US bolsters AI ambitions with Open Government Data Act

President Trump has signed the Open Government Data Act into law, potentially unleashing a tsunami of data for AI applications to be trained with.

The bill itself has been bouncing around Washington for some time now, though it has officially been signed into law. Within one year, all government agencies will have to ensure data sets are open and accessible to the general public and businesses, as well as being presented in a format that can be easily processed by a computer without human intervention. The act also hopes to make the data more accessible through smartphones.

“The government-wide law will transform the way the government collects, publishes, and uses non-sensitive public information,” said Sarah Joy Hays, Acting Executive Director of the Data Coalition, a public interest group which promotes transparency in government and business.

“Title II, the Open Government Data Act, which our organization has been working on for over three and a half years, sets a presumption that all government information should be open data by default: machine-readable and freely-reusable.”

For the digital ecosystem, such a bill should be welcomed with open arms. For any AI application to work effectively it needs to be trained. For years, many have claimed data is the new oil, although we suspect they did not mean in this manner. If the US is to create a leadership position in the developing AI ecosystem, its applications will need to be the best around and therefore will have to have the appropriate data sets to improve performance and accuracy.

Open data is of course not a new idea however. Back in September during Broadband World Forum in Berlin, we sat through several entertaining presentations from individual cities laying out their smart city ambitions. There was one common theme throughout the session; open data. These local governments realise the potential of empowering local digital ecosystems through open data, and the initiatives are proving to be successful.

This new law will force all federal agencies to make all non-sensitive data public in a machine-readable format and catalogue it online. New individuals must be appointed as Chief Data Officers to oversee the process, and new procedures will be introduced. While it seems incredibly obvious, when proposing new laws or regulations agencies will now have to justify the changes with supporting data. As it stands, only a handful of agencies are required to do this, the FCC is one of them, though this law ensures the validation and justification of new rules through data is rolled out across the board.

As with everything to do with data, there are of course privacy concerns. The text of the bill does seem to take this into account, one clause states any data released to the public will have to adhere to the Privacy Act of 1974, though there is bound to be a few blunders. Such a tangent should compound the importance of hiring a Chief Data Officer and a team of individuals who are appropriately trained. We suspect there will be few current employees in the agencies who could ensure compliance here.

Of course, this is not a law which will make an immediate impact. With any fundamental changes, such as this, procedures and systems will have to be updated. The procurement process is most likely, or at least we hope, underway and there will certainly be growing pains.

That said, if the US wants to make a meaningful dent on the AI world, the right tools and data need to be put in the hands of the right people. This is a step in the right direction.

Huawei facing US trade secret theft indictment and ZTE-style ban

The US Department of Justice is rumoured to be pursuing charges relating to trade secrets theft against Huawei, while four politicians have tabled a bill for a ban similar to what ZTE faced last year.

Leaving the Department of Justice for the moment, a bi-partisan collection of politicians have tabled the so-called ‘Telecommunications Denial Order Enforcement Act’, a proposed bill which would compel the White House to ban Huawei from using US components and IP within its supply chain. The ban would be the same punishment ZTE faced early last year.

“Huawei and ZTE are two sides of the same coin,” said Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen. “Both companies have repeatedly violated US laws, represent a significant risk to American national security interests, and need to be held accountable. Moving forward, we must combat China’s theft of advanced US technology and their brazen violation of US law.”

Aside from Van Hollen, Republican Senator Tom Cotton, as well as Representatives Mike Gallagher (Republican) and Ruben Gallego (Democrat) are also supporting the proposed bill. This should hardly come as a surprise as the ZTE ban was imposed for violating the exact same trade sanctions which Huawei has allegedly ignored.

The saga surrounding the ZTE ban was short-lived, incredibly volatile and almost fatal. After being found violating trade sanctions, US Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) imposed a denial of export privileges order against the firm, denying it access to any US suppliers. President Trump stepped in to save the firm, which looked doomed as a result of the ban, before Congress blocked his efforts. Eventually a resolution was reached, though ZTE has been skating on thin ice since.

