Segnalo in lista, nel caso non fosse già passato, l’articolo sul prossimo presidente americano dal punto di vista della rete

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/hillary-clinton-vs-donald-trump-o... <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/hillary-clinton-vs-donald-trump-o...>

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump on broadband: She has a plan, he doesn’t

Enlarge <https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/broadband-trump-clint...> SAUL LOEB & ROBYN BECK AFP/Getty Images / Aurich

The 2016 presidential election is likely to have a major impact on how the US government tries to expand broadband deployment and how it regulates Internet service providers. But while we have a pretty good idea of how a President Hillary Clinton would approach the broadband industry, there’s very little to go on when predicting broadband policy under a President Donald Trump.

Clinton’s technology plan <https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/06/27/hillary-clinto...> includes several initiatives designed to “deliver high-speed broadband to all Americans <http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/01/on-american-indian-reservations-challenges-perpetuate-the-digital-divide/>,” and it promises to defend network neutrality rules that prevent ISPs from discriminating against online services. There are questions about how Clinton would implement the plan and whether it's aggressive enough to achieve 100 percent broadband deployment, and her campaign has declined to provide more specifics. But the mere fact that Clinton has outlined some clear broadband goals sets the Democratic nominee apart from the other candidates.

Republican nominee Donald Trump doesn’t seem to have any plan for increasing access to broadband, and there are indications that he would not support new consumer protection regulations. He weighed in on net neutrality, but only in a November 2014 tweet <https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/532608358508167168?lang=en>:

Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 7:58 PM - 12 Nov 2014 <https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/532608358508167168> The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF), a public policy think tank, recently analyzed Clinton’s and Trump’s positions on technology <http://www2.itif.org/2016-clinton-vs-trump.pdf?_ga=1.14177138.455851410.1473...>. There were six broadband and telecommunications policy categories, and for five of them Trump was listed as having “no position” or having made no comment. Trump had no position on wireless spectrum and 5G; a Communications Act update; broadband and telecom subsidies; broadband adoption and digital literacy; and broadband competition and public-private partnerships.

Net neutrality was the one category where Trump had a position, but only because of the two-year-old tweet.

Besides "that one tweet from 2014 on net neutrality, it's pretty much radio silence from the Trump camp," ITIF telecommunications policy analyst Doug Brake told Ars.

Trump has finally just hired an aide to help him develop a telecom plan, Politico reported Friday <http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-transition-team-jeffrey-eisenach...>. The aide, Jeffrey Eisenach of the American Enterprise Institute, is described by Politico as "a crusader against regulation" and is a staunch opponent of net neutrality rules <https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/09-17-14EisenachTestimony.pdf>. Eisenach's appointment suggests Trump might pursue a deregulatory telecommunications agenda, but the candidate still isn't talking publicly about specific policies.

Brake didn’t endorse either candidate, but he said that when it comes to broadband, “Clinton at least has a plan. You can quibble with some of the details in it, but she has clearly thought hard about what the government’s role should be in promoting innovation and has policies that will work to promote innovation throughout the economy.” The ITIF describes itself as nonpartisan, but the group prefers a more conservative approach to telecommunications policy than the one chartered under President Obama and current FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.

Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson has opposed <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/07/hands-off-the-internet-an-intervi...> net neutrality rules and Internet regulation in general, while Green Party nominee Jill Stein supports net neutrality rules. Stein has called for universal broadband access—but she also claimed that wireless Internet signals can damage children’s brains despite a lack <http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs304/en/> of scientific <https://www3.epa.gov/radtown/wireless-technology.html> evidence <https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/wireless-devices-and-health-concerns> to support <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24162060> such concerns <http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/radiation/cons/wifi/faq-eng.php>.

None of the four candidates has responded to our repeated requests for more details. So with the clock ticking toward November 8, we’ll have to settle for examining their public statements.

The Clinton broadband plan

Clinton’s tech agenda <https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/06/27/hillary-clinto...> describes the nation’s broadband problems as follows: “Millions of American households, particularly in rural areas, still lack access to any fixed broadband provider, around 30 percent of households across America have not adopted broadband (with much higher levels in low-income communities), and American consumers pay more for high-speed plans than consumers in some other advanced nations.”

<https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/hillary-clinton.jpg> Enlarge <https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/hillary-clinton.jpg> / Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Clinton campaign

Clinton cited research <https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2015...> from the FCC, which defines broadband as Internet access with speeds of at least 25Mbps downstream and 3Mbps upstream, but she is flexible on what speeds the nation should strive for. By 2020, she wants 100 percent of American households to have the option of buying affordable broadband at “speeds sufficient to meet families’ needs.”

