GOP's replacement bill today.

"If you get something like that in writing from your U.S. senator, you should be able to just believe that," said Mongler, 34, a freelance writer and editor who is pursuing a master's degree in public health. "I hate that people are being fed falsehoods, and a lot of people are buying it and not questioning it. It's far beyond politics as usual."

Cassidy's staff did not respond to questions about his letter.

Political debates about complex policy issues are prone to hyperbole and health care is no exception. And to be sure, many of the assertions in the lawmakers' letters are at least partially based in fact.

Democrats, for instance, have been emphasizing to their constituents that millions of previously uninsured people now have medical coverage thanks to the law. They say insurance companies can no longer discriminate against millions of patients with pre-existing conditions. And they credit the law with allowing adults under age 26 to stay on their parents' health plans. All true.

For their part, Republicans criticize the law for not living up to its promises. They say former President Obama pledged that people could keep their health plans and doctors and premiums would go down. Neither has happened. They also say that insurers are dropping out of the market and that monthly premiums and deductibles (the amount people must pay before their coverage kicks in) have gone up. All true.

But elected officials in both parties have incorrectly cited statistics and left out important context. We decided to take a closer look after finding misleading statements in an email Senator Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) sent to his constituents. We solicited letters from the public and found a wealth of misinformation, from statements that were simply misleading to whoppers. More Republicans fudged than Democrats, though both had their moments.

An aide to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) defended his hyperbole as "within the range of respected interpretations."

"Do most people pay that much attention to what their congressman says? Probably not," said Sherry Glied, dean of New York University's Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, who served as an assistant Health and Human Services secretary from 2010 to 2012. "But I think misinformation or inaccurate information is a bad thing and not knowing what you're voting on is a really bad thing."

We reviewed the emails and letters sent by 51 senators and 134 members of the House within the past few months. Here are some of the most glaring errors and omissions:

Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-Ohio) incorrectly cited the number of Ohio counties that had only one insurer on the Affordable Care Act insurance exchange.

What he wrote: "In Ohio, almost one third of counties will have only one insurer participating in the exchange."

What's misleading: In fact, only 23 percent (less than one quarter) had only one option, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

His response: A Tiberi spokesperson defended the statement. "The letter says 'almost' because only 9 more counties in Ohio need to start offering only 1 plan on the exchanges to be one third."

Why his response is misleading: Ohio has 88 counties. A 10 percent difference is not "almost."

Representative Kevin Yoder (R-Kansas) said that the quality of health care in the country has declined because of the ACA, offering no proof.

What he wrote: "Quality of care has decreased as doctors have been burdened with increased regulations on their profession."

Why it's misleading: Some data shows that health care has improved after the passage of the ACA. Patients are less likely to be readmitted to a hospital within 30 days after they have been discharged, for instance. Also, payments have been increasingly linked to patients' outcomes rather than just the quantity of services delivered. A 2016 report by the Commonwealth Fund, a health care nonprofit think tank, found that the quality care has improved in many communities following the ACA.

His response: None.

Representative Anna Eshoo (D-California) misstated the percentage of Medicaid spending that covers the cost of long-term care, such as nursing home stays.

What she wrote: "It's important to note that 60 percent of Medicaid goes to long-term care and with the evisceration of it in the bill, this critical coverage is severely compromised."

What's misleading: Medicaid does not spend 60 percent of its budget on long-term care. The figure is closer to a quarter, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank. Medicaid does, however, cover more than 60 percent of all nursing home residents.

Her response: Eshoo's office said the statistic was based on a subset of enrollees who are dually enrolled in Medicaid and Medicare. For this smaller group, 62 percent of Medicaid expenditures were for long-term support services, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

What's misleading about the response: Eshoo's letter makes no reference to this population, but instead refers to the 75 million Americans on Medicaid.

Representative Chuck Fleischmann (R-Tennessee) pointed to the number of uninsured Americans as a failure of the ACA, without noting that the law had dramatically reduced the number of uninsured.

What he wrote: "According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately thirty-three million Americans are still living without health care coverage and many more have coverage that does not adequately meet their health care needs."

