1514 stories

Inside the hate factory: how Facebook fuels far-right profit | Australia news

1 Comment and 5 Shares

The message from Israel arrived on an otherwise unremarkable afternoon for 36-year-old Beau Villereal.

At his family’s sprawling 42-acre property outside Live Oak in Florida’s rural north, Villereal sat alone in his bedroom trawling for news about Donald Trump to share on the rightwing Facebook page he runs with his mother and father.

The messenger, who gave her name as Rochale, asked Villereal to make her an editor of Pissed off Deplorables, a self-described “pro-America page” that feeds its thousands of followers a steady diet of pro-Trump, anti-Islam content.

“I totally understand you,” she wrote. “I’m from Israel and this is ... really important to me to share the truth.

“Please give me a chance for a day.”

About 1,000 miles north in Staten Island, New York City, Ron Devito was tapping away on his laptop to the 20,000 followers of his pro-Trump Facebook page, Making America 1st, when he received a similar message, this time from someone using the name Tehila.

“She pitched to me that she was a good editor, she could provide some good content to increase likes and views on the page,” Devito told the Guardian. “Could I just give her a chance and let her post her stuff, right? So I figured, ‘What the heck, give it a shot’.”

Villereal and Devito weren’t the only ones. Over the past two years, a group of mysterious Israel-based accounts has delivered similar messages to the heads of at least 19 other far-right Facebook pages across the US, Australia, the UK, Canada, Austria, Israel and Nigeria.

A Guardian investigation can reveal those messages were part of a covert plot to control some of Facebook’s largest far-right pages, including one linked to a rightwing terror group, and create a commercial enterprise that harvests Islamophobic hate for profit.

This group is now using its 21-page network to churn out more than 1,000 coordinated faked news posts per week to more than 1 million followers, funnelling audiences to a cluster of 10 ad-heavy websites and milking the traffic for profit.

The posts stoke deep hatred of Islam across the western world and influence politics in Australia, Canada, the UK and the US by amplifying far-right parties such as Australia’s One Nation and vilifying Muslim politicians such as the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, and the US congresswoman Ilhan Omar.

The network has also targeted leftwing politicians at critical points in national election campaigns. It posted false stories claiming the UK Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said Jews were “the source of global terrorism” and accused the Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, of allowing “Isis to invade Canada”.

The revelations show Facebook has failed to stop clandestine actors from using its platform to run coordinated disinformation and hate campaigns. The network has operated with relative impunity even since Mark Zuckerberg’s apology to the US Senate following the Cambridge Analytica and Russian interference scandals.

When the Guardian notified Facebook of its investigation, the company removed several pages and accounts “that appeared to be financially motivated”, a spokesperson said in a statement.

“These pages and accounts violated our policy against spam and fake accounts by posting clickbait content to drive people to off-platform sites,” the spokesperson said. “We don’t allow people to misrepresent themselves on Facebook and we’ve updated our inauthentic behaviour policy to further improve our ability to counter new tactics.”

But this comes too late for some of the network’s victims. Australia’s first female Muslim senator, Mehreen Faruqi, felt the full force of the network in August last year, when 10 of its pages launched coordinated posts inciting their 546,000 followers to attack her for speaking in parliament against racism.

The posts prompted what Faruqi described as a “horrific feeding frenzy of racism, fake news and hate”, soliciting vile comments like “put your burka on – and shut the fuck up!”, “deport the whining bitch” and “Revoke citizenship and Deport”.

Faruqi said the network represented a “new level of far-right organisation and coordination”, and she places the blame squarely on social media companies.

“By allowing racist and misleading posts, social media giants like Facebook … are profiteering from the proliferation of hate speech and abuse,” Faruqi said.

“Facebook could do much more and shut these pages down but so long as they continue to profit from the reach and engagement, they don’t seem to be interested in decisive action.”

A spokesperson for Facebook told the Guardian: “Nobody can advocate or advertise hate or violence on Facebook and we remove any violations as soon as we become aware.”

‘The perfect foot soldiers’

It begins with a single post, curated by Israel-based administrators.

The post typically has an attention-grabbing headline and links to an article that mimics the style of a legitimate news story.

