Agenda

The small city of Hull in northern England is planning to be one of the first places in Europe to consign its telephone lines to history. By the end of 2017, between 150,000 and 180,000 of Hull’s 210,000 buildings will be using the city’s super-fast fibre broadband network. That means it is time, according to Bill Halbert, the head of the local telecoms company KCOM, to start thinking about decommissioning the old copper telephone network. “Copper cannot handle the future,” said Halbert, who pointed out that most British households are now running seven to nine devices off their internet network and that fibre-optic cables are the only option. “It has to be fibre all the way. That’s one of the big national challenges for our economy.” If the city gets rid of its phone lines, it would follow in the footsteps of Svalbard, the Norwegian archipelago, and the Channel island of Jersey. Palaiseau, outside Paris, is also planning to ditch the old wires in 2018.

[Commentary] After decades of failed efforts to enact “regulatory reform” bills, Congress appears to be within a few votes of approving reform legislation that would strip Americans of important legal protections, induce regulatory sclerosis and subject agencies that enforce the nation’s laws and regulations to potentially endless litigation. This is not reform.

These bills would sabotage agency regulation with legislative monkey wrenches. Key compromises about agency power and procedures, worked out under the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act, would be discarded by these overwhelmingly anti-regulatory bills. And because they would be statutory changes, not mere presidential edicts, these changes would likely long outlive the Trump administration. Independent agencies like the Federal Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, long protected from direct presidential control, would now be subject to this bill’s requirements and oversight by the information and regulatory affairs office.

[Buzbee is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and a founding member-scholar of the Center for Progressive Reform]

Mounting security concerns surrounding the proliferation of wireless devices is renewing a long-running internet privacy debate. Traditional partisan rifts over regulation of private companies exploded at a hearing of the House Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.

Democrats were still steaming about repeal in late March of Federal Communications Commission’s broadband privacy rules, passed by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump, under the guise of the Congressional Review Act (CRA), aimed at eliminating regulations considered burdensome by Republicans. The FCC’s privacy rule did not outline specific security measures for ISPs but recommended they follow a cybersecurity framework set by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and gave the FCC oversight over complaints of security breaches. “When Congress repealed privacy rules in the CRA, they also removed security measures,” said Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA), the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee. The since-repealed FCC privacy rules included a provision requiring that internet service providers take “reasonable” measures to protect user data, such as Social Security numbers and health information.

The Federal Communications Commission will allow Low-power Televisions (LPTVs) and translators a way to stay on the air if T-Mobile asks them to exit their spectrum before the first special displacement window for seeking new channels opens, likely in early 2018. LPTVs had said T-Mobile contacted some stations about possibly wanting to light up the spectrum they bought in the incentive auction by the end of the year, which they pointed out was before they were going to get a chance to try and find new channels. The LPTVs also threatened to try and block the repack if the FCC did not give them some help. Help, the FCC's Incentive Auction Task Force and Media Bureau signaled, is on the way.

In what appears to be an unprecedented move, former Democratic Federal Communications Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel will also be future Democratic FCC commissioner if the Senate confirms her as expected. Shortly before midnight Tuesday, June 13, President Donald Trump signaled his intention to nominate Jessica Rosenworcel to a five-year term and a return engagement as a FCC commissioner.

The office of press secretary Sean Spicer announced the news in an email advisory. Rosenworcel, who served on the commission between 2012 and the end of 2016, was forced to exit at the end of 2016 after Congress failed to bring her renomination to a vote despite unanimous approval by the Senate Commerce Committee and support from both Democratic and Republican legislative leaders after Senate Republican leadership would not schedule a vote. President Trump withdrew Obama's renomination of Rosenworcel, which if she had been seated would have left the FCC at a 2-2 political divide once FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler exited.

Currently the FCC is down to only three members, two Republicans and a Democrat. The FCC can still render decisions on issues the lone Democrat disagrees with, and has on numerous occasions, most notably the decision to roll back Title II. But if Democrat Mignon Clyburn exits—her term is up at the end of June but she could serve until the end of 2018, the FCC will lack a quorum to vote on items. Rosenworcel would likely need to be paired with a nominee for the Republican seat—the Administration would not want to create a 2-2 tie, which would be the case unless Commissioner Mignon Clyburn exited. In that event, the Clyburn seat could be paired with the new Republican and Rosenworcel paired with FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, whose term also ends in June. One name being floated for the third Republican seat is Brendan Carr, currently the acting FCC General Counsel and a former-staffer in the office of Chairman Pai.

As long as I’m Chairman, I can assure you that the Federal Communications Commission will continue to be an active and enthusiastic participant in the M-Enabling Summit. That’s because this Summit aligns perfectly with the FCC’s statutory mission and my personal priorities.

Since day one of my Chairmanship, I’ve said the Commission has no higher calling than extending digital opportunity to all Americans. Every citizen who wants to participate in our digital economy and society should be able to do so—no matter who you are. A big part of that is closing the digital divide in our country—connecting people who are being bypassed by the digital revolution. And the simple truth is, in too many instances, that divide persists, and is perhaps growing. That’s why I spent the past week on a road trip from Milwaukee (WI) to Casper (WY). Over 1,672 miles and nearly 20 stops, I personally heard from people in rural towns and Tribal areas about the need for high-speed connectivity in their communities. And I discussed ways the FCC could help.

This Public Notice serves as notice that, consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has appointed members to serve on the Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council (CSRIC). The CSRIC will hold its first meeting on Friday, June 23, 2017, beginning at 1:00 pm. Chairman Pai has designated Brian King, Senior Vice President, National Technology Service Delivery and Operations at T-Mobile USA, to serve as Chair of the CSRIC. A full list of CSRIC members is attached to this Public Notice.

I’ve made it a point to champion local broadcasting since I was appointed to the Federal Communications Commission more than five years ago. And I’ve doubled down on that commitment since becoming the Chairman of our great agency.

I’ll touch on a few of the initiatives we’ve been pursuing. Prior to becoming Chairman, it’s fair to say that one of my signature issues was AM radio revitalization. In May, the FCC launched a comprehensive review of our media regulations. Our goal is clear: We want to figure out how to update our rules to match the realities of today’s media marketplace. We want to modernize our regulations in order to better promote the public interest and to clear a path for more competition, innovation, and investment in the media sector.

We can all agree that what we could do with less is the pull and push between federal, state, and local policymakers. We are in need of and should strive for a new era of cooperative regulation, that recognizes the states as laboratories of democracy, and your federal partners as a uniform guide where and when appropriate. So allow me to take some time this morning, to outline areas where we can work together, and other areas I feel, where states and localities should take the lead when it comes to privacy, universal service, pole attachments, rights-of-way access, and inmate calling.

Attorneys general for the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland say they will sue President Donald Trump on June 12, alleging that he has violated anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution by accepting millions in payments and benefits from foreign governments since moving into the White House.

The lawsuit, the first of its kind brought by government entities, centers on the fact that Trump chose to retain ownership of his company when he became president. President Trump said in January that he was shifting his business assets into a trust managed by his sons to eliminate potential conflicts of interests. But DC Attorney General Karl Racine (D) and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh (D) say President Trump has broken many promises to keep separate his public duties and private business interests. For one, his son Eric Trump has said the President would continue to receive regular updates about his company’s financial health. The lawsuit alleges “unprecedented constitutional violations” by President Trump. The suit says Trump’s continued ownership of a global business empire has rendered the President “deeply enmeshed with a legion of foreign and domestic government actors” and has undermined the integrity of the US political system.