Why it's misleading: The actual number of uninsured in 2015 was about 29 million, a drop of 4 million from the prior year, the Census Bureau reported in September. Fleischmann's number was from the previous year.

Beyond that, reducing the number of uninsured by more than 12 million people from 2013 to 2015 has been seen as a success of Obamacare. And the Republican repeal-and-replace bill is projected to increase the number of uninsured.

His response: None.

Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III (D-Massachusetts) overstated the number of young adults who were able to stay on their parents' health plan as a result of the law.

What he wrote: The ACA "allowed 6.1 million young adults to remain covered by their parents' insurance plans."

What's misleading: A 2016 report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, released during the Obama administration, however, pegged the number at 2.3 million.

Kennedy may have gotten to 6.1 million by including 3.8 million young adults who gained health insurance coverage through insurance marketplaces from October 2013 through early 2016.

His response: A spokeswoman for Kennedy said the office had indeed added those two numbers together and would fix future letters.

Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Missouri.) said that 75 percent of health insurance marketplaces run by states have failed. They have not.

What he said: "Nearly 75 percent of state-run exchanges have already collapsed, forcing more than 800,000 Americans to find new coverage."

What's misleading: When the ACA first launched, 16 states and the District of Columbia opted to set up their own exchanges for residents to purchase insurance, instead of using the federal marketplace, known as Healthcare.gov.

Of the 16, four state exchanges, in Oregon, Hawaii, New Mexico and Nevada, failed, and Kentucky plans to close its exchange this year, according to a report by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. While the report casts doubt on the viability of other state exchanges, it is clear that 3/4 have not failed.

His response: None.

Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) overstated that the ACA "distorted labor markets," prompting employers to shift workers from full-time jobs to part-time jobs.

What he said: "It has also, through the requirement that employees that work thirty hours or more be considered full time and thus be offered health insurance by their employer, distorted the labor market."

What's misleading: A number of studies have found little to back up that assertion. A 2016 study published by the journal Health Affairs examined data on hours worked, reason for working part time, age, education and health insurance status. "We found only limited evidence to support this speculation" that the law led to an increase in part-time employment, the authors wrote. Another study found much the same.

In addition, PolitiFact labeled as false a statement last June by President Donald Trump in which he said, "Because of Obamacare, you have so many part-time jobs."

His response: Rohrabacher spokesman Ken Grubbs said the congressman's statement was based on an article that said, "Are Republicans right that employers are capping workers' hours to avoid offering health insurance? The evidence suggests the answer is 'yes,' although the number of workers affected is fairly small."

We pointed out that "fairly small" was hardly akin to distorting the labor market. To which Grubbs replied, "The congressman's letter is well within the range of respected interpretations. That employers would react to Obamacare's impact in such way is so obvious, so nearly axiomatic, that it is pointless to get lost in the weeds," Grubbs said.

Representative Mike Bishop (R-Michigan) appears to have cited a speculative 2013 report by a GOP-led House committee as evidence of current and future premium increases under the ACA.

What he wrote: "Health insurance premiums are slated to increase significantly. Existing customers can expect an average increase of 73 percent, while the average change due to Obamacare for those purchasing a new plan will be a 96 percent increase in premiums. The average cost for a new customer in the individual market is expected to rise $1,812 per year."

What's misleading: The figures seem to have come from a report issued before the Obamacare insurance marketplaces launched and before 2014 premiums had been announced. The letter implies these figures are current. In fact, premium increases by and large have been moderate under Obamacare. The average monthly premium for a benchmark plan, upon which federal subsidies are calculated, increased about 2 percent from 2014 to 2015; 7 percent from 2015 to 2016; and 25 percent this year, for states that take part in the federal insurance marketplace.

His response: None

Representative Dan Newhouse (R-Washington) misstated the reasons why Medicaid costs per person were higher than expected in 2015.

What he wrote: "A Medicaid actuarial report from August 2016 found that the average cost per enrollee was 49 percent higher than estimated just a year prior 2014 in large part due to beneficiaries seeking care at more expensive hospital emergency rooms due to difficulty finding a doctor and long waits for appointments."

