Broadband Law Advisor Blog : Broadband Lawyers & Attorneys : Davis Wright Tremaine Law Firm : National Broadband Plan Adoption & Infrastructure Updates

Two new “do-not-track” privacy bills would impose new restraints on online tracking, behavioral marketing, and the use of mobile application and geolocation data. Rep. Markey introduced his discussion draft with his co-chairman of the House privacy caucus, Rep. Barton. Their “Do Not Track Kids Online” bill would build on the current Child Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which requires parental consent for collecting and using personal information online from children under 13.

Using the political hook of protecting children, the bill proposes to convert COPPA into a framework extending to online and mobile apps, and to tracking and marketing to all those under 18—in the process imposing age verification requirements and other processes that may redefine the apps and mobile experience for all users. Sen. Rockefeller’s version, the “Do Not Track Online Act of 2011,” would simply grant the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the power to define and adopt the comprehensive do-not-track regime the FTC recommended in December 2010 (which we discussed in detail earlier).

(Continue reading)

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Monday, Sen. Rockefeller introduced new legislation authorizing the FTC to enact regulations over the collection and use of personal information obtained by online tracking tools that track individual online activity.  The "Do Not Track" bill follows the recent FTC report on privacy  (which we discussed here) outlining a new framework for privacy protections and a do-not-track mechanism.   The text of the bill is not yet publicly available, but other information about the bill may be found here.

The Do Not Track bill follows earlier privacy bills introduced last month by Sen. Kerry and Rep. Stearns that focus on notice and disclosure requirements for collecting and sharing personal information.  Those bills are available here (Kerry) and here (Stearns).  We also posted an in-depth perspective on these bills here.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Paul Glist

Last week, Sens. John Kerry and John McCain and Reps. Cliff Stearns and Jim Matheson offered new privacy bills. The Kerry-McCain Senate bill and the Stearns-Matheson House bill each seeks to apply a common set of fair information practices on virtually all businesses, online and offline, that collect information about consumers or consumer behavior. For the moment, both bills are directed to commercial and non-profit organizations (such as many online businesses) that are currently not under privacy regulation.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 On Dec. 23, 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released its Report and Order (R&O), and the text of the net neutrality rules it adopted on Dec. 21, 2010. The rules are summarized in our prior advisory, but the R&O contains many important details and nuances. (For the full text of the order, see Report and Order).

 

Transparency

The R&O offers a detailed illustration of the wide ranging disclosure that wireline and wireless providers must provide of commercial terms, performance, and network management practices. The sample disclosure includes “typical frequency of congestion” for networks that manage congestion; how any specialized services may affect the last-mile capacity available for, and the performance of, broadband Internet access service; third-party device and application approval procedures for mobile broadband providers; security mechanisms; details on any inspection of network traffic, and the storage or transfer of such data; and practices for resolving end-user and edge provider complaints and questions. 

(Continue reading)

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This morning at its monthly open meeting, the Federal Communications Commission adopted net neutrality rules which largely adopt existing Internet traffic and management practices, impose new non-discrimination and transparency rules, but leave room for specialized or managed services and usage based billing. The order is notable for basing jurisdiction mostly on Title I and ancillary jurisdiction, rather than reclassifying broadband as a Title II common carrier service. (The order has not yet been released but we will include a link here once it is made available to the public, along with a DWT Advisory analyzing the order in more detail.  UPDATE: Fairly detailed press release is available on the FCC website, as well as the Commissioners' statements.)

As expected, the vote was adopted on a 3-2 partisan vote. Democratic Commissioners justified the order as a compromise necessary for maintaining the Internet as an open platform where innovation may occur without seeking permission, while providing certainty conducive to investment at the edge as well as in the broadband network core. In vigorous dissent, Republican Commissioners questioned any need for departing from the successful history of building and maintaining an open Internet by leaving it largely free of government regulation.
 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On December 16, 2010, the Commerce Department released its own Privacy Report, suggesting a “revitalized” privacy framework that can protect consumer privacy, dynamic businesses and innovation, and promote better global data flow. Like the Federal Trade Commission’s counterpart Privacy Report of December 1, 2010, this “green paper” is a first step inviting comment, but it adopts a markedly more balanced approach. It invites more reliance on cooperative industry self-regulation, while proposing the creation of a Privacy Policy Office within the Commerce Department which could coordinate the Administration’s privacy policies here and represent the US abroad.