If precedent is anything to go by, Huawei should face the same punishment should it be found guilty of the same activities. Last month, Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou was arrested in Canada, accused of violating the same trade sanctions with Iran using a suspect firm known as Skycom. Meng has been released on bail and awaits trial, though it appears the four politicians are already presuming guilt. Or maybe they are just being prepared.

Perhaps this is a sign the politicians do not believe President Trump is committed to precedent and appropriate action. The actions against ZTE smelt suspiciously like one of Trump’s strategic moves in the on-going trade war with China, though perhaps he did not realise he would have to do the same 12 months later, potentially antagonising the Chinese government with a move which is not in the grand plan.

The politicians might be tabling this bill to make sure Trump can’t find a reason not to ban Huawei. Following the arrest, Trump seemed to suggest in an interview with Reuters that he would be willing to make the Canadian charges go away if it would help him the US in its dispute with China.

“If I think it’s good for the country, if I think it’s good for what will be certainly the largest trade deal ever made – which is a very important thing – what’s good for national security – I would certainly intervene if I thought it was necessary,” Trump stated.

Not only does this completely undermine the standing of the Canadian judicial system, but also suggests Trump is willing to bend (or break) rules to bring the Chinese government to its knees. Perhaps Congress does need to be proactive to make sure the President follows the rules, taking appropriate action instead of whatever ludicrous idea floats in the breadth between his ears.

What is worth noting is the stance of Huawei executives. Clearly, they do not agree with anything which is going on, but both Rotating Chairman Guo Ping and Rotating CEO Ken Hu put across messages stating the resilience of the business. Ping and Hu suggested a ban would not impact the Huawei supply chain in the same manner as it did ZTE.

Heading back to the Department of Justice, the Wall Street Journal has reported the agency is pursing charges against Huawei concerning theft of trade secrets.

An indictment should be heading over to the Huawei offices in the near future, focusing on allegations the firm stole robotic mobile-testing technology from T-Mobile. The technology, known as Tappy, mimics human fingers and is used to test smartphones. A civil case between T-Mobile and Huawei over the technology was filed in 2014, though after a criminal investigation the Department of Justice feels it is appropriate to step in and raise criminal charges.

This case is a separate concern from all the other chaos which has surrounded the firm in recent months, though it will be just as concerning as the punishments can be incredibly severe.

The primary federal law that prohibits trade secret theft is the Economic Espionage Act of 1996, which allows the US the U.S. Attorney General to prosecute a person, organization, or company that intentionally steals, copies, or receives trade secrets. If the case if brought against an individual, the punishment could be as much as 10 years in prison or a $500,000 fine. However, we suspect the government would want to punish the firm not an individual, as Huawei would simply claim that person did not represent the company culture, in-line with White House aggression against China.

If a conviction is made against a company the fine can be increased to $5 million. However, if the Attorney General can prove the theft was made on behalf of a foreign government, this would be considered the silver bullet for the White House, corporate fines can be doubled, imprisonment could be 15 years and proceeds derived from the theft can be seized.

In short, Huawei has found itself in another uncomfortable position in the US. It does not appear 2019 is going to be any better than 2018 on the US side of the pond for Huawei.

Where is the evidence of Huawei espionage?

Before we get carried too carried away with the recent arrest in Poland, let’s remember something; this is a Huawei employee accused of espionage, not Huawei.

Right now, Huawei is the world’s whipping boy. This is a company which is taking the punishment for the nefarious activities of the Chinese government. In Poland, a Huawei employee and another from Orange have been arrested, accused of espionage. But the condemnation should be directed towards the Chinese government and these individuals, not necessarily Huawei.

For the record, we are not suggesting Huawei is completely blameless. The company might be in bed with Beijing, but as it stands there is no concrete evidence to support this theory. The arrest in Poland is circumstantial, evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. It most judicial systems, reasonable doubt is tied into circumstantial evidence meaning it can contribute to a verdict, but alone it is rarely enough to assign guilt.

Huawei could well be a puppet with strings attached to Beijing, but evidence needs to be produced to ensure ‘democratic’ nations are not presuming guilt, a contraction of their legal principals.

