In today’s world, seven in 10 teachers assign homework that requires Internet access, but five million of the 29 million U.S. households with school-aged children lack regular access to broadband. FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel coined the term “Homework Gap” to characterize the divide and shed light on the problem: Kids without broadband are falling behind.
How is technology transforming education? Is wireless broadband sufficient for completing homework assignments? What are the major barriers to home broadband adoption? Are there any federal programs that can help bridge the divide? How can the public and private sectors, educators and parents, partner to help close the Homework Gap?
These are just some of the questions that will be addressed on Monday, April 4 when FCC Commissioner Rosenworcel will join our own Co-Chairman Jamal Simmons for a school tour, classroom visits, and a roundtable discussion at the Philadelphia Performing Arts: A String Theory Charter School.
If you’re in the area and wish to join us, see the details below:
WHAT: School tour, classroom visits, and roundtable discussions with FCC Commissioner Rosenworcel, String Theory Co-Founder & Chief Innovation Officer Jason Corosanite, and IIA Co-Chairman Jamal Simmons
WHEN: Monday, April 4 from 10 am - 12:15 pm ET
WHERE: Philadelphia Performing Arts: A String Theory Charter School, 1600 Vine Street, Philadelphia PA, 19102
For more on the event, check out this story from the Philadelphia Inquirer on FCC Commissioner Rosenworcel’s trip to the city.
Members of the media can RSVP for the event by emailing firstname.lastname@example.org
“Internet access has become a pre-requisite for full participation in our economy and our society, but nearly one in five Americans is still not benefitting from the opportunities made possible by the most powerful and pervasive platform in history.”
Those were the words of FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and Commissioner Mignon Clyburn in a post at the Commission’s website announcing a new, modern direction for the Lifeline program. They are words we can all agree with. But beyond those words are the FCC’s actual plan to modernize Lifeline and whether the path put forward by the Commission will be the most effective one they can take.
Reduced to its key ingredients, the FCC’s plan has four key parts:
1) It expands the program to cover broadband internet access services;
2) It sets minimum service standards for both voice and broadband;
3) It streamlines the rules governing the program by eliminating unnecessary regulation;
4) It utilizes a National Eligibility Verifier to take overseeing Lifeline eligibility out of the hands of the carriers
On the surface, each of these four parts are a step in the right direction. In fact, all four were, in some fashion, a part of the recommendations in our Lifeline white paper. But as with any regulatory shift — especially for a program as large and as important as Lifeline — the true success of the FCC’s reform plan can’t be measured until all the details come to light and the plan is actually implemented. So for now we get to play the waiting game.
Still, Chairman Wheeler and the other FCC Commissioners should be commended for listening to every interested party when it comes to reforming Lifeline. The plan the Commission has put forward may not be perfect — for example, there has yet to mention of much-needed eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) reform. And the devil will, of course, be in the plan’s details. But what the FCC has revealed of the plan so far is definitely encouraging.
A new paper from Anna-Maria Kovacs, Visiting Senior Policy Scholar at the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy, takes a deep dive into the current state of “special access” services, particularly whether there is a case for re-regulation. You can download a copy of the full report here, but here’s some findings from the executive summary to chew over:
Both the traditional U.S. CLECs and the cable companies who have entered the business broadband market are in good financial health and are generating higher free cash flow than the wireline segments of the largest ILECs. The CLECs and cable operators also have higher stock valuations, indicating that investors expect them to grow revenues and cash flow more rapidly.
Traditional CLECs have focused on the business market exclusively and built out only in areas where high-density makes construction-cost relatively low and attainable-revenue relatively high. In other words, they build only where they can expect penetration levels high enough to ensure high free cashflow. The CLECs’ metro fiber networks have brought them into or close to most buildings that house potential business broadband customers.
The data provided publicly by U.S. CLECs and cable operators confirms the few facts that have so far emerged from the FCC’s special access data collection, i.e. that there is extensive facilities-based competition in the business broadband market.
The enterprise market’s migration from legacy TDM facilities to Ethernet over fiber or coax facilities provides the CLECs and cable operators with the opportunity to compete on equal terms with the ILECs in the fast-growing portion of the market, while decimating the legacy revenues of the ILECs.