Premises. The Internet Policy Task Force (IPTF) that authored the report included participants from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the International Trade Administration (ITA). Like the FTC, it starts from the premise that consumers don’t understand privacy notices, and feel nervous that personal information is being collected and used in ways they do not understand. But it charts a different approach:

• Rather than endorsing a European style privacy directive covering all businesses, it sees strengths in US sectoral laws—such as being tailored to the unique characteristics of different industries.
• It recognizes the “gaps” that those laws leave for most of the Internet economy, but is less inclined to fill them with sweeping new prescriptive regulations, and prefers that industry, government, academics and other stakeholders collaborate to formulate a variety of specific voluntary privacy protections. It would not rely entirely on self-regulation: voluntary industry codes would need to be enforceable and meet an overarching set of Fair Information Practice Principles, and those companies that did not meet code would be subject to enforcement action. But it believes such self-regulatory safe harbors are far more likely to fit industries, and to keep up with changes in technology, business models, and consumer expectations than would standard rulemaking.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Late yesterday (December 2, 2010), Congress adopted the CALM Act, directing the Federal Communications Commission to adopt regulations controlling the volume of commercials on television broadcast stations, cable systems, satellite, and other multichannel video programming providers. Once signed by the President, the Federal Communications Commission will be required to adopt rules within one year, to become effective within one year after adoption. The rules are supposed to adopt parts of the ATSC A/85 standard, which seeks to target the volume of commercials in digital programming to the volume of dialogue (or other "anchor element") in the accompanying program.

Congressional estimates are that the costs of necessary equipment range from a few thousand dollars to $20,000 per device, for an aggregate industry cost of tens of millions of dollars. Congress anticipated that the costs may be burdensome for small operators and smaller market television broadcasters, and provided that waivers may be granted for financial hardship for one year renewable terms, and may also be granted under the FCC's general waiver rule.

Although the ATSC A/85 standard recommends techniques for handling program-to-interstitial transitions, commercials may still seem loud to viewers when compared to the quiet dialogue that might precede a commercial break. Congress has tried to insulate broadcasters and multichannel video programming providers from responsibility for how commercials sound subjectively by providing that commercially reasonable efforts to install, use, maintain, and repair the required equipment will be deemed compliance with the rule.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Earlier today the Federal Trade Commission released its long awaited Privacy Report. The Report proposes a "normative framework" for new privacy protections that would cover the use of personal and profiling information across all industries, on and offline, and recommends a "do not track" law to limit online behavioral advertising.  (Copy of the FTC's Report is available here.)  The Report is something of a hybrid. It is positioned as a preliminary staff report for comment, but voted on by the FTC Commissioners (over cautionary statements by the Republicans). It is partly a companion and complement to Bobby Rush’s privacy bill; partly a call for rulemaking comments (by January 31, 2011); partly a call for better industry self-regulation; and partly a warning of more aggressive enforcement activity to come under existing law.

Premises. The Report renews an FTC refrain that the current framework for privacy enforcement needs updating. Consumers don’t read or understand privacy notices, so cannot give informed consent. They have little or no idea that data profiles are assembled by parties with whom they have no direct relationship, and feel nervous that profiles are being used to deliver targeted advertising. Whether or not the profiles are “personally-identifiable” or de-identified, the “fear of being monitored” is harm in itself that should be addressed, and industry is not moving quickly enough. (These premises are questioned in the Republican concurring statements.)

Scope. Like the Rush bill, the Report proposes a framework for privacy that extends far beyond online advertising to all businesses that handle consumer data—online, offline, bricks and mortar—with to-be-defined exceptions for those that handle only small amounts.

 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Earlier today, Chairman Genachowski held a press conference to deliver his remarks on his proposed Open Internet rules, which are scheduled for vote at the FCC's December 21 open meeting.  The Chairman prefaced his summary of the rules by noting that they are in principle rooted in policy statements of past "Republican" Chairmen Powell and Martin, is consistent with President Obama's goal of keeping the Internet "open and free", and builds upon the framework first developed by Rep. Waxman earlier this year. 