The prospects for Huawei are not currently looking good. Effectively banned from any meaningful work in the US, banned in Australia and Japan, under close watch in the UK, ignored in South Korea, condemned by the European Union and in a very suspect position in New Zealand. Eastern Europe was one area where it looked like business was safe, but now the Polish are talking about a ban as well.

With all this heart-ache and headaches for the Huawei executives you have to question how much evidence there has been of espionage. As far as we are aware, nothing of note.

This is of course not to say there isn’t any but look at the situation. The US government is trying to rally the world against Huawei and China on the whole, it has been for years now, and you have to think it would use evidence to turn the tides if it had any. Back in 2012, a House Intelligence Committee told the US government Huawei was a ‘National Security Threat’, but in the six years since this point no evidence has been produced to support this statement. Yet this report has been used as the foundation of all negative sentiment directed towards China and Huawei.

This report, which was the result of a yearlong investigation by the committee, came to the conclusion Huawei and ZTE were a national security threat because of their attempts to extract sensitive information from American companies and their loyalties to the Chinese government. The report stated it had obtained internal documents from former Huawei employees suggesting it supplied services to a ‘cyberwarfare’ unit in the People’s Liberation Army, but this evidence has never made it to the public domain.

For most, the sustained rhetoric of espionage could be viewed as politically and economically motivated. Chinese companies are making an impression on the world and Silicon Valley’s vice-like grip on the technology industry is loosening. This would be incredibly damaging for the US economy on the whole, which has partly relied on the dominance of this segment for success in recent years. In recent months it has been flexing its muscles and some are bending to its will. Deutsche Telekom is an excellent example.

Only last month, DT suggested it was reviewing its relationship with Huawei to ease concerns from the US government. It just so happens government agencies are reviewing its US businesses potential merger with Sprint. Breaking ties with the Chinese vendor would certainly gain favour with Washington, but is this culture of paranoia and finger-pointing something we should be encouraging?

Again, this is not to say there is no evidence to support the accusations. However, if the US government had the smoking gun, surely it would have shown it to the world. Some might suggest it had an obligation to inform its allies of such nefarious activities. Some even more sceptical individuals might also suggest that if there was classified evidence, it would have been leaked by someone over this period. In today’s world it is impossible to keep big secrets secret. Just look at Edward Snowdon’s revelations.

Over in Germany, the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) has said it would take this very approach. Arne Schoenbohm, President of BSI, said that for his agency to consider banning Huawei from the country he would have to see evidence. This statement came at the same time a US delegation had been meeting with officials from the Foreign Ministry to discuss a ban. As no ban has emerged, it would appear the US delegation was unable to table any evidence.

Going back to the arrest in Poland, some might suggest this is enough evidence to ban Huawei from operating in the nation. However, governments have been catching spies for decades and punishing individuals. There is little (or any) precedent to ban the company than individual works for unless there is a direct link between the organization and the nefarious government. Over in the UAE, 31-year-old PhD student at Durham University has been arrest for espionage also, but the University has not been punished. MI5 and MI5 catch spies and potential terrorists every year, but the companies they work for are not accused of espionage.

We suspect the Chinese government is obtaining information through reprehensible means, but if the world is to hold China accountable, ‘western’ governments need to stand by their principles and not undermine the foundations of fair society. The principle which is being forgotten today is the assumption of innocence until a party has been proven guilty.

Two wrongs do not make a right, and we have to ask ourselves this question; are we any better than the oppressive governments if we forget this simple principle of a fair and reasoned judicial system; innocent until proven guilty.

Huawei R&D faces export ban in Silicon Valley

The US Commerce Department has refused to renew an export licence at a Huawei subsidy in Silicon Valley, meaning China cannot access new developments at the site.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Huawei R&D outfit Futurewei was informed over the summer that the US Department of Commerce would not be renewing the license meaning some of the technologies developed at the site, but not all, could not be exported back to China. It’s a new strategy in the conflict between the US and China, but it could prove to be an effective one.

