Upcoming policy issue

[Commentary] Telecommunications companies are preparing to roll out the next generation of wireless networks, dubbed “5G,” which promise an enormous increase in capacity and connectivity. These networks not only will increase competition in broadband, they are a key enabling technology for a host of advanced products and services. They also represent a gateway to better economic opportunities in inner-city areas that are underserved by broadband today.

But these new networks are different in structure and appearance too. Instead of high-powered antennas on tall towers, they rely on an array of lower-power transmitters closer to the ground that serve much smaller “cells.” That’s why mobile phone companies are concerned that cities and counties will throw up bureaucratic or financial roadblocks to 5G in their communities. It’s not a groundless worry; wireless companies already have encountered local resistance in places where they have introduced the new technology. It’s the look and the intrusiveness of the small cell networks that seems to spark the controversy. People are upset about the deployment of thousands of pieces of equipment the size of small appliances being placed strategically and liberally on publicly owned “vertical infrastructure” (that’s bureaucratese for municipal utility poles, street lights and even traffic lights). That means a lot of equipment in full view and in proximity — really close in some cases — to houses and people. The wireless industry has a solution to this potentially huge NIMBY headache: A bill in the California legislature (SB 649) that would “streamline” the approval process for putting small cell networking gear on public poles and lights. If it’s on property the government controls, approval would be automatic in most cases, so local governments couldn’t drag out the permitting process with public hearings and studies. The bill also would limit how much rent locals can charge the companies for space on their poles and lights.

The telecommunication industry has been pushing this “streamlining” strategy in other states, with various degrees of success. Eleven have adopted some sort of laws to limit the local permitting process and pole fees. Legislators in other states, like Washington, have been more skeptical. California’s lawmakers ought to be wary as well and show more interest in protecting the rights of communities to govern the use of their infrastructure, rather than letting telecommunication companies make those decisions for them.

As part of its ongoing efforts to accelerate access to high-speed Internet service, the Federal Communications Commission is seeking comment on ways to increase deployment, competition and innovation in the market for broadband in apartments, shopping malls and other “multiple tenant environments,” or MTEs. While FCC rules currently bar telecommunications and video services providers from entering into exclusive agreements that can stifle competition in MTEs, the FCC has adopted a Notice of Inquiry seeking information about what additional barriers to deployment may exist. The FCC is requesting input on whether and how it should act to remove any barriers that raise the cost and slow deployment in MTEs of next-generation networks, which are critical to jobs, health care, education, innovation, and information.

Specifically, the Notice seeks comment on:

• The current state of broadband competition in MTEs.
• Whether there are state and local regulations that may inhibit or have the effect of inhibiting broadband deployment and competition within MTEs, such as by preventing market entry or mandating infrastructure sharing by private companies.
• Whether the Commission should take any action regarding service providers’ exclusive marketing and bulk billing arrangements within MTEs.
• How revenue sharing agreements and exclusive wiring arrangements between MTE owners and Internet service providers may affect broadband competition within MTEs.
• Other practices that may impact the ability of Internet service providers to compete in MTEs.

[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]

NTIA, on behalf of the Department of Commerce, is requesting comment on actions that can be taken to address automated and distributed threats to the digital ecosystem as part of the activity directed by the President in Executive Order 13800, "Strengthening the Cybersecurity of Federal Networks and Critical Infrastructure." Through this Request for Comments, NTIA seeks broad input from all interested stakeholders - including private industry, academia, civil society, and other security experts - on ways to improve industry's ability to reduce threats perpetuated by automated distributed attacks, such as botnets, and what role, if any, the U.S. Government should play in this area.

Facebook, Google, Microsoft and a host of tech companies asked Congress to reform a government surveillance program that allows the National Security Agency to collect emails and other digital communications of foreigners outside the United States.

The requests came in the form of a letter to House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), who is overseeing the debate in the House of Representatives to reauthorize a program, known as Section 702, which will expire at the end of the year without action by Capitol Hill. In their note, the tech companies asked lawmakers for a number of changes to the law particularly to ensure that Americans’ data isn’t swept up in the fray. Meanwhile, they endorsed the need for new transparency measures, including the ability to share with their customers more information about the government surveillance requests they receive. Signing the note are companies like Airbnb, Amazon, Cisco, Dropbox, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Lyft, Microsoft and Uber. Absent, however, is Apple.