In summary, the Chairman outlined the basic concepts of his proposal that grants consumers and innovators the right to:

1. Transparency, including basic information about how networks are managed;
2. Send and receive lawful Internet traffic (ie, prohibit blocking), and use devices (that are not harmful to the network) of their own choosing; and
3. A level playing field, including a bar to unreasonable discrimination in content transmission;

The rules also recognize providers' right to "reasonable" network management that will give providers the flexibility to address congestion and "illegal" traffic, as well as maintain incentives to build-out and innovate broadband networks.

The Chairman made clear that the rules do not adopt the "reclassification" option that would have reclassified broadband as a Title II service.

Also, the Chairman's rules draw a distinction between mobile and fixed broadband services.  The Chairman acknowledged that mobile services are still at an early stage of development, but are rapidly evolving so that the FCC will be prepared to act in the event that anti-competitive or anti-consumer practices arise.

UPDATE: The FCC has just released a statement by Commissioner McDowell condemning the Chairman's proposal.  His brief statement is available here.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last night the FCC released its tentative agenda for its next open meeting to be held December 21.  Two items are scheduled for consideration, the first being an Order (not a rulemaking or inquiry) adopting Open Internet rules, also known as net neutrality.  The text summarizing the agenda item is as follows:

Open Internet Order: An Order adopting basic rules of the road to preserve the open Internet as a platform for innovation, investment, competition, and free expression. These rules would protect consumers’ and innovators’ right to know basic information about broadband service, right to send and receive lawful Internet traffic, and right to a level playing field, while providing broadband Internet access providers with the flexibility to reasonably manage their networks.

Chairman Genachowski also circulated his proposal to the other FCC Commissioners late last night In anticipation of the December meeting to vote on the Order. 

The FCC website indicates that the Chairman will deliver remarks on his proposal, which is expected to begin at 10:30 am today.  A live webcast is available on the FCC's website at http://reboot.fcc.gov/live/.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today the FCC released a Public Notice seeking comments on what the FCC calls the "business broadband marketplace."  While this comment cycle is not directly related to any current FCC proceeding (the docket number - WC Docket No. 10-188 - was only created yesterday), the magnitude of information sought hints at the establishment of future regulatory policies, if not rules, regarding broadband service offerings to businesses, that may impact aspects of other Commission broadband initiatives.  Indeed, the Public Notice suggests that the Commission intends to institute regulatory policies over the business broadband marketplace, stating up front that the "business broadband marketplace...requires policies that enable...competitive retail markets, incentives for investments in facilities, and access where competitive infrastructure cannot be economically deployed."  In addition, the Public Notice indicates that the Commission recognizes that "[d]ifferences in the technology used to provide a particular service may cause that service to be subject to significantly different policies, which may undermine competition policy objectives."  This seems to suggest that the Commission prefers a single, uniform policy over broadband business services, regardless of the transmission, technology or facilities used.  (The Public Notice could also be a precursor to the Commission's forthcoming rulemaking in Q4 of this year regarding the collection and analysis of industry-wide data on key broadband metrics (subscribership, prices, performance) for business (and retail) customers.)

Basically, the Commission wants to know everything about "the universe of business broadband service inputs, where they are available, and how they are used."  The Public Notice specifically identifies a number of issues for which it seeks further information, including, among other things, (1) the different types of transmission services, technologies and facilities used to provide business broadband; (2) the various combination of services, technologies and facilities used; (3) trends in the business broadband marketplace, including pricing and technology trends; and (4) the impact of non-traditional marketplace participants (e.g., cable and wireless) and non-carrier wholesale customers (e.g., consumer electronics companies embedding broadband services in their devices) on the marketplace.

Comments are due October 15, 2010.  Reply comments are due November 4, 2010.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This week the Federal Communications Commission issued three important items related to the National Broadband Plan, and broadband services generally. 

On September 1, the Commission issued a Public Notice to initiate a Further Inquiry Into Two Under-Developed Issues In The Open Internet Proceeding (GN Docket No. 09-191, and WC Docket No. 07-52).  The original Open Internet NPRM (which we discussed at length here) was released October 22, 2009 over two partial dissents, and was designed to impose “network neutrality” rules on Internet service providers, including nondiscrimination obligations, limits on network management techniques, and disclosure requirements.  As discussed in more detail in the Public Notice, comments submitted in this and other proceedings have prompted the Commission to further solicit public discussion regarding two "complex" issues that were addressed "in less detail" than other issues in the NPRM.   First, the Commission seeks additional comments about concerns and policies related to "managed" or "specialized" services.  The NPRM had appeared to be more sensitive to allowing innovation in IP managed services outside of Open Internet regulations, so the Further Inquiry could affect the regulations as originally proposed. 

