October 2015

A decision on whether to start tacking Universal Service fees onto Internet customers’ bills has been delayed amid ongoing litigation over neworkt neutrality rules, according to a Federal Communications Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel. During her re-confirmation hearing, Commissioner Rosenworcel said a decision from the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, on which she sits, will not come until there is more certainty about the classification of broadband Internet service.

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-SD) pressed her on whether the delay signaled a lack of confidence that the rules would be upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. "I have no crystal ball," Commissioner Rosenworcel said about the court's decision, adding that she has confidence in how the rules were written. But she said with resources "constrained" at the FCC, it would be prudent to hold off on a decision until there is more "legal certainty."

The House Communications Subcommittee spent over two hours going over myriad legislative proposals to remove barriers to broadband infrastructure deployment, including streamlining permitting, making it easier to string wires on polls—by extending mandatory access provisions of telecom law to access to poles on federal lands—"dig once" mandates, and much more. They include a pole attachments bill discussion draft, H.R. 3805, the Broadband Conduit Deployment Act of 2015, a "dig once" bill to insure fiber conduit gets deployed whenever roads are built with federal funds, a Historical Review of Broadband Facilities Discussion Draft, an Agencies Locate Broadband Facilities Discussion Draft, a GSA Deadlines Discussion Draft, and an Inventory of Federal Assets Discussion Draft.

Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) suggested the bills could still use improvement, but that they were bipartisan proposals that could help boost infrastructure deployment by cutting down on "uncertainty and delay." That includes by requiring a government database of federal infrastructure assets, and requiring access to poles on federal lands at a statutorily regulated rate. Together, the bills are "intended to improve and streamlining government processes," said Ranking Member Anna Eshoo (D-CA). She called them all "really terrific ideas," and pushed for packaging them together and passing them as one bill. She said collectively, the bills "would put a dent in the problem that we have."

[Commentary] Donald Trump is known for making zany and inflammatory comments on everything from immigration to vaccines. So I was hoping his interview with Breitbart News's Milo Yiannopoulos would provide some color to my beat, the often-dry topic of technology policy. Yet Trump carefully avoided saying anything controversial -- or even interesting -- about these topics:

On NSA surveillance, he argued that the agency should be "given as much leeway as possible" without violating the Fourth Amendment. But he also said that there "must be a balance between those Constitutional protections and the role of the government in protecting its citizens.
On cybersecurity, Trump said that "the American government has a responsibility to defend the nation from all attacks, kinetic, cyber or otherwise." He also took took a bold stand against Chinese hacking.
Trump wants to "ensure that the intellectual property produced in America remains the property of those who produce it."

For a guy who's known for his controversial comments, the banality of these positions is striking. He doesn't say anything about the cybersecurity bill that just passed the Senate, the patent reform bill that's currently pending in Congress, or the controversy over the NSA spying on telephone records. It seems Trump either doesn't want to alienate anyone with strong opinions on tech policy issues -- or hasn't studied these issues enough to develop specific positions.