Silicon Valley is not the hotspot of the technology world because of the favourable climate or the presence of helpful regulations, it has one of the most talented workforces around the world. There are of course challengers to this claim emerging, India or Eastern European for example, but companies flock to Silicon Valley to open up R&D offices to tap into this resource. Such a ban from the US Commerce Department means Huawei is going to miss out on some of these smarts.

The block will prove problematic to overcome as there does not appear to be any logical way to combat the move. The rationale behind the blockage is quite simple; national security. Seeing as Huawei is currently being trialled and punished without the burden of evidence, there seems to be little the vendor can do to combat such passive aggressive moves by the US.

This is of course just another stage is the incrementally escalating conflict between the US and China. The tension between the pair does seem to have escalated over the last few days following a minor hiatus at Christmas. Rumours are circling the Oval Office concerning an all-out ban on Huawei and ZTE technology in the US, while suspicions will only increase following the arrest of a Huawei employee in Poland on the grounds of espionage.

With all the drama before Christmas and the hullaballoo kicking off again now, perhaps we should expect some sort of retaliation from Beijing. The Chinese governments has not been anywhere near as confrontation as the US, though there might be a breaking point somewhere in the future.

T-Mobile US bags another million, while AT&T makes doubles down on 5G claims

It’s been a busy day on the US side of the pond as T-Mobile US reported its full-year subscription figures, while AT&T promised a nationwide 5G rollout with few details.

Starting with the controversial and confrontational T-Mobile, the magenta army claims to have added total net customer additions of 2.4 million to the ranks over the last three months, while 2018 on the whole stood at 7 million total net adds. In the final quarter, the numbers stood at 1.4 million branded postpaid net additions, 1 million of which were branded postpaid phone net additions, making it the best quarter in four years.

“The T-Mobile team delivered our best customer results ever in Q4 2018 and we did it in a competitive climate while working hard to complete our merger with Sprint,” said John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile. “That’s 23 quarters in a row where more than 1 million customers have chosen T-Mobile – along with a postpaid phone churn result that’s below 1%. These customer results speak volumes about our company, our network and our brand.”

There is no question T-Mobile US has been a success story under the leadership of Legere, but the big question is how he has done it. In short, Legere has not conformed to the status quo, as you can probably pick up from his ranting and raving on social media, but hyper-targeted marketing has also played a role.

This is a strategy which has been in the making for some time now, the team promised to address markets and demographics which are apparently underserved, or blurred together with generic marketing campaigns. It seems to be the incremental increase approach to growth, but you can’t argue with success.

“…it’s the strategy we laid out for you, going back to 2015 and 2016 is in full effect now,” said COO Mike Sievert on the earnings call. “We said we were going to expand distribution, we did that. We said we were going to expand the segments that we go after and we did that. We were going to add a very serious focus on business, we did that. So, the results have the benefit of all those things in the runway now.

“So that’s a phenomenal uptick. Our suburban market share, we think is 14% to 15%. Our rural market share, we think is sub-10%. Military and older people, 55 plus, sorry Braxton. We think we have a 10%-ish share of both those segments that we’ve been focusing on for a year right now. So, lots of runway behind the strategy left to go, but you are starting to see, as we promised you would the effects of those investments now flowing through into our results.”

One segment which is in currently in the crosshair is enterprise customers. The team might have had one of the most successful quarters to date in this area, according to Sievert, but market share is very low currently. AT&T and Verizon naturally hold the lion’s share of the business, but T-Mobile US has already shown it is perfectly capable of making a challenge to the ‘duopoly’.

Looking ahead to the 5G bonanza, the T-Mobile team has decided to sit out the initial race, or how this has been spun by the PR ‘gurus’, instead focusing on the long-term nationwide charge.

“We are the only ones that have a plan to bring 5G nationwide in 2020,” said Sievert. “And the others are focused on millimetre wave in some places. We are bringing 5G everywhere we operate, and we are doing it by next year and that’s a real differentiator.”

In the pursuit of coverage and due diligence, Sievert is not being factually correct here, making a statement which is indeed inaccurate.

Looking over at the AT&T business, the team has made its own statement, perhaps an effort to redirect attention from the misleading statements it has made concerning ‘5Ge’. This marketing ploy is of course nothing more than an attempt to pray on the un-informed, using small print to its greatest effect, though whether the latest statement is any better we’ll leave you to decide.

