Daily Digest 6/21/2018 (FCC's July Agenda)

The White House is in the early stages of determining what a federal approach to online data privacy should look like. The preliminary conversations show that the White House wants a voice in the contentious domestic and global debate about how to protect consumer privacy online. Gail Slater, special assistant to President Donald Trump for tech, telecom and cyber policy at the White House National Economic Council, has met with industry groups to discuss possible ways to put in place guardrails for the use of personal data, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter. Apparently, there are several possible outcomes from the conversations the White House is having:

• An executive order directing one or more agencies to develop a privacy framework. That could direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology, an arm of the Commerce Department, to work with industry and other experts to come up with guidelines. The process would likely be similar to the one the Obama administration launched on cybersecurity in 2013. Congress later supported the continued work on the standards, and President Trump required the use of the framework to help manage government agencies' cyber risk.
• An executive order could also kick off a public-private partnership to lay out voluntary privacy best practices, which could become de-facto standards. However, it's unclear how an executive order would affect the Federal Trade Commission, which is an independent agency charged with keeping an eye on private sector privacy issues.

A California network neutrality bill that advocates hailed as the “gold standard” for Internet protections was “eviscerated,” its chief backer said, in a committee hearing the morning of June 20.  In an 8-0 vote, the state Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee adopted amendments to SB822, by CA State Sen Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), which stripped it of provisions that would have given the state the strongest prohibitions against discriminatory treatment of Internet traffic in the country. “It is no longer a net neutrality bill,” a visibly frustrated state Sen Wiener said after the vote. In an unusual move, the committee voted on the bill before Wiener was given a chance to testify. “I will state for the record ... I think it was fundamentally unfair,” he said.

The committee, led by Assemblyman Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles), issued amendments to the bill late on the night of June 19. Among its recommendations were to permit a controversial internet service provider practice called “zero rating,” where some websites and apps don’t count against a consumer’s data allotment. The committee voted to move the bill to the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee despite state Sen Wiener’s objections. Wiener asked to withdraw the bill, which would have likely killed the proposal because of an upcoming June 29 deadline to pass all policy bills. “These California Democrats will go down in history as among the worst corporate shills that have ever held elected office. Californians should rise up and demand that at their Assembly members represent them. The actions of this committee today are an attack not just on net neutrality, but on our democracy,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future.

[Op-ed] Nationwide, nearly two in five homeless youth identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. That adds up to 650,000 young people on our streets who face special risk of bullying, discrimination, and assault. To stay safe, they rely on something simple — a wireless phone. Many homeless LGBT young people are eligible for a program that helps them get wirelessly connected. It’s called Lifeline. For decades, Lifeline has been run by the Federal Communications Commission. The program is premised on the idea that low-income individuals need basic communications to ensure they have a fair shot at securing employment, a place to live, and the ability to reach out in an emergency. In practice, it lowers the cost of phone service for those who can least afford to pay. Today, the program serves 10 million people, including many young people who lack a safe place to live. In light of the epidemic of homelessness among LGBT youth, the FCC should be figuring out how to get Lifeline service into the hands of young people who need it. But instead, the FCC’s is planning to make deep cuts to the Lifeline program. As proposed, these cuts would leave 70 percent of Lifeline participants without a connection.

[Jessica Rosenworcel is a commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission]

While offering billions in a bidding war for most of 21st Century Fox’s TV and film assets, both Disney and Comcast are also on the front lines of a battle of words, each trying to position its bid as the one most likely to gain regulatory approval from the government. To be sure, both deals would likely be scrutinized by the Justice Department for different reasons. “I’m not prepared to say which is better positioned,” said Georgetown Economics and Law professor Steve Salop . “But I don’t think the fact that the [Department of Justice] lost its suit with AT&T-Time Warner means Comcast is clear of regulatory concerns in a vertical merger. Plus, there’s some horizontal overlap, and there’s some overlap in Disney’s deal as well.”

Despite recent buzz that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai would be scheduling a vote at the July 12 public meeting on a proposal related to the FCC's review of the 39% ownership cap/UHF discounts, such an item did not make the agenda. Chairman Pai blogged about the items on that July meeting, and while there was a potential media ownership deregulation item on it--children's TV rules--there was no mention of the discount or cap. An FCC spokesperson would not comment on the absence of an item, but confirmed it would not be voted at the meeting and nothing had been circulated.

