April 2012

Seven co-sponsors of CISPA cybersecurity bill voted against it

Five Democratic and two Republican co-sponsors of the Cyber Information Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) reversed course and voted against the bill on the House floor.

The Democratic co-sponsors who voted against it were Reps. Joe Baca (CA), Anna Eshoo (CA), Luis Gutierrez (IL), Alcee Hastings (FL) and Michael Michaud (Maine). The Republicans were Reps. Mo Brooks (AL) and Ralph Hall (TX). The White House issued a veto threat the day before the House voted, saying the bill lacked adequate privacy protections and would fail to protect critical infrastructure, such as electrical grids or chemical plants. Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), one of the authors of CISPA, told The Hill that Democratic lawmakers grilled him about his bill during a caucus meeting after the White House came out against it.

A step-by-step guide to making CISPA suck less

[Commentary] Here’s a step-by-step guide Congress can follow in order to quell any concerns about how CISPA will be used.

Step 1: Figure out what you actually want
Step 2: Let’s see some conditions
Step 3: Lose the black box
Step 4: If all else fails, make it longer
Step 5 (for citizens): Contact your senators

FCC Modernizes Broadcast Television Public Inspection Files to Give the Public Online Access to Information Previously Available Only at TV Stations

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) updated existing broadcast television disclosure procedures to move stations’ public files from paper to the Internet. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and Commissioner Mignon Clyburn voted to affirm the entire order, which includes requiring the broadcasters' public files -- including their political files -- be moved online over a two year period. The adopted Report and Order requires television stations to post their public files online in a central, FCC-hosted online database rather than maintaining paper files locally at their main studios. The Order modernizes the filing process, making it easier for consumers to access information about their broadcast services without having to travel to the station’s main studio.

In 2002, Congress directed the Commission to ensure public availability of the political files. The Second Report and Order tailors the uploading of the political portion of the public file to minimize broadcaster burdens. Broadcasters will not be required to upload existing materials in these “political files” to the online website. Rather, stations will need only to upload new political file documents going forward. In addition, for the next two years only stations that are affiliated with the top four national networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox) and are licensed to serve communities in the top 50 Designated Market Areas (DMAs) are required to post political file documents online.

FCC’s Genachowski Got His Way, But at What Cost

[Commentary] I call it a missed opportunity. Had Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski gone with the broadcasters' compromise on posting political advertising online, reporters in the lead-up to the Nov. 6 general election would have been able to go online and quickly and easily find how much each candidate, PAC and political advocacy was spending for spots on any station. Such info would have provided the reporters and other interested parties all the data necessary to deduce the advertising tactics of the candidates and causes — arguably the biggest factor in determining winners and losers. The compromise had the beauty of simplicity. In essence, stations would provide all information about the sponsor of a particular spot it had, be it candidate, PAC or advocacy group; report the amount of the latest buy; and give running totals for each sponsor. The info would be presented in a common format that anybody could understand. In the 60 days before a general election, the broadcasters would make the info available every other day; and, in the last week, they would post it every day. But Chairman Genachowski wanted nothing to do with the compromise.

FCC Adopts Rules to Help Consumers Identify and Prevent Unauthorized Mystery Fees, Known as "Cramming," on Phone Bills

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took steps to protect Americans from difficult-to-detect fraudulent charges on their landline phone bills. The new rules combat “cramming,” the illegal placement of unauthorized charges on a consumer’s monthly phone bill. The FCC also asked for comment on additional ways consumers can protect themselves against this troubling activity.

Specifically, the new rules:

Require telephone companies to notify subscribers at the point of sale, on each bill, and on their websites of the option to block third-party charges from their landline telephone bills, if the carrier offers that option;
Strengthen the Commission’s requirement that third-party charges be separated from the landline telephone company’s charges on phone bills; and
Ask whether the FCC should adopt additional protections, such as requiring landline telephone companies to get consumer consent before placing those charges on their telephone bills if the company already offers to block those charges.

FCC Adopts New Rules Permitting TV Channel Sharing by Broadcasters; Enacts First Step Towards Freeing Up Spectrum Under Incentive Auction

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took its first step toward making a significant portion of spectrum currently used by the broadcast television service available for new uses. The Report and Order, in anticipation of a future incentive auction to address the nation’s growing demand for wireless broadband, allows multiple broadcast stations to elect to stream individual programming while sharing a single channel. The new rules apply to full power and Class A television stations, including both commercial and noncommercial educational television stations.