Similar to T-Mobile US’ commitment to 5G, AT&T has now promised ‘nationwide mobile 5G footprint’ using sub-6 GHz spectrum by early 2020. The ambitions are certainly noteworthy from both parties, but what we are struggling to stomach at the moment are a lack of details; no-one has actually stepped forward to say what a nationwide rollout actually means.

Does this mean there will be a 5G footprint in every state? What percentage of the US will be covered by 5G? Will the rural communities have a taste of the new connectivity euphoria or will it simply be limited to the busiest sections of the largest cities? What transportation hubs will become a 5G hotspot? How many 5G cell sites are forecast for the time when nationwide 5G coverage will be claimed?

While we are being particularly critical of the claims, we believe this is necessary for an industry which is not always the most honest with its customers.

Although consumers should remain apathetic, though they probably won’t, to the 5G euphoria, or at least until there are 5G-specific services launched, the new networks will become a major marketing plug for the telcos. The marketing team need something new to talk about, and the ‘bigger, better, faster’ tendencies of these departments will ensure 5G is front-page news.

All of the 5G buzz means very little to the consumer right now, but don’t tell them that. However, on a more positive note, it is quite exciting at how quickly the 5G promise is becoming a reality.

VCs are spending more on less, how will that impact innovation?

CB Insight has released its latest quarterly report on venture capitalist funding claiming new records are being spent in terms of total cash, but trends are leaning towards the bigger players.

Over the course of the last 12 months, US venture capitalists spent a total of $99.5 billion funding businesses, though the number of deals stood at 5,536, the lowest since 2013. Later-stage mega-deals pushed annual funding to its highest level since 2000, though you have to wonder whether there will be any material impact on innovation, a worrying though when you consider the emerging potential of 5G for disruption.

Although the majority of the segments are relatively stable, as you can see from the graph below seed-funding has been gradually eroding for some time.

CBI Graph 2For those with the cash to spend, these trends make a lot of sense. Why would you take a risk on a start-up which might fail in the next couple of months when you could invest in a company which has scaled, secured customers and revenues and has a stable foundation? There are so many medium sized technology companies out there looking for financial fuel to go to the next level makes perfect sense.

However, the impact on the future might be damaging for the US on the whole if it wants to maintain its position at the top of the technology rankings table.

Here’s our point; not all innovation comes from start-ups or garages hidden away in suburbia, but a notable number of the significant disruptions do. If funding is being more prominently directed towards the established players, is a trick being missed?

Let’s dissect that point for a second. The larger companies certainly do search for innovation, but the search is for a purpose. Nokia, for instance, wouldn’t allow their researchers to run wild without any tethers whatsoever as there are limited R&D funds available and commercial considerations have to be factored in. The search for innovation is almost certainly tied to a current commercial objective or with specific ambitions to exploit an emerging segment.

This is not a bad way to do business of course. R&D has to be conducted with a purpose; these organizations have a responsibility to investors and shareholders to spend money reasonably, with the objective of making more money in the future. It certainly is sensible, but it is a restricted approach to innovation. Start-ups don’t necessarily have these burdens of responsibility, they can explore the unknown.

5G has been billed as a revolution. It will change the ways businesses operate and open a host of new connectivity possibilities to everyone in society. But like 4G, the best ideas are ones we haven’t thought of yet. They are probably businesses which do not exist. How many people would have thought of an idea such as Uber before 4G was a reality. This idea only came to be because the right conditions were in place and a creative inventor thought of it. Throughout the 4G era many of the better ideas emerged from start-ups which either scaled or were bought by one of the major players.

The world of 5G is not upon us quite yet, therefore it is a bit of a pre-emptive point right now. Innovation needs to be encouraged at every level if the US is to hold off the Chinese challenge to its technology leadership position. The trends are currently leaning away from seed-funding, which is certainly sign.

AT&T rebrands LTE-A as 5Ge

AT&T customers might have noticed a new symbol appearing in the top corner of their devices and for those who aren’t paying attention, they might be duped into thinking the telco is offering 5G connectivity.