It employs a blend of distorted news and total fabrication to paint Muslims as sharia-imposing terrorists and child abusers, whose existence poses a threat to white culture and western civilisation.

It is then published almost simultaneously to the network’s 21 Facebook pages, which have a combined 1 million followers across the globe.

The content is so predictable that even Devito once complained to his Israeli counterpart. “I told her flat out, ‘you’re a one-trick pony’,” he said. “It’s Islam, Islam, Islam, Islam and more Islam. Like, enough with the Islam already, we get it.”

The Guardian conducted an analysis to confirm the extent of coordination across the network, checking where posts were identical in content and similar in publication time across different pages.

The network published 5,695 coordinated posts at its height in October 2019, receiving 846,424 likes, shares or comments in that month alone.

In total, the network has published at least 165,000 posts and attracted 14.3 million likes, shares or comments. The content is amplified further by other far-right Facebook pages, including those run by the rightwing UK Independence party (Ukip), who share it organically.

The posts link back to one of 10 near-identical websites masquerading as news sites with generic titles like “The Politics Online” and “Free Press Front”. Ad-heavy and poorly designed, the websites feature “stories” that usually combine slabs of copied text intermingled with unsourced opinion and graphic imagery.

The Guardian worked with researchers from Queensland University of Technology’s digital media research centre, who conducted an analysis of the order in which identical posts appeared across the 21 Facebook pages.

Their analysis indicates a single entity is coordinating the publication of content across the Facebook pages, likely using automatic scheduling software, and that a single entity controls the websites that receive traffic from the posts.

“It’s very obvious looking at the websites, the way that they’re structured, the way that they’re sharing design and code, and the way they share Google site IDs, that they’re all interconnected with each other,” said QUT professor Axel Bruns, one of Australia’s leading internet researchers. “They’re just cheap sites to set up, cheap sites to run … It’s not very sophisticated and it’s just brute force, to push all this stuff out.”

Bruns and his colleagues believe the motivation is commercial, and that hatred, division and political influence may be byproducts of the pursuit of profit.

“Here’s a bunch of people who – they’re not stupid but they’re highly prone to clicking on content that reflects their already held beliefs, especially content that is highly emotive and contains polarising and extreme material,” said Timothy Graham, a senior lecturer on social network analysis at QUT.

“These people are great for business. If you get them to come to your website, they’re not going to [look closely at] the content, they’re going to click through and keep [sharing] it. They’re the perfect foot soldiers.”

‘You’re the one profiting’

The network wasn’t always so extensive. The delivery of coordinated content began in 2016 through just a few pages in Israel and the US.

From 2018 onwards, the network began approaching the administrators of large, pre-existing Facebook pages across Australia, Austria, Canada, the US and the UK, promising content that would help grow their audiences.

In March 2018, the network gained access to a Canadian pro-Israel page dubbed Never Again Canada, which has 232,000 followers. A previous BuzzFeed News investigation into Never Again Canada showed it was regularly sharing content about the Jewish Defence League, an FBI-designated rightwing terror group, and coordinating content with other pages.

The network reached its peak in October this year with coordination across 21 pages. Each time a local page-owner agrees to let one of the Israeli administrators in, they become unwitting though not necessarily unwilling participants in the globally coordinated distribution of online hate.

Some page-owners, like Villereal, who runs Pissed off Deplorables, had no idea their new Israeli counterparts were making money from the following they had built.

“It’s a little disheartening to sit here and think I’ve been doing this for two years and I haven’t made a dime, and I allowed someone to come in who’s built the little back channel but they’re going to use my clientele to make money,” he said. “You know, it’s like I own the store, I built it and everything like that, and you’re the one profiting.”

Those behind the network went to great lengths to hide their identities, concealing personal information from websites and using different Facebook profiles when contacting the owners of existing far-right pages.

But by following a trail of digital breadcrumbs, the Guardian’s investigation traced the network back to a key player: a man going by the username Ariel1238a.

Finding Ariel

In December 2017, Ariel1238a made a seemingly benign request for help on an obscure search engine optimisation forum.