On Wednesday, IIA Founding Co-Chair Bruce Mehlman moderated a panel at the TIA Spring Policy Summit, titled “Special Access Re-Regulation.” The robust discussion explored the FCC’s regulation of the business data services market. Below are a handful of highlights:
Berge Ayvazian, Wireless 20/20: We have seen significant competition in the special access field between companies. This competition has shaped the underlying infrastructure on which wireless exists. We must take advantage of this opportunity to apply what we have learned in the last 10 years to allow the market to evolve around the competition already happening in the marketplace. In most markets, the quality of service being delivered by an ILEC and a CLEC is the same. We need to change the way we impose regulations on the business broadband market.
Patrick Brogan, USTelecom: Competition policy has been evolving since 1996 in the business broadband marketplace. The special access market has been competitive in telecom for a very long time. The guiding policy over the past fifteen years has been to encourage facilities-based competition and this should continue to be our goal.
Fred Campbell, Tech Knowledge: I find it difficult to believe that price regulation is needed when we have seen healthy competition. During the net neutrality proceeding, Chairman Wheeler was certain that there would be no price regulation. Business services is where competition started. Consumers do not need price regulation. Something is not right about this proceeding.
Hal Singer, PPI: If you push prices down from competitive levels you will see inefficiencies at all levels. If you are going to seize someone’s property, though, you are smart to wait until they have upgraded their network. You do not want to join the old copper network; you want them to already be upgraded to fiber. Prices are not at monopoly levels. By 2014, 42% of commercial buildings were outfitted with fiber. In 2009, it was just 23%. If you step in now and impose price regulations you could do some bad things. The notion that people are competing on a non-level playing field does not make sense.
Ayvazian: We all agree there is no basis on which to introduce price regulations.
Campbell: In my view, price regulation is the last option and worst possible way to address market issues.
Singer: Before Gigi Sohn was at the FCC, she was at Public Knowledge. One of Public Knowledge’s ultimate objectives is increased regulation and unbundling. There are a lot of forces at play here that are pushing them towards the CLEC agenda.
Brogan: There is a group in the CLEC industry that benefits from price regulation and increased access to network facilities. It is easier to lease these from the incumbents than it is to build their own facilities. Campbell: Their complaint is that, to get a certain discount, you need to commit to a 7-year term. I do not see how that is inherently problematic when facilities must be built. These contracts are long-term for a reason.
Brogan: I would continue to not regulate carrier Ethernet and rationalize regulation. Do not lower prices. This will discourage investment. That is the source of innovation within the broadband industry. Facilities-based competition is more self-sustaining.
Campbell: We need to stop moving to the left of Europe on communications policy. Many of the same consumer groups supporting price unbundling loved to point to Europe as an example of how broadband policy in the United States policy should move. In 2013, the EU’s version of the FCC drafted a lengthy report with data on developments in the EU markets and concluded that investment in the EU is lower due to unbundling. The reason is that unbundling discourages investment. If an entity has regulated access at government regulated rates, they have profit without the risk of losing investment dollars. Their conclusion was that, beyond where cable was, there was no increased investment. Now Chairman Wheeler wants to do it anyways.
Singer: If you want to maximize broadband deployment, we should be free of regulations.
Campbell: Chairman Wheler uses the word “competition” a lot, but when he uses it, he means something completely different than I do when I say competition.
Singer: When you say competition three times, it is static and not dynamic. Chairman Wheeler’s competition does not mean anything.
Campbell: Our FCC just makes up competition in market segments as if it is a new thing. Europe has imposed standards on how to impose these regulations. This has given them enormous power to do unhealthy things for a viable and competitive communications market.
Singer: We are not going to get to a Communications Act rewrite until we solve the net neutrality problem. The idea is to figure out a way to give the FCC authority to regulate allegations of discrimination on a case-by-case basis. Republicans should go forward on a broadband subsidy so we do not have to raise taxes on the back of broadband users.
Campbell: If we want to talk about politicized decision-making, let’s look at net neutrality. One of the arguments raised in favor of Title II regulations were the number of comments received in favor of it. It did not matter who these were from, but simply the volume of responses. The question we all asked was the relevance of each of these comments. There are arguments about the FCC’s political form of decision-making.