What's misleading: The report did not blame the higher costs on the difficulty patients had finding doctors. Among the reasons the report did cite: patients who were sicker than anticipated and required a raft of services after being previously uninsured. The report also noted that costs are expected to decrease in the future.

His response: None

Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) wrongly stated that family premiums are declining under Obamacare.

What he wrote: "Families are seeing lower premiums on their insurance, seniors are saving money on prescription drug costs, and hospital readmission rates are dropping."

What's misleading: Durbin's second and third points are true. The first, however, is misleading. Family insurance premiums have increased in recent years, although with government subsidies, some low- and middle-income families may be paying less for their health coverage than they once did.

His response: Durbin's office said it based its statement on an analysis published in the journal Health Affairs that said that individual health insurance premiums dropped between 2013 and 2014, the year that Obamacare insurance marketplaces began. It also pointed to a Washington Post opinion piece that said that premiums under the law are lower than they would have been without the law.

Why his response is misleading: The Post piece his office cites states clearly, "Yes, insurance premiums are going up, both in the health care exchanges and in the employer-based insurance market."

Representative Susan Brooks (R-Ind.) told constituents that premiums nationwide were slated to jump from 2016 to 2017, but failed to mention that premiums for some plans in her home state actually decreased.

What she wrote: "Since the enactment of the ACA, deductibles are up, on average, 63 percent. To make matters worse, monthly premiums for the "bronze plan" rose 21 percent from 2016 to 2017. 2026 Families and individuals covered through their employer are forced to make the difficult choice: pay their premium each month or pay their bills."

What's misleading: Brooks accurately cited national data from the website HealthPocket, but her statement is misleading. Indiana was one of two states in which the premium for a benchmark health plan -- the plan used to calculate federal subsidies -- actually went down between 2016 and 2017. Moreover, more than 80 percent of marketplace consumers in Indiana receive subsidies that lowered their premium costs. The HealthPocket figures refer to people who do not qualify for those subsidies.

Her response: Brooks' office referred to a press release from Indiana's Department of Insurance, which took issue with an Indianapolis Star story about premiums going down. The release, from October, when Vice President Mike Pence was Indiana's governor, said that the average premiums would go up more than 18 percent over 2016 rates based on enrollment at that time. In addition, the release noted, 68,000 Indiana residents lost their health plans when their insurers withdrew from the market.

Why her response is misleading: For Indiana consumers who shopped around, which many did, there was an opportunity to find a cheaper plan.

Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) incorrectly said that the Republican bill to repeal Obamacare would cut funding for seniors in nursing homes.

What he wrote: "It's terrible for seniors. Trumpcare forces older Americans to pay 5 times the amount younger Americans will -- an age tax -- and slashes Medicaid benefits for nursing home care that two out of three Americans in nursing homes rely on."

What's misleading: Wyden is correct that the GOP bill, known as the American Health Care Act, would allow insurance companies to charge older adults five times higher premiums than younger ones, compared to three times higher premiums under the existing law. However, it does not directly slash Medicaid benefits for nursing home residents. It proposes cutting Medicaid funding and giving states a greater say in setting their own priorities. States may, as a result, end up cutting services, jeopardizing nursing home care for poor seniors, advocates say, because it is one of the most expensive parts of the program.

His response: Taylor Harvey, a spokesman for Wyden, defended the statement, noting that the GOP health bill cuts Medicaid funding by $880 billion over 10 years and places a cap on spending. "Cuts to Medicaid would force states to nickel and dime nursing homes, restricting access to care for older Americans and making it a benefit in name only," he wrote.

Why his response is misleading: The GOP bill does not spell out how states make such cuts.

Representative Derek Kilmer (D-Washington) misleadingly said premiums would rise under the Obamacare replacement bill now being considered by the House.

What he wrote: "It's about the 24 million Americans expected to lose their insurance under the Trumpcare plan and for every person who will see their insurance premiums rise 2014 on average 10-15 percent."

