Upcoming policy issue

Through its deliberations, the Streamlining Federal Siting Working Group Working Group found that the fundamental concerns regarding the streamlining of federal siting are 1) predictability and complexity of the application process and accompanying requirements and 2) the application review time. The Working Group offers ten recommentations:

1. Challenge: Varying and unpredictable fees and rates.

Solution: Standardize and publish fee schedules and utilize revenue in a way that promotes expediting federal siting processes.

The Senate Intelligence Committee is planning on Oct 24 to debate in secret a bill that would reauthorize a powerful surveillance authority without imposing any new restraints on the FBI’s ability to search and use the communications of Americans gathered under that law in national security and criminal prosecutions.

The bill, drafted by Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC), would enshrine the FBI’s right to use emails and other data collected from US tech companies without individualized warrants in cases­ related to terrorism, espionage and serious crimes such as murder and kidnapping. The legislation is aimed at revising a law often referred to as Section 702, a portion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amended in 2008. It authorizes the government to gather the communications of foreign targets located overseas, a process that may incidentally sweep up the emails, phone calls and texts of Americans. The law is due to expire at the end of 2017.

[Commentary] Anchor institutions like schools, libraries and health care providers play an important role in bringing connectivity to their local communities. But advances in telemedicine and education will not be fully realized if rural consumers do not have adequate broadband service at home. School aged children will struggle if they cannot do their homework. Individuals with medical conditions that require active monitoring – diabetes, congestive heart failure and more – need broadband at home to transmit critical medical data in real time to medical professionals.

That is why local government officials and anchor institutions should be paying attention to the implementation of the Connect America Fund, now and in the years ahead. The FCC is working to hold an auction in 2018 to award nearly $2 billion in funding over the next decade from Phase II of the Connect America Fund to service providers to extend fixed broadband to unserved residential and small business locations, and a separate auction to award $4.53 billion in funding over a decade from Phase II of the Mobility Fund to mobile wireless providers to extend LTE service to rural America. Any entity willing to provide the requisite level of service set by the FCC and meet other requirements can bid in those auctions for the subsidy.

Local leaders should ask: is it possible to utilize funding in a more coordinated way from E-rate, the Rural Healthcare program, and the Connect America Fund to build a business case to serve the entire community? What efficiencies might be gained from building an integrated broadband network for the entire community? Are the service providers that currently participate in any of these FCC’s universal service programs planning to bid in these upcoming Connect America Fund auctions? Who else might bid?

[Carol Mattey is the principal of Mattey Consulting LLC, which provides strategic and public policy advisory services to broadband providers, governmental agencies, non-profit organizations, and other entities active in the telecommunications arena]

At the start of this decade, the Arab Spring blossomed with the help of social media. That is the sort of story the tech industry loves to tell about itself: It is bringing freedom, enlightenment and a better future for all mankind. Mark Zuckerberg, the Facebook founder, proclaimed that this was exactly why his social network existed. In a 2012 manifesto for investors, he said Facebook was a tool to create “a more honest and transparent dialogue around government.” The result, he said, would be “better solutions to some of the biggest problems of our time.”

Now tech companies are under fire for creating problems instead of solving them. At the top of the list is Russian interference in last year’s presidential election. Social media might have originally promised liberation, but it proved an even more useful tool for stoking anger. The manipulation was so efficient and so lacking in transparency that the companies themselves barely noticed it was happening. The election is far from the only area of concern. Tech companies have accrued a tremendous amount of power and influence. Amazon determines how people shop, Google how they acquire knowledge, Facebook how they communicate. All of them are making decisions about who gets a digital megaphone and who should be unplugged from the web. Their amount of concentrated authority resembles the divine right of kings, and is sparking a backlash that is still gathering force.

After years of largely avoiding regulation, businesses like Facebook, Google and Amazon are a focus of lawmakers, some of whom are criticizing the expanding power of big tech companies and their role in the 2016 election.

The attacks cover a smattering of issues as diverse as antitrust, privacy and public disclosure. They also come from both sides, from people like Stephen Bannon, President Trump’s former chief strategist, as well as Sen Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). Many of the issues, like revising antitrust laws, have a slim chance of producing new laws soon. But they have become popular talking points nonetheless, amplified by a series of missteps and disclosures by the companies. The companies, recognizing the new environment in Washington, have started to fortify their lobbying forces and recalibrate their positions.

A group of House and Senate Democrats are calling on the US government to issue new “guidance” to stop foreign advertisers from spending money on Facebook, Google and other web platforms in a bid to influence American elections.