AT&T has now switched on its ‘5G Evolution’ service meaning a ‘5Ge’ symbol will appear in the corner of Samsung Galaxy S8 Active, LG V30, and LG V40 devices. For everyone else in the world, ‘5G Evolution’ is 4G LTE-Advanced, though AT&T feels the need to intentionally try to mislead customers, fooling them into believing they are receiving 5G data services.

Why AT&T feels it is appropriate to deceive its customers so blatantly is beyond us.

AT&T might well be one of the first to offer 5G services through a portable hotspot device, albeit in a very limited area, but compatible smartphones are still months away. There will of course be various different leaks and promotions over the next couple of weeks leading up to MWC, but the first devices able to make use of the 5G euphoria will not be available until Spring at the very earliest.

With this in mind, AT&T is simply taking advantage of customers who do not know any better.

While this might seem like an underhanded and putrid act from the telco, it’s all about the marketing war which is about to kick off in the US. Verizon can claim to have broken its 5G duck first with the launch of a fixed-wireless access solution, but AT&T has the bragging rights for the first 5G mobile device. This ‘5G Evolution’ deception from AT&T is just another move in the battle for the consumer’s attention.

What is worth noting is that the portion of AT&T’s network offering ‘5Ge’ or LTE-A to call it by its proper name, has received a speed boost. The telco claims speeds of 400 Mbps could be achieved with the connection, though who knows whether this is actually true. AT&T isn’t making itself out to be the most honest brand around here, and perhaps we should start questions the legitimacy of any claim the telco makes.

The long and short of it is AT&T is intentionally, directly and disgustingly misleading its customers, a move that could well blow back in its face.

US starts to get twitchy over travel to China

The US Department of State has renewed its warning over citizens travelling to China over fears of retaliation following the arrest of Huawei’s CFO in Canada.

After Washington ordered the arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou in Canada last month, China has seemingly retaliated with a spree of its own arrests. Reports suggest as many as 13 Canadians have been held in China, including former diplomat Michael Kovrig and consultant Michael Spavor. Reacting to the news, the US State Department has issued its own warning.

On the State Department website, the caution level has been raised to ‘Level Two’, suggesting citizens ‘exercise increased caution’ when visiting the country. ‘Level Three’ would see the government advising citizens to reconsider travel plans, while ‘Level Four’ suggests the country should be avoided.

“Exercise increased caution in China due to arbitrary enforcement of local laws as well as special restrictions on dual US-Chinese nationals,” the website states. “Chinese authorities have asserted broad authority to prohibit U.S. citizens from leaving China by using ‘exit bans,’ sometimes keeping US citizens in China for years.”

Despite the tension caused by the political conflict between Washington and Beijing, it does not appear to have affected the attitude of executives. Apple CEO Tim Cook has suggested he will not be revising his own plans to travel to China, though it would be tough to see the Chinese government holding Cook considering there are seemingly no grounds to do so. Apple is currently ignoring a ban on iPhone 7 and iPhone 8 sales in the country, thanks to the patent dispute with Qualcomm, but this seem like thin justification to arrest the CEO.

This international conflict is multi-faceted, but technology is one of the key components. Ultimately, the US wants to withstand the challenge the Chinese are making to Silicon Valley’s domination of the technology world and the benefits this brings the entire US economy. Despite these moves from the US State Department, experience suggests the Chinese will not make any drastic moves against the US; it has been much more measured and strategic in its approach to tackling the trade war to date than the White House has been.

That said, it would not surprise us if a couple of US citizens start appearing in jail cells either.

Options are running out for net neutrality supporters

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has released a gloating statement after Democrats failed to invalidate the pompously named ‘Restoring Internet Freedom’ order, making the path for net neutrality much rockier.

In June last year, net neutrality was officially struck from the FCC rulebook as the ink dried on the aforementioned order. There has been much protest and opposition to the rules, and while there are still routes to restore the Tom Wheeler-era rules, the number of options are getting smaller. With a new Session of Congress now in play, the path of invalidation is now closed.