Why it's misleading: First, the Congressional Budget Office did estimate that the GOP legislation would cover 24 million fewer Americans by 2026. But not all of those people would "lose their insurance." Some would choose to drop coverage because the bill would no longer make it mandatory to have health insurance, as is the case now.

Second, the budget office did say that in 2018 and 2019, premiums under the GOP bill would be 15-20 percent higher than they would have been under Obamacare because the share of unhealthy patients would increase as some of those who are healthy drop out. But it noted that after that, premiums would be lower than under the ACA.

His response: None.

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for their newsletter.

FCC Announced Approval ot LTE-U Mobile Devices

On Wednesday, the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) within the U.S. Federal Communications announced the authorization of unlicensed wireless (a/k/a LTE-U) devices to operate in the 5 GHz band:

"This action follows a collaborative industry process to ensure LTE-U with Wi-Fi and other unlicensed devices operating in the 5 GHz band. The Commission’s provisions for unlicensed devices are designed to prevent harmful interference to radio communications services and stipulate that these devices must accept any harmful interference they receive. Industry has developed various standards within the framework of these rules such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and Zigbee that are designed to coexist in shared spectrum. These and other unlicensed technologies have been deployed extensively and are used by consumers and industry for a wide variety of applications.

LTE-U is a specification that was developed and supported by a group of companies within the LTE-U Forum... The LTE-U devices that were certified today have been tested to show they meet all of the FCC’s rules. We understand that the LTE-U devices were evaluated successfully under the co-existence test plan. However, this is not an FCC requirement and similar to conformity testing for private sector standards the co-existence test results are not included in the FCC’s equipment certification records."

ComputerWorld explained in 2015 the strain on existing wireless capabilities and why several technology companies pursued the technology:

"According to the wireless providers and Qualcomm, the technology will make use of the existing unlicensed spectrum most commonly used for Wi-Fi. LTE-U is designed to deliver a similar capability as Wi-Fi, namely short-range connectivity to mobile devices.

As billions of mobile devices and Web video continue to strain wireless networks and existing spectrum allocations, the mobile ecosphere is looking for good sources of spectrum. The crunch is significant, and tangible solutions take a long time to develop... as former FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell recently remarked, “mobile data traffic in the U.S. will grow sevenfold between 2014 and 2019” while “wearable and connected devices in the U.S. will double” in that same period."

Some cable companies, such as Comcast, opposed LTE-U based upon concerns about the technology conflicting with existing home WiFi. According to Computerworld:

"In real-world tests so far, LTE-U delivers better performance than Wi-Fi, doesn’t degrade nearby Wi-Fi performance and may in fact improve the performance of nearby Wi-Fi networks."

Reportedly, in August 2016 Verizon viewed the testing as "fundamentally unfair and biased." Ajit Pai, the new FCC Chairman, said in a statement on Wednesday:

"LTE-U allows wireless providers to deliver mobile data traffic using unlicensed spectrum while sharing the road, so to speak, with Wi-Fi. The excellent staff of the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology has certified that the LTE-U devices being approved today are in compliance with FCC rules. And voluntary industry testing has demonstrated that both these devices and Wi-Fi operations can co-exist in the 5 GHz band. This heralds a technical breakthrough in the many shared uses of this spectrum.

This is a great deal for wireless consumers, too. It means they get to enjoy the best of both worlds: a more robust, seamless experience when their devices are using cellular networks and the continued enjoyment of Wi-Fi, one of the most creative uses of spectrum in history..."

GOP Legislation In Congress To Revoke Consumer Privacy And Protections

The MediaPost Policy Blog reported:

"Republican Senator Jeff Flake, who opposes the Federal Communications Commission's broadband privacy rules, says he's readying a resolution to rescind them, Politico reports. Flake's confirmation to Politico comes days after Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee), the head of the House Communications Subcommittee, said she intends to work with the Senate to revoke the privacy regulations."