Federal law already bars that sort of political spending, but lawmakers — including Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) — stress in a letter to the Federal Elections Commission that countries like Russia “have routinely deployed sophisticated tactics in making political expenditures to evade detection.” To that end, the Democrats are asking the FEC — which oversees campaign finance —to offer suggestions for how to crack down on “loopholes” that allow foreign entities to use “corporate or nonprofit designations to evade disclosure.” And they want to help tech companies harden their own platforms to prevent that spending in the first place.

For now, though, the Democrats are asking the watchdog agency to issue a timeline for action and respond to their questions no later than Oct. 4.

House Republicans emerged from a month of network neutrality negotiations with no new draft bill text, said Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR). Before August, he set his sights on a hearing scheduled for Sept 7 on net neutrality legislation featuring testimony from top tech and telecom CEOs — but there’s no such hearing and, as a GOP committee aide confirms, no new draft bill. “Obviously there are some difficult issues yet to resolve with language,” Chairman Walden said. On the hearing, he cited “scheduling issues with the principals” and said a new draft “would be the topic of that hearing when it does happen, or if it does happen.” Republicans are still in discussions to “see if we can legislate,” said Chairman Walden, who has sought to codify open internet rules since 2015 without any real negotiation with Democrats. “Everybody’s operating in good faith, and we have other matters we can address in the meantime,” he said.

Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) said of the cancelled hearing: "We're still working through that issue, and I think we're in pretty good shape." But she said she didn't know if the hearing would be re-scheduled, despite "great conversations" taking place. Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA), ranking Democrat on the Communications and Technology Subcommittee, said he's heard of a draft net neutrality bill floating around, but said if that's the case, he and other Democrats hadn't seen it. "I'm sure at some point in time, in the distant future, there may come a time when it makes sense to put this into legislation, but I don't think we're at that time yet.” Democrats favor keeping the FCC's net neutrality rules.

Senate Republicans are trying to lock down a time for a roll call vote for Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s reconfirmation.

“I want to get it done as soon as we can,” said Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-SD). “I don’t want to push this to the end of the year. I think the [Senate Majority] leader shares that view.” He didn’t rule out a September vote, saying it depends on “how quickly we’re able to dispose of some of the things we have to deal with that are immediate to see if there’s a window there to do it.” Without a vote, Chairman Pai would have to leave the commission at the end of 2017. Chairman Pai likely has all the GOP votes he needs, but Democrats “are going to make it difficult,” Chairman Thune predicted. “They wanted to drag this out or they would have let him go [by voice vote] before the August break when we approved the other package of [nominees]. They intend, I think at least, to use some time to talk about it.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), a frequent Pai critic, said he welcomes the chance: “It’s definitely an opportunity to talk about those issues, and I intend to pursue them.”

One priority for Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-SD) is reauthorizing the Federal Communications Commission, which hasn’t happened since 1990.

His bipartisan bill to do so stalled on the Senate floor last Congress, and while he’s said he wants to revive the effort, don’t expect action for months. “That probably doesn’t happen this year,” said Chairman Thune citing plenty of other priorities to tackle first. What could go into the eventual package? Chairman Thune mentioned that “transparency and accountability” provisions and some pieces of his FCC Process Reform Act might make it in, although he said some parts are “too controversial and wouldn’t be included” this time around. He’s also in no rush to craft legislation overhauling the FCC’s Lifeline program, but “if there’s an FCC reauthorization, that might be the window to do that.”

The House Commerce Committee had mentioned FCC reauthorization as a priority for September. Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA), ranking Democrat on the Communications and Technology Subcommittee, said he hadn't heard anything on that front. "We've got a lot to do and not much time," he said.

Federal agencies, especially the Department of Defense (DoD), don’t face normal marketplace pressures to economize their use of spectrum. While the potential societal gains of reallocating federal spectrum for commercial use are likely in the hundreds of billions of dollars, attempts at addressing this problem have met many roadblocks. Today, I’m offering another idea for consideration: the option of allowing agencies to free up some of their spectrum holdings in exchange for budgetary relief. While I still believe the imposition of Agency Spectrum Fees is the best course of action, this new proposal represents a compromise between differing carrot and stick approaches. And it is particularly timely today, as many of these federal agencies face increasing budgetary pressure. I suggest that federal agencies be permitted to use their spectrum holdings to offset the annual budgetary caps and sub caps. This would mean that, in achieving its respective budget limits, a federal agency could substitute the market value – as determined by an average of Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and Budget estimates – of their surrendered spectrum to offset other cuts or even expand its spending options. It amounts to a spectrum-for-cash swap.