October 2015

Cybersecurity Bill Nears Crucial Senate Vote

The Senate is poised to take up a controversial cybersecurity bill that has drawn the ire of privacy advocates. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said he plans to begin debate on Oct 20 on the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA), which would encourage private companies to share information about cyberthreats with each other and with the federal government. "We intend to pass the cybersecurity bill," Majority Leader McConnell said. "It enjoys significant bipartisan support and we think it's important. And we intend to see it through to completion hopefully early next week."

Before leaving for the August recess, Senators reached an agreement to vote on the bill as well as 22 amendments, which touch on everything from privacy protections for individuals to liability protections for companies. The vote, however, was post-poned, as the Senate dealt with other time-sensitive issues like the debt ceiling and President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. With no time agreement, voting on 22 amendments could take far more time than the Senate has to spare. For that reason, the bill's co-sponsors, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) and Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), are working with other Senators to bundle a number of amendments together into a single "manager's" amendment. "There'll be some of the 22 that find their way [into the manager's amendment]," Chairman Burr said. "Probably eight or nine."

Will We See a "Safe Harbor 2.0" Soon?

[Commentary] At first I expected the European Commission to patch the current safe harbor within weeks or months. This is also the approach the European Commission is currently working on. After a second review of the European Court of Justice's (ECJ) judgment, it will be very hard to come up with a solution that addresses all problems identified by the Court, given the US position. It also seems questionable if a "Safe Harbor 2.0" will have real benefits for US controllers in practice compared to transfer methods under Art 26 of Directive 95/46.

It will be very interesting to watch the dynamics in the coming months. After thinking through the options under the ECJ ruling, it seems that the intended “quick fix” will hardly lead to a new Safe Harbor that provides the necessary legal certainty for controllers. Minding that the two parties have debated for two years to not even get the (very weak) “13 recommendations” program by the European Commission done, it seems a switch to “alternative” transfer methods under Art 26 will be more reasonable than hoping for a Safe Harbor 2.0.

Verizon's Shammo: We'll be in the 600 MHz auction, but more interested in high-band spectrum like AWS

Verizon Communications plans to participate in 2016's incentive auction of 600 MHz broadcast TV spectrum, but the company is more interested in acquiring higher-band spectrum for capacity, according to a senior Verizon executive. Verizon CFO Fran Shammo noted that Verizon first deployed LTE using nationwide, contiguous 700 MHz spectrum. "That doesn't mean that we can't operate with 600," he said. "But 600 and 700 don't play well together. There's a lot of interference. So where we have 700 there would be a lot of work to deploy 600 MHz spectrum."

Shammo said there are areas where Verizon could use more lower-band spectrum, "but it's probably not the top priority. We like the higher band like AWS." There has been speculation that Dish Network and Verizon could strike a deal for Verizon to get access to Dish's spectrum, most of which sits around the 2 GHz band. The companies would need to strike a deal soon ahead of the Federal Communications Commission imposing anti-collusion rules that prohibit discussions of spectrum agreements ahead of the incentive auction, or would otherwise need to wait until the latter part of 2016 to make a deal after that auction ends.

Why Google and TiVo are facing off against Comcast and Hollywood

Third-party set-top boxes, with certain exceptions, can't get easy access to that live content. How to fix that is shaping up to be a big fight involving some of America's biggest companies, ranging from Google to Comcast. And the outcome could define how you watch your subscription channels for years to come. On one side, you have cable companies that want you to get your cable or satellite TV channels -- such as ESPN or HGTV -- through apps that they design and control. These apps would show up on your iPhone, Xbox One, Fire TV and other devices as coming from Comcast or Time Warner Cable, or whomever your pay-TV company happens to be. Cable operators say replicating the existing pay-TV experience on other devices this way is the only realistic method to honor the complicated rights contracts they have with film and TV creators.

For critics of the pay-TV industry, changing the marketplace is the whole point. These consumer advocates and companies want more freedom to create a world where the TV programming doesn't feel so tied to your cable company. Instead, they envision being able to plug different devices into your subscription and getting a different layout and interface every time. At the center of the fight is Hollywood, whose films and TV shows stand to be powerfully affected by the decisions that get made here. And it's warning that opening up pay-TV channels would be bad for business, and possibly even unconstitutional.

Special Access and the FCC’s Regulatory Revival

[Commentary] Over the past five years the Federal Communications Commission either has, or has sought to, undermine a large part of the bi-partisan deregulatory achievements of the past two decades. On Oct 16, the FCC added on more item to this growing list when the Wireline Competition Bureau issued an Order launching an investigation into the contract terms of Special Access services offered by the nation’s largest phone companies (including AT&T, Centurylink, Frontier and Verizon). At the heart of the matter are claims by the large phone company customers (e.g., Sprint, Level 3, Windstream, BT Americas, XO, and so forth) that they are no longer happy with the terms of their contracts, including the terms for volume discounts that require the buyers hold relatively stable their purchases over the contract horizon.

The earlier FCC data request on pricing was, in the end, so limited that it will shed little light on the service. This new investigation will eventually reach its own dead end -- it’s targeted to a diversion and the deals it will study are too complex for regulatory control. What the Commission’s Investigation Order does do is signal once more to investors that this Administration is committed to shifting value out of the network core. As a result, investors will increase their assessment of risk in the sector with predictable consequences -- less competition and less investment.

Verizon's Shammo: We'll have FiOS coverage in 70 percent of our East Coast Footprint

Verizon may be selling off a sizeable piece of its wireline network base to Frontier, but the service provider will have a concentrated fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) base allowing it to effectively compete with Altice when the France-based company completes its Cablevision acquisition. Speaking to investors during the carrier's third-quarter 2015 earnings call, Fran Shammo, CFO and EVP of Verizon, said that it has surpassed its FiOS FTTH build commitments and will continue to invest in its overall wireline network.

"With the three divestitures in the South, they were more or less footprints that were not contiguous to anything else and most of that property was copper not fiber," Shammo said. "When we look at the East Coast, we'll have covered over 70 percent of the footprint with our FiOS product and we're very committed to it." Shammo added that "we're investing over $4 billion in our wireline company a year so that shows our capital commitment from a capital investment perspective."

Verizon exec hints that Comcast, others will execute on mobile virtual network operator deal

It sounds like Comcast and perhaps Time Warner Cable, Bright House Networks and Cox Communications may be preparing to execute on their mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) deals with Verizon, and that offering, as rumored, will probably be a Wi-Fi-first mobile service. Fran Shammo, CFO of Verizon, said that Verizon has been notified that the cable companies will execute on the 2011 MVNO deal but said he would not discuss specifics of the agreements. "Obviously the industry is moving. Cable will do what they are going to do and we will do what we will do," Shammo said.

However, he then emphasized Verizon's views on Wi-Fi as a complementary service and not a replacement for LTE. "Wi-Fi will not replace LTE," he said. The Verizon MVNO agreement with the cable companies stems from Verizon's 2011 purchase of AWS-1 spectrum from Comcast, TWC, Bright House and Cox. The FCC approved the deal in the summer of 2012 and permitted the MVNO agreement, but the cable companies so far have not launched wireless offerings related to the deal. It's been widely rumored for the past few months that Comcast was planning to execute on its agreement with Verizon and would use that deal as an entry point to launch a Wi-Fi-first service.