Blackburn's name is familiar. She was a key part of the GOP effort in 2014 to keep state laws in place to limit broadband competition by preventing citizens from forming local broadband providers. To get both higher speeds and lower prices compared to offerings by corporate internet service providers (ISPs), many people want to form local broadband providers. They can't because 20 states have laws preventing broadband competition. A worldwide study in 2014 found the consumers in the United States get poor broadband value: pay more and get slower speeds. Plus, the only consumers getting good value were community broadband customers. In June 2014, the FCC announced plans to challenge these restrictive state laws that limit competition, and keep your Internet prices high. That FCC effort failed. To encourage competition and lower prices, several Democratic representatives introduced the Community Broadband Act in 2015.That legislation went nowhere in a GOP-controlled Congress.

Pause for a moment and let that sink in. Blackburn and other GOP representatives have pursued policies where we consumers all pay more for broadband due to the lack of competition. The GOP, a party that supposedly dislikes regulation and prefers free-market competition, is happy to do the opposite to help their corporate donors. The GOP, a party that historically has promoted states' rights, now uses state laws to restrict the freedoms of constituents at the city, town, and local levels. And, that includes rural constituents.

Too many GOP voters seem oblivious to this. Why Democrats failed to capitalize on this broadband issue, especially during the Presidential campaign last year, is puzzling. Everyone needs broadband: work, play, school, travel, entertainment.

Now, back to the effort to revoke the FCC's broadband privacy rules. Several cable, telecommunications, and advertising lobbies sent a letter in January asking Congress to remove the broadband privacy rules. That letter said in part:

"... in adopting new broadband privacy rules late last year, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) took action that jeopardizes the vibrancy and success of the internet and the innovations the internet has and should continue to offer. While the FCC’s Order applies only to Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”), the onerous and unnecessary rules it adopted establish a very harmful precedent for the entire internet ecosystem. We therefore urge Congress to enact a resolution of disapproval pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (“CRA”) vitiating the Order."

The new privacy rules by the FCC require broadband providers (a/k/a ISPs) to obtain affirmative “opt-in” consent from consumers before using and sharing consumers' sensitive information; specify the types of information that are sensitive (e.g., geo-location, financial information, health information, children’s information, social security numbers, web browsing history, app usage history and the content of communications); stop using and sharing information about consumers that have opted out of information sharing; meet transparency requirements to clearly notify customers about the information collection sharing and how to change their opt-in or opt-out preferences, prohibit "take-it-or-leave-it" offers where ISPs can refuse to serve customers who don't consent to the information collection and sharing; and comply with "reasonable data security practices and guidelines" to protect the sensitive information collected and shared.

The new FCC privacy rules are common sense stuff, but clearly these companies view common-sense methods as a burden. They want to use consumers' information however they please without limits, and without consideration for consumers' desire to control their own personal information. And, GOP representatives in Congress are happy to oblige these companies in this abuse.

Alarmingly, there is more. Lots more.

The GOP-led Congress also seeks to roll back consumer protections in banking and financial services. According to Consumer Reports, the issue arose earlier this month in:

"... a memo by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex), which was leaked to the press yesterday... The fate of the database was first mentioned [February 9th] when Bloomberg reported on a memo by Hensarling, an outspoken critic of the CFPB. The memo outlined a new version of the Financial CHOICE Act (Creating Hope and Opportunity for Investors, Consumers and Entrepreneurs), a bill originally advanced by the House Financial Services Committee in September. The new bill would lead to the repeal of the Consumer Complaint Database. It would also eliminate the CFPB's authority to punish unfair, deceptive or abusive practices among banks and other lenders, and it would allow the President to handpick—and fire—the bureau's director at will."

Banks have paid billions in fines to resolve a variety of allegations and complaints about wrongdoing. Consumers have often been abused by banks. You may remember the massive $185 million fine for the phony accounts scandal at Wells Fargo. Or, you may remember consumers forced to use prison-release cards. Or, maybe you experienced debt collection scams. And, this blog has covered extensively much of the great work by the CFPB which has helped consumers.

Does these two legislation items bother you? I sincerely hope that they do bother you. Contact your elected officials today and demand that they support the FCC privacy rules.