Over at Forbes, Fred Campbell has a smart piece on the issue of Special Access and how the FCC should encourage competition rather than rely on old regulations. An excerpt:
The only businessmen who claim that cable and CLECs can’t compete with telcos in the market for business communications service are those who are already profiting from the FCC’s existing special access regulations and who want the agency to apply these outdated rules to new IP-based technologies. As NCTA put it, these CLEC companies’ “entire argument boils down to the simple proposition that they would prefer to pay less than they do today.”
A fair and unbiased agency would reject this self-serving argument as an invalid justification for imposing new rate regulations — regulations that would also have the effect of discouraging competition and investment in new IP-based facilities.
But don’t be surprised if the FCC decides to regulate business rates anyway.
Yesterday, The Root published an op-ed from our Co-Chairmen Larry Irving and Jamal Simmons on the need for sensible reform of the Lifeline program. An excerpt:
These days, new social media platforms emerge regularly. Individuals have become broadcast channels with audiences rivaling some small radio stations. The barrier to new technologies reaching even wider audiences is lack of high-speed Internet access, and for many people who need it most, the barrier to access is cost. This Black History Month, reforming the federal Lifeline program to include broadband should be elevated as a key step to increasing access for Americans with the lowest incomes.
Earlier today, the Phoenix Center released a new paper titled “The Road to Nowhere: Regulatory Implications of the FCC’s Special Access Data Request.” Penned by Chief Economist George S. Ford, the paper predicts that the FCC’s data collection efforts will not serve those who want more regulations on Special Access services. In fact, Ford argues that the “FCC’s Special Access data will likely show that regulation is unnecessary in many geographic areas and already adequate, if not too strict, in others.”
Ford also reports that comments so far received at the Commission aren’t helping the process either. As he writes:
The first round of comments based on the data have been submitted to the Commission, but the comments and reports aren’t terribly helpful to the general public; the Commission, perhaps concerned the data would not support its pro-regulatory agenda, has not only restricted access to the data but those with access are required to redact from their comments and reports even the most summary of statistics indicating the extent of competition and other facts.
The commission’s new investigation into special access rates gives short shrift to these aggressive competitors and relies on an old vision of the marketplace to protect the business models of a few companies, even as it is supposed to be promoting deployment of ever-faster broadband. Those hardworking crews you see from the road, and that rumbling sound you can feel, represent investment taking place. Competition works and is working in the real world—but it apparently remains unseen and unfelt at the FCC.
You can download the Phoenix Center’s “The Road to Nowhere: Regulatory Implications of the FCC’s Special Access Data Request” at their website.
As the nation turns its eyes to political primary seasons, one of the things voters most dislike is politicians saying one thing to one group and then saying something else to others.
All politicians inevitably pander, and the smart voter needs to review the full body of a candidate’s comments to appreciate where they really stand.
The same challenge often exists with companies. For businesses also try to tell one audience, such as government regulators, one thing and Wall Street another.
Take Sprint. Sprint tells Wall Street it is incredibly well-positioned to thrive in a competitive marketplace, while begging the government to maintain regulations protecting and advantaging it against other competitors.
Start with what Sprint is telling the government: last September, Sprint told the FCC that it needs regulated access (“special access”) to business data lines: “Every one of these sites will require additional backhaul and Sprint and other competitors will depend on both TDM and Ethernet special access more than ever to be able to compete.” Sprint said essentially the same thing in 2013 in the same docket (yes, the “05” in the FCC’s proceeding refers to “2005” – this one has been going on for an absurd length of time).
But to Wall Street, Sprint sings a very different tune: it claims to save money by not relying on FCC-mandated business data circuits and writes, in its filings to the SEC, that it is purchasing alternative, more modern Ethernet circuits in the competitive marketplace. Sprint said that every year from 2011 to 2015, repeating the message that “We are also modifying our existing backhaul architecture to enable increased capacity to our network at a lower cost by utilizing Ethernet as opposed to our existing time division multiplexing (TDM) technology.”
Sprint said that it’s using Ethernet to save money; it’s apparently applying the technology for use as wireless backhaul to reduce its network costs – an effort that BITG analyst Walter Piecyk estimated “could save between $600 million to $1.2 billion a year of network expense.”
Sprint has been offering Ethernet to businesses since 2007. It’s spending money to modernize its own network, selling newer lines to customers, and talking up its technology to both Wall Street and customers. Those are all great things to do in a competitive market (and, in fact, hard evidence of a competitive market), but Sprint still wants the government to keep its hand on the scale.
