July 2017

How Smart Devices Could Violate Your Privacy

Where smart technologies are concerned, the expectation of privacy extends only from the consumer to machine. Once the machine communicates with an outside server – even where data is sent to a server controlled by the product's manufacturer – privacy is violated. Currently, law enforcement can obtain a search warrant compelling a third party to turn over data recorded by the smart device if the company can control or access the information.

The Supreme Court has yet to consider a case that specifically addresses whether, in an era of modern technology where we regularly choose to give personal data to third parties, a person should have an expectation of privacy in the information. As the law stands, once information is voluntarily disclosed to a third party, he does not. One case currently pending at the Supreme Court may tee up the issue of the Third Party Doctrine in the digital age, but until the Court takes on such a case, this premise holds true. It seems the one thing technologists and lawyers alike agree on is that the "right" to privacy could be overcome by technology very soon. The danger is that the new standard will become: You have the right to remain silent, but your smart home does not.

Twitter faces new criticism from Congress amid charges it briefly blocked net neutrality critics

Sens Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Roy Blunt (R-MO) sharply rebuked Twitter following reports that the website briefly blocked its users from posting links to a blog post that criticized the US government’s network neutrality rules. Twitter previously had described the mishap as a glitch, but Sens Johnson and Blunt still penned a letter that slammed the company’s chief executive, Jack Dorsey, for an incident that appeared to lawmakers to be “an affront to free expression.”

The confusing saga began on July 12, the day that Twitter joined Facebook, Google and other tech giants for an online rally in defense of an open internet. But those who sought to share the company’s blog post could not do so on Twitter. For a time, the site marked the link as suspicious and blocked new tweets containing it. That immediately led to cries of censorship, given Twitter’s public participation in the day of action in support of net neutrality — and on the opposite side of the debate from AT&T. A Twitter spokesman at the time said the link was “erroneously caught in Twitter's anti-spam filters” and quickly remedied the mistake. But the fracas still managed to reach Capitol Hill, where Sens Johnson and Blunt on Tuesday described the incident in a letter to Dorsey as “disturbing.”

'Confused' Public Needs Help on Net Neutrality, Rep Brooks Says

Rep Susan Brooks (R-IN) told a packed room of small and mid-sized cable operators here that the government should back away from burdensome internet regulation, and called on the crowd to help explain to consumers how the current rules could hurt. “We have to provide a framework that offers a guardrail,” said Rep Brooks, who sits on the Commerce Committee and represents most of northern Indianapolis. “But we can’t be so restrictive that we are impeding all the innovation and all the advances in technology.”

Part of the problem with building momentum for the changes is public support, and the fact that the true definition of “net neutrality” has been hijacked by some groups to fit their own point of view — and business strategy, Rep Brooks said. “We do believe in an open internet,” she said, “and we don’t believe in throttling or blocking customers’ signals for any reason." But, she said, “There is no subject more confused in the mind of the pubic than net neutrality.” “We need to figure out a way to talk about this differently,” she said, with more simplicity. “We get thousands of calls and letters on this issue. People do not understand.”

Inside Sinclair: CEO Nixes Fox News Rival Rumors, Talks Tribune & Big Ambition for Broadcast Biz

Of the many challenges Fox News Channel is facing amid a turbulent year, there’s one threat Rupert Murdoch can cross off the list: Sinclair Broadcast Group has no plans to launch a rival conservative-friendly TV network. Chris Ripley, CEO of the Hunt Valley (MD)-based TV-station giant, is ready to end months of speculation that his company was preparing to mount a competitive threat in the wake of its $3.9 billion deal to acquire Tribune Media in May. “After we acquired Allbritton [Communications] in 2014, we looked hard at launching a national cable news channel, but we decided the world didn’t need another cable news platform,” says Ripley, who makes clear that the rise of Donald Trump and the upheaval at Fox News haven’t changed his calculus. “Our strength is local news,” he maintains. “The market for national cable news is very well served.”

Is a Verizon FirstNet Plan in the Works? FCC Letter Seeks Clarification

When the Commerce Department earlier in 2017 awarded the contract to build the FirstNet nationwide mobile broadband public safety network to AT&T, it wasn’t a done deal for all 50 states. Individual states still must opt in (which at least five already have done) or opt out of AT&T’s plan for the state. And as a Verizon FirstNet letter sent to the Federal Communications Commission July 24 illustrates, there are a lot of questions about what opting out means.

As Verizon notes in the letter, states opting out are permitted to use a different network operator to build and operate the public safety network within the state, as long as the network is interoperable with FirstNet. But there are some major gray areas, according to Verizon, including whether or not an individual state can use their selected carrier’s “network core” to support the state’s public safety network. The “network core” includes “data centers and systems used to interconnect users to each other and to other public networks,” Verizon said.

Broadband Expansion Initiatives Lack Accountability, Rural Advocates Say

Legislation that would give telecommunication companies tax breaks for expanding high-speed internet access doesn’t include proper oversight controls to ensure firms invest in areas where it’s most needed, public interest groups say. The pushback reflects a potentially divisive fight on an issue — expanding internet access to underserved areas — that generally has bipartisan support. The Gigabit Opportunity Act, sponsored by Sen Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), would provide state governors the flexibility to choose low-income areas to be designated as GO zones, investments for which telecoms could claim write-offs. Eligibility would also require states and municipalities to adopt model codes to “streamline” local regulations. Those codes are being written by the FCC’s Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee.

Some local entities are wary of pre-emption of their powers to set rates for pole attachments and other permitting procedures. The congressional proposals don’t address the real problem — lack of will by providers to invest in low-density areas where its hard to turn a profit, said Martha Duggan, senior director of regulatory affairs for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. “The irony is that we are the unserved communities, we want that connectivity,” Duggan said at the BDAC meeting. “I can tell you stories of municipalities that have offered zero-cost rates for pole attachments if the providers will come out and build in our areas. None have taken us up on that so far.”

Remarks of FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly Before the Free State Foundation

Today’s topic – Next Generation 5G Wireless Networks: Seizing the Opportunities and Overcoming the Obstacles – is one of great importance. Countries across the globe are vying to shape the next generation of mobile technologies and grab their slice of the economic bounty. There is no time to sit on the sidelines when everyone, including the standard bodies, have expedited their work to enable deployments as early as 2019. So, how do we “seize the opportunity” that future wireless technologies provide and remain the global leader in wireless, while overcoming the many obstacles – or challenges – that lie in the way?