Second, the Commission seeks additional comment on "how, to what extent, and when" its "openness principles" should apply to mobile wireless services.  The Public Notice specifically noted the fact that, since the NPRM was released in October, recent developments warranted updating the record on certain questions related to wireless, namely, the emergence of new business models by certain wireless carriers to introduce pricing plans that charge different prices based on consumers' level of data consumption, and Verizon's and Google's recent proposal for open Internet legislation that would exclude wireless.

Today, the FCC released an Order extending the deadline for filing reply comments in its pole attachment rulemaking proceeding (WC Docket No. 07-245) to Monday, October 4, 2010.  Reply comments previously were due on September 13, but in response to a petition for extension filed by an industry organization representing electric utilities, the Commission decided to extend the deadline by three weeks.

Also today, the Commission released its tentative agenda for its September open meeting.  According to the release, the Commission intends to discuss four items: (1) TV White Spaces Second Memorandum Opinion and Order; (2) E-Rate Broadband Order; (3) E911 Location Accuracy Second Report and Order; and (4) E911 Location Accuracy FNPRM and NOI.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This morning the Federal Communications Commission held its monthly open meeting, this time to discuss the Commission's proposed reclassification efforts for broadband services.  In a three-to-two vote (Commissioners McDowell and Baker dissented), the Notice of Inquiry was adopted, and will seek comment on three ways to regulate broadband - under the Commission's Title I ancillary authority; under full Title II authority; or under the Chairman's "Third Way" approach which would impose limited Title II authority using the Commission's forbearance authority.  The NOI will also solicit the public for any other suggestions on how to regulate broadband.

It was announced during the meeting that comments to the NOI will be due by July 15, 2010, and reply comments due by August 12, 2010.

At this time, the NOI has not yet been released, but the FCC has released a News Release and statements from the Commissioners (but not the Chairman).  When the NOI is released, we will provide a more in-depth analysis.

UPDATE: The Notice of Inquiry has been released, and is available on the FCC's website with all the Commissioners' statements.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is a reminder that the FCC will hold its next open meeting on Thursday, June 17.  As we noted earlier, and as confirmed by the Commission's recent Meeting Agenda released this past Friday, this open meeting is expected to be quite entertaining, as it is dedicated to discussing a Notice of Inquiry to initiate an "open, public process to consider possible legal frameworks for broadband Internet services in order to promote innovation and investment, protect and empower consumers, and bring the benefits of broadband to all Americans" -- in other words, reclassification of broadband services as telecommunications services to implement the Commission's National Broadband Plan.

If you recall, last May, Chairman Genachowski released a statement indicating that, rather than reclassifying broadband services as telecommunications broadly, he would pursue a "third way approach" whereby only the "transmission components of broadband service" would be deemed telecommunications subject to select portions of Title II of the Communications Act.  This controversial approach will certainly be discussed at the June 17 meeting, in addition to any other proposals that the NOI may present.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FCC has released its tentative agenda for its June 17, 2010 open meeting.  Unlike recent agendas for April and May, this one is written such that the June meeting will be dedicated to one, and only one, issue - the reclassification of broadband access service as a telecommunications service.*  According to the agenda, the Commission intends to adopt a Notice of Inquiry to "begin an open, public process to consider possible legal frameworks for broadband Internet services...."  In particular, the agenda highlights three questions from the proposed NOI, paraphrased as follows:

1. Whether the information service classification for broadband Internet service remains legally sound and adequate for the Commission to perform responsibly;

2. The legal and practical consequences of classifying broadband Internet service as a telecommunications service subject to all the provisions of Title II; and

3. The Commission's "third way" approach to regulating broadband Internet service (or at least the transmission components of such service).

We previously blogged about this issue already when the Chairman first announced his "third way" approach to reclassification (see an opinion on the "third way" approach here), so we won't get into it again now.  But rest assured, June 17 should make for an interesting and eventful day at the FCC.