So Sprint wants to sell service on those newer lines to business data customers, use others for wireless backhaul to save money, and still force its competitors to pay for regulated “special access” lines that rely on outdated technology.
There’s no reason the FCC should fall for such double speak. Sprint does not need special access regulation; it’s merely using this as a tool to increase its competitors’ costs while reducing its own.
Wall Street accepts (and has for several years) that Sprint has made the investments (a 53% increase in 2012, for instance) to make it a competitor in a competitive Ethernet market. It doesn’t need “special access” regulations or special protection from the refs (in this case, the FCC).
Like sophisticated voters, government regulators should consider all of the candidates’ statements, not merely those pandering to a single audience.
Special Access is receiving a lot of attention these days, mainly due to the FCC’s controversial stance on the topic. And now US Telecom has released three white papers on Special Access and the competitiveness of business broadband. Describing the papers, US Telecom’s Walter McCormick said, “These papers document the huge successes in this marketplace, which are exactly the competitive outcome Congress envisioned, and that the FCC has said it wants to see. We hope the FCC will innovate with us by modernizing policy and regulation so industry can leverage the competition we have today to a greater future for tomorrow.”
Late last week, the San Jose Mercury News published an op-ed from our own Rick Boucher and Larry Irving marking the 20th anniversary of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In the piece, Boucher and Irving discuss how the relatively “light-touch” regulation helped spur broadband growth in America, and how the FCC would be wise to stay the course. An excerpt:
The act’s framers promoted light-touch regulation and a structure that led to an expanding Internet driven by new technologies, devices and applications. These forward-looking Clinton-era policies placed competition and investment as the central catalysts to drive innovation and advance consumer benefits.
Two stark paths now lie before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC): It can advance pro-investment, facilities-based broadband competition or it can discourage investment and broadband build-out.
In 1973, the Edgar Winter Group scored a Top 20 hit with “Free Ride.” In 2016, Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) are trying to score a free ride from the FCC via heavy regulation of special access rates.
While the CLECs like to claim there is a monopoly in the business broadband market, investment numbers say otherwise. Hundreds of billions are being invested in broadband networks, and all that money is not coming from CLECs. No wonder they want the FCC to impose heavy regulations on special access. The CLEC business model is to rely on the regulatory hammer to give them access to networks others have built, and as networks across the nation are upgraded to run on all-IP — and businesses require ever-faster broadband — the CLECs are quickly finding their business model is on thin ice — with spring around the corner.
Still, they continue to bend the FCC’s ear, which is why I continue to write about special access. It’s also why the organization US Telecom has launched a new initiative called “Innovate With Us” to remind policymakers that the broadband market in America is thriving across the board, and in order to keep the good times — and investment dollars — rolling, sensible regulations need to be in place. Or, as US Telecom succinctly put it in the intro to the initiative:
[T]he FCC should champion pro-investment policies that work for business customers, not specific companies, and look beyond yesterday’s technologies toward the networks of the future.
“Competition” is one of those words that make policymakers tingle. And yet, time and time again, private industry finds itself wrestling with regulations that not only harm competition but — in the most extreme cases — actively benefit one party over another.
Case in point: wireline broadband competition. Providers have invested billions to expand the reach and speed of their networks, and yet recent actions taken by the FCC are threatening to stifle ongoing investment. But don’t just take my word for it. Check out this latest study from the American Consumer Institute titled “Concentration by Regulation: How the FCC’s Imposition of Asymmetric Regulations Are Hindering Wireline Broadband Competition in America.”
Yes, that title is quite the mouthful (as most study titles are), and to be honest, unless you’re someone who enjoys diving into studies (with charts) on regulations, investment, and the economy, you might find the report’s 18 pages a bit of a slog. But those of us who do read through ACI’s study will find a convincing — and rather damning — case that the FCC is mistepping rather badly as it continues to amass more and more power over broadband. For example, here’s what the report has to say about one of the biggest regulatory marks the Commission made in 2015:
Title II regulations are preserving and maintaining duplicative and costly copper networks. That cost is an impediment to fiber deployment that keeps ILECs more reliant on older copper-based DSL technologies. Instead of the FCC relieving non-dominant ILECs of Title II regulations in more competitive markets, the FCC has recently chosen to make broadband service providers subject to Title II regulations.
