1. Monthly archive
  2. May 2016

May 2016

CBO Scores FCC Reform Bill (HR 2592)

HR 2592, a bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require the Federal Communications Commission to publish on the website of the Commission documents to be voted on by the Commission, would prohibit the FCC from adopting certain orders, decisions, reports, or actions by a commission vote unless the text of the item was published on the agency’s website either within 24 hours of the text being made available to the commissioners or at least 21 days before a vote on the item is to occur.

Based on information from the FCC, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that complying with the requirements in HR 2592 would have no significant effect on the agency’s workload or costs because current FCC rules place a similar requirement upon the agency. Moreover, under current law, the FCC is authorized to collect fees sufficient to offset the cost of its regulatory activities each year. Therefore, CBO estimates that the net cost to implement HR 2592 would be negligible, assuming annual appropriation actions consistent with the agency’s authorities. Because enacting HR 2592 would not affect direct spending or revenues, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. CBO estimates that enacting HR 2592 would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027. HR 2592 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.

Federal cellphone guidelines could undergo 'tweaks' after cancer study

Federal cellphone guidelines for consumers could undergo "tweaks" after a major government study found a link between tumors and exposure to cellphone-type radiation in rats, according to a head of the agency that oversaw the study.

John Bucher, the associate director of the US National Toxicology Program, said the decision will ultimately be up to other agencies like the Food and Drug Administration or the Federal Communications Commission. "If anything there may be some tweaks to these recommendations. We don't know at this point," he said. The rats in the study were exposed to near-constant levels of radio frequency radiation. While the waves are similar to those emitted by cellphones, the rats were exposed to much heavier levels than is associated with typical cellphone use. Bucher said it is still too early to say how the results translate to humans. "This is a study that is looking at the biological plausibility of carcinogenic effects due to cellphone radiation," he said. "The direct translation of these finding to the way humans are using cellphones is not currently completely worked out. That is part of the evaluation that is going forward." "This may have relevance; it may have no relevance," he added, noting that the study has not changed the way he uses a cellphone. The FCC said it had been briefed on the study and noted that scientific evidence always informs its work on the matter.

Constitutional Scholar: FCC Broadband Privacy Proposal Violates First Amendment

Internet service providers wired and wireless have submitted a paper to the Federal Communications Commission by constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe that says the commission's broadband privacy proposal threatens speech rights. The National Cable & Telecommunications Association, CTIA and USTelecom commissioned the paper. "The FCC’s proposed rules would violate the First Amendment," Tribe concluded. "At minimum, they raise a host of grave constitutional questions and should not be adopted."

The FCC is proposing to require ISPs to get affirmative (opt in) permission from subs to share information with third parties in most instances, a requirement not placed on edge providers like Google and Facebook for their own data collection and monetizing. Tribe is a voice of experience on the CPNI (customer proprietary network information) issue, the groups point out, having successfully challenged the voice CPNI order in US West Communications, Inc. v. FCC. He says the FCC proposal clearly triggers First Amendment scrutiny and clearly does not fare well in that examination. "The proposal runs afoul of fundamental First Amendment limits on the FCC’s authority to regulate customer information," he said. Tribe says the proposal restricts "a great deal of speech" and draws "impermissible content-based distinctions" based on what marketers say.

New privacy rules for Internet service would be illegal, providers say

As we spend more of our time and money on the Internet, the big companies responsible for connecting you to it are becoming more interested in using your browsing history and online habits in the same way that Google or Facebook does — turning that valuable behavioral information into ad dollars and using the data to power new online services to compete with Web companies. Now, Internet providers are working to thwart a federal proposal aimed at enhancing your online privacy, in the latest battle between industry and government regulators over the future of the Web.

The industry says new government privacy rules would constrain how its ad-supported programs can work, which would put it at a disadvantage relative to Internet companies. "The commission’s proposed rules," according to the wireless trade group CTIA, "would prevent ISPs from adopting this business model, while allowing other online entities to continue doing so." For better or for worse, that single sentence just sums up how similar Internet providers and Internet businesses have become.

Supreme Court shows the way on privacy regulations

[Commentary] In a recent 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court struck a blow for a more rational and consumer-friendly privacy regime by coming down in favor of a "harms-based approach." Although the opinion focused on standing rather than regulatory policy, agencies that enforce privacy regulations, such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) — the latter of which has proposed major new privacy regulations for internet service providers (ISPs) — should take a lesson from the Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins decision.

The Spokeo case involved a complaint under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, where the plaintiff alleged that the information in his Spokeo profile was not accurate. Spokeo, according to its website, is a "people search engine that organizes white pages information, public records, and social network information into simple profiles to help you safely find and learn about people." The FCC, in its pending proposal to limit data collection by ISPs without evidence of consumer harm, is taking precisely the wrong approach and not heeding the suggestions of the Supreme Court and the White House. This is a recipe for regulation that will impose costs on consumers without corresponding benefits.

[Lenard is president and senior fellow at the Technology Policy Institute.]

FCC Announces the Availability of Incentive Auction Info Through Public Reporting System

The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) and the Incentive Auction Task Force announce the availability of the Incentive Auction Public Reporting System (PRS) and describe the bidding information that will be available through the PRS as the reverse auction (Auction 1001) and forward auction (Auction 1002) of the broadcast incentive auction progress.

FCC Announces Comment and Reply Deadlines for Video Description Expansion Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

On April 1, 2016, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in MB Docket No. 11-43 that seeks comment on both tentative conclusions and proposals regarding additional video description rules, including their costs and benefits. The Commission set deadlines for filing comments and reply comments at 30 and 60 days, respectively, after publication of the NPRM in the Federal Register. A summary of the NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 27, 2016, which established deadlines of June 27, 2016 for comments and July 26, 2016 for reply comments. Commenters should follow the filing instructions provided in paragraph 45 of the NPRM. The NPRM is also available on the Commission’s website.

© 1994-2025 Benton Institute for Broadband & Society. All Rights Reserved.