* Of course, the Commission may include additional agenda items as the June 17 date nears, but this issue is obviously big enough to keep everyone busy for the entire meeting.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This morning, two of the FCC’s Broadband Plan proceedings that were adopted at the April 21 open meeting were published in the Federal Register, thus starting the clock for comments and replies. The first item published is the Commission’s Notice of Inquiry regarding its proposed “Cyber Security Certification Program," which we discussed in detail last month. Comments for this proceeding are due by July 12, 2010, with replies due by September 8, 2010.  

The second item that was published concerns the Notice of Inquiry entitled “Effects on Broadband Communications Networks of Damage to or Failure of Network Equipment or Severe Overload.”   Comments in this proceeding are due by June 25, 2010, with replies due by July 26, 2010.

There are still a few items yet to be published from the April 21 open meeting -- USF Reform NOI/NPRM and the Cable Gateway NOI/CableCARD FNPRM -- but we expect these to appear in the Federal Register in the near future.  We will post their comment dates here as soon as they are available.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In publicizing his decision to reclassify broadband as a Title II telecommunications service, FCC Chairman Genachowski took some pains to try to reassure the investment community that he was not making any sudden moves that should discourage broadband investment. But despite his efforts to try to limit the impact of his move, he has crossed a Rubicon that should never have been crossed. Broadband internet was never regulated under the Title II rules that grew up for the monopoly “Ma Bell” era, and for good reason.  It was because the Internet was allowed to grow in an unregulated competitive market that attracted massive investment by competing providers and delivered the astonishing broadband throughput that enables all the cool Internet business models. No student of technology should feel comforted when the government decides that technological innovation has gone far enough, and we can stop now and write it into rule. No student of regulatory history should be sanguine about promises to limit the scope of government once it asserts control. Every student of government should be alarmed when the government picks favorites, asserting control over the selected few parties who built the “core” of the Internet to today’s capabilities, to benefit its favored parties at the “edge,” claiming all the while that it is not touching the Internet or free speech, when it is in fact doing both. It has been only weeks since we and Google collectively scolded China for centralized government controls which are anathema to the Internet—and now we are inviting centralized government controls when it favors Google. We should be troubled, too, by some of the reasoning offered. It conspicuously avoids inconvenient facts, such as broadband never having been subject to “Ma Bell” regulation. It seeks to write for itself a new Title of the Communications Act that Congress never adopted, ignoring a Congressional mandate to leave the Internet “unfettered” by regulation. While the Commission will be inviting further comment, matters this profound should not be left to an unelected agency, no matter how bright and well-meaning. If we are to reconstruct communications and media law, we should be turning to Congress. And if we are straying towards a world in which the government decides which speech is free and which is not, we should be turning to the Bill of Rights to remind us of why the government is supposed to limit its reach in the first place.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Following reports yesterday that Chairman Genachowski was now prepared to assert FCC jurisdiction over the Internet, the FCC released the Chairman's statement proposing a "third way" to regulate the Internet.  As anticipated by earlier reports, the Chairman's statement reveals that the FCC would not seek to impose Title II on Internet services in its entirety.  Rather, the FCC would only recognize the "transmission component of broadband service" as a "telecommunications service."  In addition, the FCC would only apply a "handful" of Title II provisions to Internet networks, specifically, Sections 201 (just and reasonable service and charges), 202 (non-discrimination), 208 (complaint procedures), 222 (customer privacy), 254 (universal service) and 255 (disability access).  In doing so, the Commission would forbear from applying many other sections of the Communications Act that, according to the Chairman, are "unnecessary and inappropriate for broadband access service." 

The "third way" approach is the FCC's attempt to find some middle ground between the status quo (Title I ancillary jurisdiction) and full reclassification of Internet access service as a telecommunications service under Title II.  Indeed, the Chairman admitted that "the extreme alternatives to this light-touch approach are unacceptable," and that "FCC policies should not include regulating Internet content, constraining reasonable network management practices of broadband providers, or stifling new business models or managed services that are pro-consumer and foster innovation and competition."

The statement follows reports that Representative Waxman and Senator Rockefeller had delivered a letter to the Chairman yesterday indicating their support for the FCC's regulatory oversight of the Internet, which may have helped sway the Chairman to adopt this middle ground.  The statement also follows a letter from Commissioner McDowell to Rep. Waxman providing a brief history of the regulatory classification of Internet access services.  In that letter, Commissioner McDowell emphasized that, following the Supreme Court's Brand X decision upholding the FCC's classification of cable modem service as an information service, the Commission "without dissent" consistently classified broadband services as information services in the context of wireline, powerline, and wireless.