“I’m looking for more ways to monetize my site,” he wrote. “My niche is about politics.”

For the past two years, the same username has popped up regularly on similar web forums.

Writing in broken English, Ariel1238a frets about drops in his click-through rate, the inability to host “violent content” alongside advertising sourced through Google AdSense, and the low revenue return per-click on native advertising site Taboola. “I’m not satisfied with the profits they bring,” he told one forum.

He also complains about Facebook’s efforts to crack down on “fake news”. When the social media giant announced in April that it would step up its efforts to combat misinformation on the site, Ariel wrote: “Facebook has released another step on the way to its end, matter of time.”

Ariel1238a is not a web expert. He asks rudimentary questions including how to set up a business email domain and increase traffic to his sites. Yet his websites, he tells the forums, serve “leading countries” including the UK, US, Australia and Canada and have, he boasts, “somthing like 1m pageviews per month”.

The posts give no suggestion that Ariel1238a will become a driving force behind a wave of anti-Islamic hate across Facebook.

In fact, online profiles linked to Ariel1238a betray no political or ideological position at all. Instead, his digital footprint suggests that before he turned to exploiting the far-right’s obsession with Islam for profit, he had for years engaged in a number of unsophisticated online money-making schemes.

A now dormant account on a blog-publishing service links him to a “free sex dating” site, a “religious dating” site and a fan page for the fourth season of the Israeli Big Brother television series. He has dabbled in online directories for gyms in Tel Aviv, Botox injections, an online sim card store and a site described simply as “Online sex | Camera sex”.

Using web archiving services and domain registry information, the Guardian has been able to confirm the username Ariel1238a belongs to Ariel Elkaras, a 30-something jewellery salesman and online operator living on the outskirts of Tel Aviv.

Soon after the Guardian contacted Elkaras for comment, several of the network’s websites were either taken down or had large amounts of content removed. The public posts on his Facebook profile were also removed.

Elkaras did not respond to multiple requests for comment via email and phone, but the Guardian was able to track him down.

When we turned up at his apartment in a town near Tel Aviv in Israel, an older woman answered the door. She called out to Elkaras, who arrived wearing a T-shirt and sweatpants.

Through a translator, Elkaras denied knowledge of or involvement in the network but said he had once been “included in a group, something about Israel”. He refused to answer questions about his job, other than to confirm he dealt with computers. “Yes, but it’s not your business,” he said. “[The network] is nothing related to me.”

When the Guardian asked about the username Ariel1238a, he said: “I don’t know.” He closed the door, but shortly after followed a reporter out on to the street and demanded to know how the Guardian had found him.

Elkaras was the only real person the Guardian was able to connect to the operation. We were unable to verify whether Rochale, Tehila, or the other names used by the Facebook profiles that contacted page administrators, were the names of real people.

Messages obtained by the Guardian show Rochale telling a local page administrator she doesn’t know how to make money online and that she doesn’t know who runs the websites she sources her content from.

“I only share posts on your page because this topic is important to me,” she wrote.

While initially describing Tehila as “a Pam Geller type”, Devito later admitted he had never actually seen or spoken to her. Asked how he knew she was real, he said: “We don’t, to be brutally honest.”

Of the page administrators who returned requests for comment from the Guardian, only one claimed to have physically seen Tehila via Skype but declined to provide evidence. Asked how he knew he was speaking to a woman, the administrator, who declined to reveal his identity, said: “It sure looked like one.”

None of the page administrators the Guardian spoke to for this story were aware that the Israeli group was making money from the scheme, or that their pages were part of a larger network.

“They weren’t upfront about it because as much as I saw in the message ... there was no talk about making money,” a pro-Trump page administrator based in Nigeria told the Guardian.

Political influence and Facebook’s failures

In April last year, Zuckerberg sat before an army of cameras and offered a mea culpa to the world.

Facebook, still reeling from the Cambridge Analytica scandal, had failed its users, Zuckerberg said. The company had struggled to stop its platform being used for coordinated political interference and the spread of disinformation and hate.

“It’s clear now that we didn’t do enough to prevent these tools from being used for harm,” Zuckerberg said. “We didn’t take a broad enough view of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake. And it was my mistake.”