The Supreme Court will decide whether iPhone users can sue Apple for locking down the iOS ecosystem, something the suit’s plaintiffs say is creating an anti-competitive monopoly. Apple v. Pepper could theoretically affect how tech companies can build walled gardens around their products. The Supreme Court isn’t going to make a call on that specific issue, but its decision could affect people’s relationship with all kinds of digital platforms. Here’s what’s at stake when the Supreme Court case starts, which should happen sometime in the next year. What happens if Apple loses? Nothing — yet. If a court rules that Apple has an unlawful monopoly, it could require Apple to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars or even change its App Store model. If the Supreme Court upholds the Ninth Circuit’s decision, though, it will just send the case back to a lower court, where the fight will keep going. But the decision will also affect how much power consumers have over digital platforms. In 1998, a major appeals court ruling shot down concertgoers who sued Ticketmaster for driving up ticket prices, saying that Ticketmaster was actually selling distribution services to concert venues. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion explicitly says that decision was wrong. So a favorable Supreme Court ruling wouldn’t just keep this particular lawsuit alive. It could make other powerful online stores more accountable toward their users.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers sent a letter to Google expressing concerns over the company’s partnership with the Chinese phone maker Huawei. The group of senators and congressmen said that the partnership poses national security concerns, in step with previous efforts to keep Chinese tech firms, including ZTE and Huawei, from doing business in the US. “Since the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released its investigative report on the national-security issues posed by Chinese telecommunications firms in 2012, US officials have publicly raised concerns about Huawei’s ties to the Chinese government,” the lawmakers wrote, citing a report outlining the potential national security risks posed by Chinese tech companies.  The lawmakers who signed the letter addressed to Google CEO Sundar Pichai included Rep Mike Conaway (R-TX), Sen Tom Cotton (R-AR), Sen Marco Rubio (R-FL), Rep Liz Cheney (R-WY) and Rep Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD).

Based on the photographic evidence, living conditions inside government-run detention centers for immigrant children separated from their parents in south Texas look reasonably orderly and clean. But there’s a major catch: All of the photographs depicting life inside the facilities have been supplied by the government itself. There’s been no independent documentation; federal officials, citing the children’s privacy, have barred journalists from taking photographs or video when they’ve been permitted inside. This has left news organizations with a quandary: Do they publish the handouts supplied by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) — which has an incentive to make its facilities look as humane and comfortable as possible — or do they reject the photos as essentially propaganda? The New York Times, for one, has taken the latter course. On June 18, it said it would not publish CBP-supplied photos. One of the government-supplied photos — a shot of children sprawled on thin mattresses under mylar blankets — was featured prominently by many news organizations on June 19. The photo ran atop The Washington Post’s front page, although a caption spelled out the context.

Across the country, cities are straining. Housing costs are exploding, transportation systems are overwhelmed, infrastructure is crumbling, and inequality is on the rise. Yet there’s little support from federal or state authorities — “infrastructure week” is a punch line in Washington, not a policy. Efforts to raise money for local projects are under siege from conservative activists, while measures to build more housing are halted by liberal ones. Into this void march the techies, who come bearing money, jobs and promises of out-of-this-world innovation. But there’s a catch. Corporations are getting wide latitude in determining the future of cities. They are controlling more key services and winning important battles with once-indomitable city governments. Local officials find themselves at the mercy of tech: They can’t live without tech money, even if tech interests have a way of eclipsing every other civic priority. How did tech companies become America’s most-powerful local power brokers?

1. Many other local institutions, from small businesses to local newspapers, have lost much of their influence — thanks, in large part, to the internet.
2. While the fall of local media undermined interest in local issues, tech companies began to notice that their platforms gave them direct access to new levers of local influence. And they began to deploy those levers to withering effect.

Benton Foundation Executive Director Adrianne B. Furniss named Gigi Sohn Benton Senior Fellow and Public Advocate. Furniss said, “The Benton Foundation is honored to support the ongoing work of one of the nation’s leading public advocates for open, affordable, and democratic communications networks. As federal and state policymakers change rules that will impact communications for years to come, there is no better spokesperson than Gigi Sohn to raise the profile of issues like net neutrality, privacy, broadband access and affordability, and competition so that all Americans understand what’s at stake.”

Broadband internet access has become essential to full participation in our society, our economy, and our culture. Sohn will continue to broaden citizen awareness and action through three strategies:

1. Public Voice: Communicating what is at stake in telecommunication debates in ways that ordinary people can understand; and educating and providing comment for national, local, and trade press on various communications and technology policy issues.  Sohn seeks both greater coverage of these issues by the press and greater understanding of these issues by the public.
2. Coalition Building:  Identifying, organizing, and activating partners from public interest groups, state and local representatives, and companies large and small.
3. Support for the Field: Ensuring that the community fighting for public interest communications policies is adequately resourced with the funding, contacts, and strategic guidance it needs to be effective.