Unless there is action soon, the shift in concentration is likely to be permanent. A decade ago, the rollback of asymmetric regulations permitted modest rebound in broadband services for ILECs, because there was brisk growth in subscribers. Today, because the broadband market is so widespread, growing slower and more mature, asymmetric broadband regulation will likely have longer term consequences that could permanently displace and weaken wireline competition. Even if a rebound is possible, ILECs will face a major cost to win back customers. Regulations are costly and delays in lifting these regulations will be even more costly.
Translation: Old regulations that effect some providers and not others are forcing companies like Verizon and AT&T to invest billions in the copper networks of old. Meanwhile, other providers don’t face such regulatory roadblocks, even as they aim to invest in the very same thing legacy providers are investing in — fiber-backed, high-speed broadband networks. Not exactly the spirit of competition, is it?
The ACI study isn’t all doom and gloom for America’s communications infrastructure, though, for the group has thoughtfully included a three bullet points that can help level the playing field:
• Policymakers need to end Title II regulations for all providers.
• There needs to be less emphasis on regulation of wholesale services. Less regulation will encourage more facility-based investments, which will lead to the natural development of a healthy, wholesale market; and
• If regulators truly believe that some regulation of wholesale services is necessary – and that may be the case in some rural markets – then regulators need to apply these regulations on a symmetrical and competitively neutral basis.
In short, get rid of the bad regulations, be careful when imposing new ones, and make sure everyone is playing under the same rules. Wise words, but the question is: Will the FCC listen?
In advocating for new regulations, Net Neutrality proponents have consistently made clear that any new rules should not include rate regulation over Internet access services. For example, when President Obama announced his support for regulating the Internet as a Title II service under the Communications Act, he explicitly stated that such effort should include “forbearing from rate regulation.” Likewise, in applying Title II to broadband last May, FCC Chairman Wheeler stated that the Commission’s net neutrality effort would “forgo sections of Title II that pose a meaningful threat to network investment” and specifically declared that the “goal is not to have rate regulation.” Tomorrow, the House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Communications & Technology will consider the bill H.R. 2666, “No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act,” aimed at codifying these clearly stated intentions into law.
President Obama and Chairman Wheeler were right to reject rate regulation. Any attempt to introduce pricing rules over the dynamic broadband sector would harm consumers by retarding future network investments. Such actions would also strike a blow to the American economy with lost jobs and decreased productivity. H.R. 2666, authored by Rep. Kinzinger, offers a smart, protective measure to help continue the virtuous cycle of innovation that has fueled the Internet’s success. If enacted, his bill would turn the stated intentions of President Obama and Chairman Wheeler into law.
And adopting that law would remove a substantial part of the uncertainty stemming from Title II reclassification of broadband and have the highly positive effect of giving broadband providers greater confidence to increase network investments.
Technological advancement is synonymous with American ingenuity. Successful bi-partisan, light-touch regulatory policies over the past two decades have made the American technology sector the envy of the world, increasing competition, spurring innovation and inviting greater private investment. These polices opened the door to Gigabit level network deployments by AT&T, Comcast, CenturyLink and Google Fiber, and these advances have increased broadband throughput tenfold and made high-bandwidth streaming easier for consumer connected devices.
The subcommittee should approve H.R. 2666, which would bar the FCC from regulating the prices charged for broadband. Without legislation, no guarantee exists to prevent future Commissions from rate regulating the Internet. Congressional action in this area is welcome given that promises are mere words until they are set in stone by statute.
In the final installment of Larry Irving’s Title II discussion, he talks about the role he believes Congress should play in preserving the open Internet, and whether Congress should seek a bi-partisan compromise on net neutrality.
Our Co-Chairman Larry Irving has recorded a series of videos for our Let’s Get Nerdy series on net neutrality, Title II, and the potential for Congressional action. Here, he talks about the approach to tech policy during his time with the Clinton Administration, and whether there are lessons from then that should be applied today.
In this bonus edition of Let’s Get Nerdy, our Co-Chairman Bruce Mehlman breaks down how the business special access marketplace has changed since the 1990s, and discusses whether FCC special access rules are still necessary.
A new paper from Anna-Maria Kovacs, Ph.D., CFA published by the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy makes a convincing case that the FCC can save hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars as it reboots Lifeline for the broadband age.