As the rules were passed during the previous Session, the Democrats had a limited amount of time to try and invalidate the ‘Restoring Internet Freedom’ order passed by Pai and his Republican Commissioner cronies. Unfortunately for the net neutrality supporters, the 218 votes required in the Senate was a step too far. By close of play on January 2, only 182 votes, the majority of whom where Democrat, were mustered.

“I’m pleased that a strong bipartisan majority of the US House of Representatives declined to reinstate heavy-handed Internet regulation,” said Pai. “They did the right thing – especially considering the positive results for American consumers since the adoption of the Restoring Internet Freedom Order. Over the past year, the Internet has remained free and open.

“In short, the FCC’s light-touch approach is working. In 2019, we’ll continue to pursue our forward-looking agenda to bring digital opportunity to all Americans.”

What does this mean for net neutrality? There is still a route back for the rules, though it is becoming increasingly difficult.

Invalidating the rules was the simplest option, though the Democrats only had one shot at this. A new Session sets the rules in play, though there are other routes, both legal and regulatory.

On the legal side of things, there are still challenges being made to the ‘Restoring Internet Freedom’ order by numerous companies, consumer groups and Attorney Generals throughout the US. While many of the lawsuits are fundamentally arguing the same point, albeit with various different nuances, the courts will be asked to rule on one area in particular; whether the individual States can enforce their own localised legislation on net neutrality.

Central to this conundrum is California. Having agreed to delay the implementation of its own net neutrality rules in the State, judges will have to ponder the age-old debate of Federal vs. State. This is where it gets very complicated; as the internet is not a localised ‘service’, can California guarantee it will only impose the rules on traffic which is restricted to its borders? Should traffic traverse the cables elsewhere, the State has no right to implement net neutrality rules. This is a concept which is stated in the US Constitution.

On the regulatory front, the Democrats could attempt to force through new legislation which would supersede the ‘Restoring Internet Freedom’ order, in the same was this order did to net neutrality. This would be complicated as you have to suspect the Democrats to not have enough bodies in the room to drive through a majority.

All of the options remaining for the net neutrality supporters are time coming however, which is a factor which will certainly work against them. Pai can take his time and attempt to prolong the issue, as the longer it takes to resolve the less interest the general public and other politicians will have. We are fickle people, we get bored easily, and politicians are as shallow as we are fickle. If net neutrality is no longer getting the necessary amount of attention in the press, less enthused politicians will find a new cause to champion in pursuit of PR points.

The net neutrality battle is not over, but, unfortunately, Pai is winning.

FCC readies ‘Out-of-Office’ emails as budget looms

With President Donald Trump and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi going toe-to-toe over funding for a controversial wall, the FCC has warned it will run out of money on Thursday afternoon.

The inability for the Republicans and Democrats to come to an agreement on federal funding has meant numerous agencies throughout the country are facing closure, the FCC being one of them. Considering FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has been doing his best to lighten the regulatory influence of the agency during his tenure, perhaps colleagues will be able to hear a joyous tap-dance echoing from his office.

“In the event of a continued partial lapse in federal government funding, the Federal Communications Commission will suspend most operations in the middle of the day on Thursday, January 3,” the FCC has said in a statement. “At that time, employees will have up to four hours to complete an orderly shutdown of operations.”

For those who work for the FCC, the political stance being made by the two leaders will mean very little as they sit quietly at home with no pay-cheque. However, work required for the protection of life and property will continue, as will work relating to spectrum auctions, which is funded by auction proceeds. The Office of the Inspector General will also remain open, though most of the FCC function will temporarily cease. More details are expected over the next couple of hours.

What remains to be seen is how long the office will be closed for. After it initially appeared Trump would sign the proposed budget, critics suggested he was going back on his word as there was little funding to create the physical border between the US and Mexico. The wave of criticism from usually friendly media titles forced the hand of the President, and it appears there will be little concession made by either side right now.

Such is the world of politics an agreement will probably be made in the near future. Both sides will suggest they gained the advantage, though (again), this will come as little comfort for those whose bank accounts are getting slimmer as we speak.