Two months later, the Israeli-based network gained access to its 13th far-right Facebook page, expanding the already sizeable audience for its disinformation.

The network has operated with relative impunity for almost two years.

“Believe it or not she hasn’t done anything to get the page in trouble,” Devito said of his Israeli administrator. “I haven’t gotten anything from Facebook that ‘you’ve been posting inappropriate content that’s violated our community standards’ or anything of the sort. I’ve been very fortunate in that regard.”

As the network grew, so did its ability to influence the thinking of voters. By the time the Australian election came around in May, the pages were providing a significant platform for far-right candidates, including One Nation and Fraser Anning, a senator widely condemned for calling for a “final solution” to immigration.

The network boosted Anning and One Nation with 401 posts in the lead-up to the election, which attracted 82,025 likes, 18,748 comments and 33,730 shares.

A One Nation spokesman, James Ashby, said the network would not benefit the party, and engagement on leader Pauline Hanson’s personal page was far greater. “I would suggest the 401 posts you refer to has attracted a nanoscopic number of likes, comments and shares in comparison,” he said.

A spokesman for Anning said he was previously unaware of the network and did not believe it had helped his campaign.

It was a similar story in Canada. In the lead-up to the October election, the network pushed out 80 coordinated posts critical of Trudeau that were liked, shared or commented on 30,000 times.

In the UK, the network has savaged Corbyn. More than 510 coordinated posts have attacked the Labour leader since mid-2016, attracting 15,384 likes, 17,148 comments and 16,406 shares.

Facebook’s own definition of “coordinated inauthentic activity” reads like a blueprint for the network the Guardian has uncovered.

“Coordinated inauthentic behaviour is when groups of pages or people work together to mislead others about who they are or what they’re doing,” Facebook’s head of security policy, Nathaniel Gleicher, explained last year. “We might take a network down for making it look like it’s being run from one part of the world, when in fact it’s being run from another.

“This could be done for ideological purposes or it could be financially motivated. For example, spammers might seek to convince people to click on a link to visit their page or to read their posts.”

But Villereal said he had not heard from Facebook since the Israel-based administrator began distributing content from his page.

“I haven’t had no notifications from Facebook or anything like that about the content they’re posting: like spam risk or fake accounts or community violations or anything like that.”

Faked news, real consequences

In March this year, a 55-year-old Donald Trump supporter from upstate New York, Patrick Carlineo, placed a call to the office of Minnesota Democrat Ilhan Omar.

After getting through to a staff member, he accused Omar of being a terrorist before saying: “Why are you working for her, she’s a [expletive] terrorist. Somebody ought to put a bullet in her skull. Back in the day, our forefathers would have put a bullet in her [expletive].”

Carlineo, who pleaded guilty to placing the call last month, had for years been allowed to post violent and racist content to Facebook. In April, the Guardian revealed how he had frequently used the platform to taunt Muslims, attacking them with racist slurs and saying he wished he could confront a group of Muslim politicians with “a bucket of pig blood”.

The call was not an isolated attack. A Somali American, Omar, 37, is one of the first Muslim women in Congress and the first to wear a hijab in the House chamber. Since her election, she has been a lightning rod for attacks from the right.

Political opponents have pushed conspiracy theories and shared violent content about her on social media. In April the congresswoman said she faced an increase in death threats after Donald Trump accused her of downplaying the September 11 attacks.

She is also the most frequent target of the network. In the past two years, the Israeli group has pushed out more than 1,400 posts targeting Omar across the 21-page network which in turn have been “shared” more than 30,000 times.

“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Facebook’s complacency is a threat to our democracy,” Omar told the Guardian. “It has become clear that they do not take seriously the degree to which they provide a platform for white nationalist hate and dangerous misinformation in this country and around the world. And there is a clear reason for this: they profit off it. I believe their inaction is a grave threat to people’s lives, to our democracy and to democracy around the world.”

In November, a major study into Islamophobia from Charles Sturt University in Australia found a significant jump in the number of violent attacks against Muslim people, particularly women wearing head coverings.