UPDATE: The FCC has also released an accompanying statement from the FCC's General Counsel Austin Schlick that provides the "legal thinking" behind the "third way" approach. 

In addition, Commissioner Copps released his statement on the proposal, in which he admitted that he "would have preferred plain and simple Title II reclassification through a declaratory ruling and limited, targeted forbearance."

UPDATE: Commissioners McDowell and Baker have released their joint statement, finding the Chairman's proposal "disappointing" and one that "deeply concerns" them.  Notably, the two Commissioners caution that the proposal will be shot down by the courts as exceeding the FCC's authority absent a "specific mandate from Congress."  If that is the case, the Waxman and Rockefeller letter to the Chairman would suggest that some members of Congress would then try to give the FCC that mandate.

UPDATE: Commissioner Clyburn's statement is now available on the FCC's website, which, not surprisingly, supports the Chairman's proposal.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Ronnie London and Brian Nixon

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) on April 21, 2010, seeking public comment on the proposed creation of a voluntary cybersecurity certification program by which participating communications service providers would be certified—by the FCC or a third party, as determined by the FCC—as adhering to a set of cybersecurity objectives and/or practices.

The program begins the process of effectuating a recommendation in the National Broadband Plan, issued by the FCC last month, by seeking to increase the security of the nation’s broadband infrastructure, promote a culture of more vigilant cybersecurity, and offer end-users more complete information about their communication service providers’ cybersecurity practices.

Comments on the NOI will be due 60 days from the date of its publication in the Federal Register, which generally occurs several days or weeks after FCC release of an action such as this.

(Continue reading)

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FCC's April 21 open meeting was dominated by efforts to implement the National Broadband Plan.  Not surprisingly, the Commissioners voted unanimously to adopt all six agenda items that had already been announced on several occassions prior to today's meeting - USF Reform (NOI and NPRM, see also earlier blog post on these proceedings); Mobile Voice and Data Roaming (Order on Recon and FNPRM); Cable Gateways and CableCARD (NOI and FNPRM, see also the recently released DWT Advisory); Broadband Network Survivability (NOI); and Cyber Security Certification (NOI).  Except for the only Order issued today (which eliminated the home exclusion to wireless roaming), the proceedings adopted by the Commissioners initiate (and in some cases, like CableCARD, re-ignite) proceedings to further develop the record in anticipation of future amendments and new rules.  Not explicitly laid out by the presenters during the meeting, however, but alluded to by the Commissioners, were the two big elephants in the room -- Title II and the ramifications of the Comcast case.  In particular, Commissioners Copps and McDowell acknowledged that questions regarding the FCC's jurisdiction over broadband would likely be a central focus in the FNPRM to consider extending roaming obligations to mobile broadband services.  Indeed, that FNPRM specifically seeks comment on these issues, including the "significance, if any" of the Comcast case in this - and effectively all other - broadband proceedings. 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Commission has released its agenda for the April 21 open meeting (10:30 am, Room TW-C305).  The agenda mirrors the FCC's earlier tentative agenda released on March 31. 

According to the agenda, the Commission will consider six issues related to the Broadband Plan: (1) NOI and NPRM on USF reform, (2) Order on Reconsidation and FNPRM on mobile roaming arrangements for voice and broadband mobile services, (3) NOI on the availability of smart video devices for MVPD networks (ie, network gateways), (4) FNPRM on changes to the CableCARD rules, (5) NOI on broadband network survivability and security, and (6) NOI on establishing a cybersecurity certification program.  For more analyses on these and other broadband issues, please read our DWT Advisory on the Broadband Plan.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In case you missed it, the Senate Commerce Committee's hearing with Chairman Genchowski on the Broadband Plan is now available on the Commerce Committee's website.  The FCC has also released the Chairman's prepared statement for the hearing.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Although the DC Circuit's recent decision in Comcast v. FCC has raised significant questions concerning the Commission's jurisdiction over Internet access (read the DWT Advisory on the case), the Commission has moved forward with releasing a comprehensive schedule that proposes over 60 proceedings, workshops and other efforts to implement the recommendations in the Broadband Plan. The schedule anticipates the release of 16 reports and orders by the end of 2010 alonw, nine of which are expected to be released in the second quarter, in addition to numerous other proposed NPRMs, NOIs and FNPRMs. Some notable issues to be considered this year include pole attachments, TV white spaces, hearing aid compatibility and a clarification on interconnection. The FCC also intends to initiate an NPRM on CableCARD and an NOI on smart video devices in the second quarter of 2010, as well as NPRMs on USF, texting, intercarrier compensation and smart video devices by the end of 2010.