The full paper, “Regulation in Financial Translation: Rebooting Lifeline for Broadband,” is available for download, but here are some highlights:
The FCC’s FNPRM states that the FCC seeks to make the program more efficient by “targeting support to those low-income consumers who really need it while at the same time shifting the burden of determining consumer eligibility for Lifeline support from the provider. We further see to leverage efficiencies from other existing federal programs and expand our outreach efforts.” An effective way to accomplish this goal is to link Lifeline to SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] for eligibility verification and enrollment.
As Kovacs points out in the paper, reducing waste, fraud and abuse of the Lifeline program is important. But just as important is ensuring those reduction efforts aren’t duplicative. Again, from the report:
As the FCC’s FNPRM indicates, the job of verifying that households have low-income is already being verified by other federal agencies. Most notably, the USDA verifies the eligibility of those households that quality for SNAP. SNAP not only enrolls those households whose low income qualifies them, but de-enrolls them if their income rises. In other words, SNAP already does the job the FCC duplicates at a cost of roughly $600 million. Thus, the first argument for relying on SNAP for eligibility verification is that doing so would save roughly $600 million in wasted administrative efforts.
$600 million is obviously a lot of savings. But as Kovacs goes on to note, the benefits of linking Lifeline to SNAP go beyond the monetary because:
It would provide automatic enrollment for low-income households that need Lifeline, and make it easier for them to apply the discount to the technology and provider of their choice. By making it easier for both providers and low-income households to participate in Lifeline, the FCC would also enhance competition.
With bipartisan support in Congress, the FCC now has a unique opportunity to completely overhaul and reshape the program for the 21st century. The central challenge is to add broadband as a Lifeline benefit without a significant increase in program costs. Tinkering with the existing program or making minor modifications to program administration at the edges will likely fail to deliver the promise of ubiquitous and modern high-speed broadband access for low-income consumers.
Is broadband a social determinant of health? Prominent health care leaders, practitioners, and researchers came together last week in Detroit to answer that question during a discussion that I co-moderated with Federal Communications Commissioner (FCC) Mignon Clyburn. The FCC Connect2Health Task Force’s Broadband Health Tech Forum was part of its “Beyond the Beltway” series, which is encouraging efforts to improve healthcare in communities across the nation.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), your zip code is a greater indicator of your health than your genetic code. Why? The quality and availability of care is vastly different based on where you live.
Low-income Americans are at a distinct disadvantage for managing chronic diseases, for example. Heart disease and diabetes are among the top 10 causes of death in the African-American community, and Latinos are challenged by a 66 percent higher rate of diabetes than Caucasians. Thankfully, there’s consensus that technology can go a long way toward closing the health divide.
The digital divide is directly linked to the health divide. Without Internet connectivity, people lack the tools that they need to become educated on critical health issues, to find nearby healthcare providers, and to take advantage of the exciting health applications and tools that are available. While some Americans with diabetes are using Internet-connected devices like AgaMatrix to monitor blood glucose, others are left in the dark. Broadband empowers underserved populations to take charge of their health.
One panelist pointed out that the digital divide is creating health problems in unexpected ways. Many Americans who lack broadband at home are going to the local McDonald’s to use the Internet. To do so, they’re required to purchase at least one item. Imagine how your health would be impacted if you were drinking super-sized soft drinks and eating Big Macs every time you wanted to check your email.
During the discussion in Detroit, Commissioner Clyburn emphasized the importance of adding broadband to the federal Lifeline program as part of the Commission’s reform efforts. Making the subsidy available for high-speed Internet will help close the digital divide and – bonus – concurrently shrink the health divide. Modernizing the Lifeline program is a key to improving access to health care services, regardless of socio-economic background or geographic location.
The goal of the Broadband Health Tech Forum in Detroit was to start a critical conversation that translates into action – and it appears that the event did just that. Panelists and audience members alike were inspired, vowing to stay connected and work together toward solutions. Broadband is a social determinant of health. In fact, it’s foundational for health equity.
AGREEMENT BETWEEN USER AND Internet Innovation Alliance
The Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site is comprised of various Web pages operated by Internet Innovation Alliance.
The Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site is offered to you conditioned on your acceptance without modification of the terms, conditions, and notices contained herein. Your use of the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site constitutes your agreement to all such terms, conditions, and notices.