Faruqi, a frequent target of abuse on and offline, said the far-right was relying on social media to “legitimise their hate and recruit”.

“Muslim women politicians tick both of their misogyny and racism boxes, so I end up as a target of a lot of their racist content,” she said.

“I’ve experienced a huge increase in racist and abusive social media comments, emails, phone calls and even handwritten letters since I’ve been in the public eye. There’s no doubt in my mind that many of the people behind these vile messages are emboldened by others on social media and Facebook pages like this.”

With David Smith in Washington

Read the whole story
1 day ago
delete facebook.
2 days ago
Washington, DC
Share this story

North Carolina Town Cancels Christmas Parade Because Float with Confederate Flag Might Draw Protestors

1 Comment
Pro-confederacy protestors hold up Christian Flags and Confederate flags inside a pen guarded by police.

Read the whole story
1 day ago
They are blaming anti racists for having to cancel a Christmas parade that includes and welcomes racists.
Share this story

How Quillete packages itself for so-called liberals


Make no bones about it, Quillette is an outrageously racist site. Here’s an article that compiles numerous examples of its biases.

Lehmann has said she started Quillette to counter what she calls “blank slate fundamentalism,” or the proposition that educational outcomes, career success, capacity for ethics, and economic class are determined more by environmental factors than genetic ones. That is to say, she believes that social status, morality or immorality, and, yes, income itself are all genetically based.

Lehmann told Politico that Quillette’s goal is “to broaden the Overton window”—that is to say, expand the limits of acceptable discourse. She didn’t stipulate that she wants these limits broadened only to the right, but she didn’t have to. Writing in Quillette, Lehmann said the Overton window should be shifted so that people can more openly denounce “immigration,” for example by trumpeting the Muslim heritage of sex-crime suspects.

The real question, though, is why so-called liberals support the site, or even read it. The answer to that is that it exploits the same cracks that were exploited by the right wing to fracture the atheist movement: anti-feminism, anti-Islam, anti-trans bigotry. The people who are otherwise horrified by racism will cheerfully overlook the glaringly illiberal perspective of the site to join in #metoo-, Islam-, or trans-bashing.

Perhaps the most important weapon Quillette uses is applying pressure on a few specific fault lines that divide liberal audiences, such as the MeToo movement. Quillette has recruited liberal men accused of sexual harassment or assault, like Elliott, and empowered them as experts on feminism. In his first Quillette piece, Elliott blasted the desire to “believe women,” and blamed one accuser for his poor book sales and his television agent’s not returning his calls. Elliott has since written three more pieces for the magazine and become one of its strongest partisans on Twitter, joking about a “Quillette Hot American Summer” and frequently retweeting the magazine’s diatribes against feminism. “Wow, Quillette has been killing it recently,” he said in one tweet.

Despite his public defense of the magazine, Elliott told me, “People say, ‘Oh they published this or that,’ and I don’t know what they’re talking about. I don’t read most of the articles in Quillette.” Asked about the magazine’s repeated promotion of racist pseudoscience, Elliott said, “I don’t agree with that, obviously. I’m a dyed-in-the-wool liberal.… The articles you’re talking about, I haven’t read. Maybe if I read one, it would be so offensive that I would say I can’t write for them anymore.”

You can’t be a “dyed-in-the-wool liberal” if you’re willing to smear women, Muslims, and trans persons. You’re just another bigot who only likes white Christian cis men.

Read the whole story
15 hours ago
Washington, DC
1 day ago
Share this story

I can’t abide Biden

1 Share

Please wipe that smirk off his face.

Especially not a Biden who is getting cocky. He thinks he has this whole thing in the bag. But it’s this failure of the system that really annoys me:

Biden’s confidence also rests on his position in South Carolina and a raft of Southern Super Tuesday states that include more diverse populations and more conservative Democrats. To that end, Biden said Monday, if he faltered in Iowa, he could still win the nomination. But if he won Iowa, Biden argued he’d be almost unstoppable.

And Biden said he doesn’t see anyone even close to him in South Carolina polling who could surge even if they won Iowa.