Specifically, the Report and Order establishes a framework for how two or more television licensees may voluntarily share a single six MHz channel in conjunction with the auction process:

While stations will need to retain at least one standard definition programming stream to meet the FCC’s requirement of providing an over-the-air video broadcast at no direct charge to viewers, they will have the flexibility of tailoring their channel sharing agreements to meet their individual programming and economic needs.
Stations sharing together will employ a single channel and transmission facility but will each continue to be licensed separately, retain its original call sign, retain all the rights pertaining to an FCC license, and remain subject to all of the FCC’s rules, policies, and obligations.

The rules neither increase nor decrease the cable and satellite carriage rights currently afforded broadcast licensees. Nor does the Report and Order act on the proposals in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to establish fixed and mobile allocations in the U/V bands or to improve TV service on VHF channels. The FCC will address the allocation issue in a future rulemaking, and may address the VHF issues at a later date as well.

FCC Reforms Seek Efficient, Fair USF Contribution System

Continuing its overhaul and modernization of the Universal Service Fund (USF), the Federal Communications Commission launched reform of how funding is collected to support universal access to voice and broadband. The overarching goal of reform: ensuring delivery of voice and broadband communications to all Americans and achieving core FCC objectives of promoting broadband innovation, investment and adoption. The Notice seeks comment on the appropriate transition periods for reforms to allow service providers and consumers to adapt.

With reforms in place to contain spending, this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking examines ways to pay for USF more fairly and efficiently. USF is paid for by an assessment on the interstate and international revenues of carriers, such as long-distance revenues, as well as Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP providers). Contributors may bill consumers and business customers for the cost. The Notice builds on the FCC’s efforts to limit the Fund’s burden on consumers and businesses while modernizing USF for the 21st century.

In particular, the Notice asks:

What services and service providers should contribute to the fund
How should contributions should be assessed -- on revenues, the number of connections, by phone numbers, or a hybrid approach
How to reduce the cost, promote transparency and increase clarity of the contribution system
Whether consumers could benefit from increased transparency and limitations on how providers recover their USF costs

Data Harvesting at Google Not a Rogue Act, Report Finds

Google’s harvesting of e-mails, passwords and other sensitive personal information from unsuspecting households in the United States and around the world was neither a mistake nor the work of a rogue engineer, as the company long maintained, but a program that supervisors knew about, according to new details from the full text of a regulatory report.

The report, prepared by the Federal Communications Commission after a 17-month investigation of Google’s Street View project, was released, heavily redacted, two weeks ago. Although it found that Google had not violated any laws, the agency said Google had obstructed the inquiry and fined the company $25,000. On April 28, Google released a version of the report with only employees’ names redacted. The full version draws a portrait of a company where an engineer can easily embark on a project to gather personal e-mails and Web searches of potentially hundreds of millions of people as part of his or her unscheduled work time, and where privacy concerns are shrugged off. The so-called payload data was secretly collected between 2007 and 2010 as part of Street View, a project to photograph streetscapes over much of the civilized world. When the program was being designed, the report says, it included the following “to do” item: “Discuss privacy considerations with Product Counsel.” “That never occurred,” the report says.

US Antitrust Move Has Google Fighting on Two Fronts

Google may soon be fighting antitrust battles on two fronts. The European Commission has been looking for two years into whether the search giant abused local competition laws, and it is expected soon to either file formal charges or achieve a significant settlement.

Now the Federal Trade Commission, which began examining Google last year, is starting its own antitrust inquiry. The commission hired a former federal prosecutor this week to lead any potential case. “The European Commission and the FTC are investigating the same things,” said Keith N. Hylton, a Boston University law professor. But, he added, Google faces a tougher situation in Europe, where courts have a lower threshold for assessing market dominance. Also, antitrust regulators in Europe are much more powerful than they are in the United States. For instance, they do not need a court order to impose sanctions.

Silicon Valley finding Washington regulators uncomfortably close

The message Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz delivered this week: Google and other big tech firms may operate thousands of miles from the nation's capital but they're not beyond the reach of federal regulators. Silicon Valley likes to hold itself out as a paragon of corporate virtue, but increasingly federal and state authorities are not buying the "don't be evil" slogan. Unlike oil or pharmaceutical companies that have to work hard to gloss their public image, Silicon Valley — filled with energetic young entrepreneurs building the next generation of gadgets and apps — is celebrated for driving the U.S. economy in tough economic times. But that high shine occasionally gets tinged.

Benton

Search