Internet Innovation Alliance reserves the right to change the terms, conditions, and notices under which the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site is offered, including but not limited to the charges associated with the use of the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site.
LINKS TO THIRD PARTY SITES
The Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site may contain links to other Web Sites (“Linked Sites”). The Linked Sites are not under the control of Internet Innovation Alliance and Internet Innovation Alliance is not responsible for the contents of any Linked Site, including without limitation any link contained in a Linked Site, or any changes or updates to a Linked Site. Internet Innovation Alliance is not responsible for webcasting or any other form of transmission received from any Linked Site. Internet Innovation Alliance is providing these links to you only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement by Internet Innovation Alliance of the site or any association with its operators.
NO UNLAWFUL OR PROHIBITED USE
As a condition of your use of the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site, you warrant to Internet Innovation Alliance that you will not use the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site for any purpose that is unlawful or prohibited by these terms, conditions, and notices. You may not use the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site in any manner which could damage, disable, overburden, or impair the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site or interfere with any other party’s use and enjoyment of the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site. You may not obtain or attempt to obtain any materials or information through any means not intentionally made available or provided for through the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Sites.
USE OF COMMUNICATION SERVICES
The Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site may contain bulletin board services, chat areas, news groups, forums, communities, personal web pages, calendars, and/or other message or communication facilities designed to enable you to communicate with the public at large or with a group (collectively, “Communication Services”), you agree to use the Communication Services only to post, send and receive messages and material that are proper and related to the particular Communication Service. By way of example, and not as a limitation, you agree that when using a Communication Service, you will not:
Defame, abuse, harass, stalk, threaten or otherwise violate the legal rights (such as rights of privacy and publicity) of others.
Publish, post, upload, distribute or disseminate any inappropriate, profane, defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent or unlawful topic, name, material or information.
Upload files that contain software or other material protected by intellectual property laws (or by rights of privacy of publicity) unless you own or control the rights thereto or have received all necessary consents.
Upload files that contain viruses, corrupted files, or any other similar software or programs that may damage the operation of another’s computer.
Advertise or offer to sell or buy any goods or services for any business purpose, unless such Communication Service specifically allows such messages.
Conduct or forward surveys, contests, pyramid schemes or chain letters.
Download any file posted by another user of a Communication Service that you know, or reasonably should know, cannot be legally distributed in such manner.
Falsify or delete any author attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other material contained in a file that is uploaded.
Restrict or inhibit any other user from using and enjoying the Communication Services.
Violate any code of conduct or other guidelines which may be applicable for any particular Communication Service.
Harvest or otherwise collect information about others, including e-mail addresses, without their consent.
Violate any applicable laws or regulations.
Internet Innovation Alliance has no obligation to monitor the Communication Services. However, Internet Innovation Alliance reserves the right to review materials posted to a Communication Service and to remove any materials in its sole discretion. Internet Innovation Alliance reserves the right to terminate your access to any or all of the Communication Services at any time without notice for any reason whatsoever.
Internet Innovation Alliance reserves the right at all times to disclose any information as necessary to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or governmental request, or to edit, refuse to post or to remove any information or materials, in whole or in part, in Internet Innovation Alliance’s sole discretion.
Always use caution when giving out any personally identifying information about yourself or your children in any Communication Service. Internet Innovation Alliance does not control or endorse the content, messages or information found in any Communication Service and, therefore, Internet Innovation Alliance specifically disclaims any liability with regard to the Communication Services and any actions resulting from your participation in any Communication Service. Managers and hosts are not authorized Internet Innovation Alliance spokespersons, and their views do not necessarily reflect those of Internet Innovation Alliance.
Materials uploaded to a Communication Service may be subject to posted limitations on usage, reproduction and/or dissemination. You are responsible for adhering to such limitations if you download the materials.
MATERIALS PROVIDED TO Internet Innovation Alliance OR POSTED AT ANY Internet Innovation Alliance WEB SITE
Internet Innovation Alliance does not claim ownership of the materials you provide to Internet Innovation Alliance (including feedback and suggestions) or post, upload, input or submit to any Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site or its associated services (collectively “Submissions”). However, by posting, uploading, inputting, providing or submitting your Submission you are granting Internet Innovation Alliance, its affiliated companies and necessary sublicensees permission to use your Submission in connection with the operation of their Internet businesses including, without limitation, the rights to: copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, translate and reformat your Submission; and to publish your name in connection with your Submission.