Iowa. South Carolina. Because of the screwy way our primaries are set up, these unrepresentative states early in the game have undue weight in determining who the rest of the country gets to vote on. Biden is relying on pandering to a few conservative states to game the system, and then the media will follow along and use the horserace model to let the early front-runner run away with it. Then, like Trump, he’ll rely on the aberration of the electoral college to give him a win. It’s no way to elect a president.

It’s a national office, have a day for national primaries. Then elect someone to the office on the basis of the popular vote with a national election. We have the last bit, but the rest…nope. It’s a disgrace.

That said, if he gets the nomination, even if it’s due to our broken, corrupt system, I’ll vote for him on election day. He’ll at least slow the country’s downward slide into fascism, but I don’t think he’ll do more than maintain the status quo.

Read the whole story
2 days ago
Share this story

FCC tries to bury finding that Verizon and T-Mobile exaggerated 4G coverage

1 Comment and 2 Shares

Verizon, T-Mobile, and US Cellular exaggerated their 4G coverage in official filings to the Federal Communications Commission, an FCC investigation found. But FCC officials confirmed that Chairman Ajit Pai does not plan to punish the three carriers in any way. Instead, the FCC intends to issue an enforcement advisory to the broader industry, reminding carriers "of the penalties associated with filings that violate federal law."

"Overstating mobile broadband coverage misleads the public and can misallocate our limited universal service funds, and thus it must be met with meaningful consequences," FCC staff said in an investigative report released today.

But there won't be any meaningful consequences for Verizon, T-Mobile, and US Cellular. "Based upon the totality of the circumstances, the investigation did not find a sufficiently clear violation of the MF-II [Mobility Fund Phase II] data collection requirements that warranted enforcement action," an FCC spokesperson told Ars via email.

In a call with reporters, a senior FCC official said that commission staff was unable to determine whether the carriers' exaggerations were deliberate. The official said that the investigation did not establish a clear violation of a specific rule. The FCC official said that maps submitted by carriers were based on industry-standard propagation models and that the FCC's own tests made it clear that those industry models do not reflect on-the-ground experience.

FCC officials conducted drive tests to determine whether the providers' reported coverage matched reality. The FCC staff report said:

Only 62.3 percent of staff drive tests achieved at least the minimum download speed predicted by the coverage maps—with US Cellular achieving that speed in only 45.0 percent of such tests, T-Mobile in 63.2 percent of tests, and Verizon in 64.3 percent of tests. Similarly, staff stationary tests showed that each provider achieved sufficient download speeds meeting the minimum cell edge probability in fewer than half of all test locations (20 of 42 locations). In addition, staff was unable to obtain any 4G LTE signal for 38 percent of drive tests on US Cellular's network, 21.3 percent of drive tests on T-Mobile's network, and 16.2 percent of drive tests on Verizon's network, despite each provider reporting coverage in the relevant area.

FCC buries news

The FCC in 2017 required carriers to file maps and data indicating their 4G LTE coverage in order to help the commission determine which rural areas should get $4.5 billion in Mobility Fund money over 10 years. But small, rural carriers pointed out that big carriers exaggerated their coverage, potentially preventing those small carriers from getting funding to improve connectivity in areas that lack good service. The small carriers' complaints triggered an FCC investigation in December 2018.

The FCC's announcement of that investigation's findings today came in an odd manner that seemed designed to minimize the amount of attention it gets. A finding that some of the biggest wireless carriers in the US exaggerated mobile broadband coverage is certainly important enough to be mentioned in the headline of an FCC announcement.

Instead, Pai's office announced the issuance of the investigative report in the third paragraph of a press release titled, "Chairman Pai announces plan to launch $9 billion 5G fund for rural America." Pai's press release referred generally to carriers overstating coverage, but it did not name any of the specific carriers that did so.

Pai's office also held a press call with reporters in which FCC officials focused almost entirely on the new 5G fund rather than the carriers' inaccurate filings. As a result, early news coverage of the announcement focused more on the 5G fund than on the carriers' misdeeds.

