September 2012

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski announced that the following items will be on the tentative agenda for the next open meeting scheduled for Wednesday, October 17, 2012:

1. Modernizing International Data Reporting Requirements Second Report and Order: The Commission will consider a Second Report and Order to streamline reporting requirements for international phone traffic, significantly reducing overall filing burdens while ensuring collection of the data need to protect consumers and competition in international markets.
2. Establishment of the Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP) Do-Not-Call Registry Report and Order: The Commission will consider a Report and Order that protects Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) from autodialed calls, which can tie up emergency-service telephone lines, by adopting rules that create a do-not-call registry of PSAP telephone numbers, prohibit autodialed non-emergency calls to those numbers, and implement specific monetary penalties for autodialing or disclosing registered PSAP numbers. These rules are mandated by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012.
3. Flexible Service Rules to Enable LTE Mobile Broadband in Wireless Communications Service (WCS) Spectrum and Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS) Order: The Commission will consider an Order on reconsideration that will revise the WCS rules to facilitate use of 30 megahertz of spectrum for wireless broadband service while protecting SDARS against harmful interference.

[Commentary] Earlier this week, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) released a letter she had sent to White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Michael Daniel urging the White House, as it considers issuing an Executive Order to regulate cybersecurity, to only focus on “genuinely” critical infrastructure. Common sense says that Rep. Lofgren’s approach is the right one.

It doesn’t make sense for the White House to issue an Executive Order requiring agencies, especially during these tight budgetary times, to be conducting risk assessments and developing standards for my Facebook wall, Bing searches, and Amazon purchases or wish lists. I even wonder how such an order would look, especially given the constant changes and advances being made in those areas, as well as the emergence of new innovative sites and actors in those spaces. As Congress and the Administration continue to grapple with cybersecurity for government and critical infrastructures in the national security arena, future discussions should consider the nexus between national security and economic security and how to construct a holistic approach to address both while also recognizing the inherent differences in how and why to protect our nation’s assets or, in an individual’s case, social networking likes and 140-word missives.

[Jessica R. Herrera-Flanigan is a partner at the Monument Policy Group]

The Measuring Broadband America Program (Program) developed out of the nation’s first National Broadband Plan. In the two years since the launch of this Program, it has increased in scope and complexity. Thus, the Commission has decided that it is appropriate to make a separate docket for the Program at this time. Previously, Program filings were predominantly submitted to CG Docket No. 09-158, CC Docket No. 98-170, and WC Docket No. 04-36.1 By this Public Notice, the Commission announces that all future filings related to this Program should be directed to GN Docket No. 12-264. Commission filings will no longer be submitted to CG Docket No. 09-158, CC Docket No. 98-170, and WC Docket No. 04-36, and will instead be submitted to the GN Docket No. 12-264.

[Commentary] Recently, arguments against network neutrality as a “solution in search of a problem” have resurfaced. People who make this argument essentially claim either 1) discrimination predicted by Public Knowledge (and the Federal Communications Commission) will never actually come to pass, or 2) discrimination can be benign or even beneficial. These arguments are not persuasive, especially in light of recent examples of discrimination by service providers.

Companies have already engaged in the exact behavior that created the need for an open Internet rule. Discrimination by Internet Service Providers could be seen in two lights: it could benefit consumers by providing Quality of Service when it is most needed and by more accurately meeting the demands of users; alternatively, it could be used as a way to stifle innovation, shut out competition, and harm users that rely on, or would benefit from, such innovation (the latter could be achieved intentionally or unintentionally and it does not matter—the harm is there regardless). By requiring a neutral Internet, the FCC decided that the benefits provided by enhanced Quality of Service et al. were outweighed by the benefits provided at the edges of the network by a truly open platform.