No compensation will be paid with respect to the use of your Submission, as provided herein. Internet Innovation Alliance is under no obligation to post or use any Submission you may provide and may remove any Submission at any time in Internet Innovation Alliance’s sole discretion.
By posting, uploading, inputting, providing or submitting your Submission you warrant and represent that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to your Submission as described in this section including, without limitation, all the rights necessary for you to provide, post, upload, input or submit the Submissions.
THE INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, AND SERVICES INCLUDED IN OR AVAILABLE THROUGH THE Internet Innovation Alliance WEB SITE MAY INCLUDE INACCURACIES OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS. CHANGES ARE PERIODICALLY ADDED TO THE INFORMATION HEREIN. Internet Innovation Alliance AND/OR ITS SUPPLIERS MAY MAKE IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR CHANGES IN THE Internet Innovation Alliance WEB SITE AT ANY TIME. ADVICE RECEIVED VIA THE Internet Innovation Alliance WEB SITE SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR PERSONAL, MEDICAL, LEGAL OR FINANCIAL DECISIONS AND YOU SHOULD CONSULT AN APPROPRIATE PROFESSIONAL FOR SPECIFIC ADVICE TAILORED TO YOUR SITUATION.
Internet Innovation Alliance AND/OR ITS SUPPLIERS MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE SUITABILITY, RELIABILITY, AVAILABILITY, TIMELINESS, AND ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND RELATED GRAPHICS CONTAINED ON THE Internet Innovation Alliance WEB SITE FOR ANY PURPOSE. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, ALL SUCH INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND RELATED GRAPHICS ARE PROVIDED “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF ANY KIND. Internet Innovation Alliance AND/OR ITS SUPPLIERS HEREBY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS WITH REGARD TO THIS INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND RELATED GRAPHICS, INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT.
Internet Innovation Alliance reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to terminate your access to the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site and the related services or any portion thereof at any time, without notice. GENERAL To the maximum extent permitted by law, this agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Washington, U.S.A. and you hereby consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of courts in King County, Washington, U.S.A. in all disputes arising out of or relating to the use of the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site. Use of the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site is unauthorized in any jurisdiction that does not give effect to all provisions of these terms and conditions, including without limitation this paragraph. You agree that no joint venture, partnership, employment, or agency relationship exists between you and Internet Innovation Alliance as a result of this agreement or use of the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site. Internet Innovation Alliance’s performance of this agreement is subject to existing laws and legal process, and nothing contained in this agreement is in derogation of Internet Innovation Alliance’s right to comply with governmental, court and law enforcement requests or requirements relating to your use of the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site or information provided to or gathered by Internet Innovation Alliance with respect to such use. If any part of this agreement is determined to be invalid or unenforceable pursuant to applicable law including, but not limited to, the warranty disclaimers and liability limitations set forth above, then the invalid or unenforceable provision will be deemed superseded by a valid, enforceable provision that most closely matches the intent of the original provision and the remainder of the agreement shall continue in effect. Unless otherwise specified herein, this agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the user and Internet Innovation Alliance with respect to the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site and it supersedes all prior or contemporaneous communications and proposals, whether electronic, oral or written, between the user and Internet Innovation Alliance with respect to the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site. A printed version of this agreement and of any notice given in electronic form shall be admissible in judicial or administrative proceedings based upon or relating to this agreement to the same extent an d subject to the same conditions as other business documents and records originally generated and maintained in printed form. It is the express wish to the parties that this agreement and all related documents be drawn up in English.
COPYRIGHT AND TRADEMARK NOTICES:
All contents of the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site are: and/or its suppliers. All rights reserved.
The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.
The example companies, organizations, products, people and events depicted herein are fictitious. No association with any real company, organization, product, person, or event is intended or should be inferred.
Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved.
NOTICES AND PROCEDURE FOR MAKING CLAIMS OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
Pursuant to Title 17, United States Code, Section 512(c)(2), notifications of claimed copyright infringement under United States copyright law should be sent to Service Provider’s Designated Agent. ALL INQUIRIES NOT RELEVANT TO THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURE WILL RECEIVE NO RESPONSE. See Notice and Procedure for Making Claims of Copyright Infringement.