This wouldn’t necessarily involve stringing fiber wires to every home. Clinton wants federal agencies to consider fiber, fixed wireless, and satellite technologies for bringing broadband to unserved areas. Here are some of her proposals:

Continue investments in the Connect America Fund, the Rural Utilities Service program, the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP), and Lifeline. Use Lifeline to help people learn how to use the Internet and expand access to cheap devices. Create a competitive grant program encouraging local governments to reduce regulatory barriers to private investment; promote “dig once” programs that install fiber or fiber conduit during road construction projects; and develop public-private partnerships. Expand federal funding to bring free Wi-Fi and high-speed Internet to “recreation centers, public buildings like one-stop career centers, and transportation infrastructure such as train stations, airports, and mass transit systems.” Accelerate 5G cellular deployment and other wireless advances by reallocating and repurposing spectrum, and use federal research funding for “Internet of Things” test beds and field trials. Encourage state and local governments to relax rules that protect incumbents from new competitors, such as “local rules governing utility-pole access that restrain additional fiber and small cell broadband deployment.” Push federal agencies to identify anticompetitive practices “such as tying arrangements, price fixing, and exclusionary conduct,” and refer potential violations of antitrust law to the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission. (This proposal isn’t specific to broadband but could have an impact on ISPs.) Separately, Clinton pledged to defend the FCC’s net neutrality rules in court and continue to enforce them. She also supports the FCC's related decision under Wheeler <http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/03/how-a-former-lobbyist-became-the-bro...> to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act; Title II, while controversial, is the legal mechanism used to enforce the net neutrality rules.

Clinton’s plan leaves out some of the specifics that will be needed to achieve her goals, and the plan proactively takes credit for 5G development that is likely to happen regardless of who wins the presidency. But that doesn’t seem to bother Harold Feld <https://www.publicknowledge.org/about-us/staff/>, senior VP of Public Knowledge, a consumer advocacy group that generally supports Wheeler’s broadband deployment and net neutrality policies.

“This is not the blueprint, this is the promise,” Feld said. “Once they get in, they're still going to have to do the blueprint, and that's when we'll see if they'll swing for the bleachers or just try to play safe.”

As a campaign platform, what Clinton has proposed is “very good,” he said. 100 percent deployment probably won’t happen, but setting the goal at 100 percent makes it more likely that she’ll get to 95 percent or so, Feld said.

“The thing that worries me is this is a very incremental approach,” Feld said of Clinton’s plan. “It builds on what's out there now, it generally solidifies around basic points of agreement.” For example, Clinton hasn’t talked about whether the FCC should crack down on Internet data caps, but “those are not the kinds of things you put in a campaign platform,” Feld said.

A Clinton FCC seems likely to continue on a path similar to the one taken by Obama and Wheeler. Yet she is getting support from the same telecom industry that bitterly opposed Wheeler’s net neutrality plan and many of his other initiatives. Telecom services and equipment companies donated $640,247 to Clinton this year, while giving just $19,319 to Trump, according to the Center for Responsive Politics <http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=B09&cycle=2016&recipdet...>.

Clinton also won an endorsement from Jim Cicconi, a longtime GOP supporter and Senior Executive VP at AT&T—a company that sued the FCC to stop the net neutrality rules.

“This year I think it’s vital to put our country’s well being ahead of party,” Cicconi said, according to The Wall Street Journal <http://www.wsj.com/articles/some-gop-business-leaders-are-backing-clinton-14...>. “Hillary Clinton is experienced, qualified, and will make a fine president. The alternative, I fear, would set our nation on a very dark path.”

Brake said he is hopeful that Clinton would take a more “pragmatic” approach than Wheeler. Though Clinton supported Wheeler’s Title II net neutrality plan, Brake pointed to an interview <http://www.recode.net/2015/2/24/11559360/hillary-rodham-clinton-talks-nsa-pr...> Clinton gave last year in which she said net neutrality rules could alternatively have been imposed through an update of the Communications Act.

That statement “indicates to me that she gets that Title II isn't something to be desired in and of itself,” Brake said. It’s thus probably unlikely that a Clinton FCC would be more liberal than an Obama one, making things like network unbundling <http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/03/why-tom-wheeler-rejected-broadband-p...> a long shot, Brake said.

-- Luca