The two announcements are related, as the FCC said it will try to improve the accuracy of data collection for the 5G fund, which will replace the old Mobility Fund plan. The 5G fund will supply $9 billion to carriers over 10 years, while the Mobility Fund would have distributed $4.5 billion over 10 years for 4G coverage. The money comes from the Universal Service Fund, which is paid for by Americans through fees on their phone bills.

New data-collection system recommended

FCC officials didn't voluntarily bring up the topic of whether Verizon, T-Mobile, and US Cellular will be punished for exaggerating coverage. But FCC officials confirmed that Pai does not intend to take enforcement action in response to a question from a reporter during the press call and in response to a question from Ars via email.

But Pai does agree with all of the recommendations FCC staff made in its report, including the recommendation to issue an enforcement advisory to the industry, a senior FCC official said. While the FCC said it found no evidence of a violation of Mobility Fund rules, the commission has yet to determine whether carriers violated rules in the separate Form 477 data-collection program.

FCC staff recommended the following:

[T]he Commission should analyze and verify the technical mapping data submitted in the most recent Form 477 filings of Verizon, US Cellular, and T-Mobile to determine whether they meet the Form 477 requirements. Staff recommends that the Commission assemble a team with the requisite expertise and resources to audit the accuracy of mobile broadband coverage maps submitted to the Commission. The Commission should further consider seeking appropriations from Congress to carry out drive testing, as appropriate. While Form 477 currently affords providers significant discretion in determining the extent of their mobile broadband coverage, this discretion does not encompass reporting inaccurate mobile coverage across extended areas in which consumers cannot receive any wireless signal whatsoever.

FCC staff also recommended that the commission terminate the "challenge process" that resulted in small carriers pointing out errors in big carriers' maps.

"The MF-II coverage maps submitted by several providers are not a sufficiently reliable or accurate basis upon which to complete the challenge process as it was designed. The MF-II Challenge Process was designed to resolve coverage disputes regarding generally reliable maps; it was not designed to correct generally overstated coverage maps," the staff report said.

The FCC should come up with a better system to replace the challenge process, FCC staff said:

Mobile broadband coverage data specifications should include, among other parameters, minimum reference signal received power (RSRP) and/or minimum downlink and uplink speeds, standard cell loading factors and cell edge coverage probabilities, maximum terrain and clutter bin sizes, and standard fading statistics. Providers should be required to submit actual on-the-ground evidence of network performance (e.g., speed test measurement samplings, including targeted drive test and stationary test data) that validate the propagation model used to generate the coverage maps. The Commission should consider requiring that providers assume the minimum values for any additional parameters that would be necessary to accurately determine the area where a handset should achieve download and upload speeds no less than the minimum throughput requirement for any modeling that includes such a requirement.

Exaggerated coverage has been a problem both for mobile and home broadband, as Form 477 rules have long allowed each ISP to count an entire census block as served even if it can serve just one home in the block. The FCC voted in August to finally collect more accurate data, with a new requirement that home Internet providers give the FCC geospatial maps of where they provide service instead of merely reporting which census blocks they offer service in.

Read the whole story
3 days ago
Shocking: “But FCC officials confirmed that Chairman Ajit Pai does not plan to punish the three carriers in any way. ”
Washington, DC
3 days ago
Share this story

BREAKING! Donald Trump has email server in basement

1 Share

Or did he refuse a request for a diplomatic visa? Something like that there:

Donald Trump’s business reported conflicting information about a key metric to New York City property tax officials and a lender who arranged financing for his signature building, Trump Tower in Manhattan, according to tax and loan documents obtained by ProPublica. The findings add a third major Trump property to two for which ProPublica revealed similar discrepancies last month.

In the latest case, the occupancy rate of the Trump Tower’s commercial space was listed, over three consecutive years, as 11, 16 and 16 percentage points higher in filings to a lender than in reports to city tax officials, records show.


Trump had much to gain by showing a high occupancy rate to lenders in 2012: He refinanced his share of Trump Tower that year and obtained a $100 million loan on favorable terms.

I’m beginning to think that a campaign’s worth of reporting suggesting that Hillary Clinton was the most corrupt major party candidate in the 2016 election was somewhat misleading!


Read the whole story
5 days ago
Share this story
Next Page of Stories