The 2010 schedule and the more comprehensive agenda which discusses the 60+ proposed action items, are available on the FCC’s broadband.gov website.  However, like the FCC's March 31 tentative agenda,  this comprehensive agenda still only offers teasers of what to expect in the upcoming proceedings, so there is not much more to report than what is available. (You can, in the meantime, refer to DWT’s Advisory on the Broadband Plan for more detailed analyses of the issues.)

The Chairman also took this opportunity to respond to reports that the DC Circuit's decision could derail the FCC’s broadband agenda. The Chairman is quoted as saying that the court’s decision “does not change our broadband policy goals, or the ultimate authority of the FCC to act to achieve those goals.”  That, of course, remains to be seen -- as we concluded in our DWT Advisory, the court’s ruling likely sets the stage for further rulemakings, court cases and federal legislation to address, and clarify, the FCC’s regulatory role in high-speed Internet access, including a potential showdown on placing the Internet under Title II regulation.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FCC has released its tentative agenda for its next open meeting on April 21, 2010. The agenda identifies six potential items on the FCC’s plate related to the Broadband Plan. Specifically, the agenda indicates that the FCC plans to initiate the following proceedings at its April 21 meeting:

            (1) USF Reform NPRM and NOI

            (2) Mobile Roaming Order FNPRM

            (3) Network Gateway NOI

            (4) CableCARD NPRM

            (5) Broadband Network Survivability NOI

            (6) Cybersecurity Certification NOI

 

The agenda only provides brief, one-sentence summaries of what these proceedings will entail, so there is not too much to say for now. Please refer to DWT’s Advisory on the Broadband Plan for more further discussion of the Plan’s details and what you can expect in these proceedings.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has rescheduled its review of the National Broadband Plan to April 14, 2010.  This hearing was previously scheduled for Tuesday, March 23, 2010. Currently, Chairman Genachowski is the only witness scheduled to appear.  More meeting information is available on the Commerce Committee's website

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FCC has made available the Chairman’s and the Commissioners’ prepared statements for the March 25 hearing before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet.

• Chairman Genachowski
• Commissioner Copps
• Commissioner Clyburn
• Commissioner Baker
• Commissioner McDowell

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Senate Commerce Committee cancelled its hearing on the National Broadband Plan, which was originally scheduled for March 23, most likely due to the healthcare debates.  Reports indicate that the Committee will try and reschedule before the Easter break. We will post the new date as soon as it is released.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Robert G. Scott, Jr. and James M. Smith

On March 16, 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) presented to Congress its long-anticipated National Broadband Plan, as mandated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “Recovery Act”). Thirteen months in the making and weighing in at nearly 400 pages, “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan” (the “Plan”) has occupied a disproportionate share of the FCC’s time and energy for the last year and, given the breadth and sheer quantity of its analysis and proposals, it will continue to be the single greatest focus of the agency for years to come.

Section 6001 of the Recovery Act, signed into law by President Obama on Feb. 17, 2009, less than a month after his inauguration, mandated the dispersal of $7.2 billion through grant and loan programs to expand broadband deployment to, and adoption by, unserved and underserved areas and vulnerable populations. Those programs—the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) administered by the Department of Commerce and the Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP) administered by the Department of Agriculture—are underway, and by law, all of these grants must be awarded by September 30, and the projects completed within three years thereafter.

But Subsection 6001(k) of the Recovery Act also directed the FCC to submit to Congress a National Broadband Plan for the longer term, to pick up where these broadband deployment and other short-term projects leave off “to ensure that all people of the United States have access to broadband capability and [to] establish benchmarks for meeting that goal.”

Congress ordered the FCC to include (1) “analysis of the most effective and efficient mechanisms for ensuring broadband access” by all Americans, (2) “a detailed strategy for achieving affordability of such service and maximum utilization of broadband infrastructure” by the public, (3) “an evaluation of the status of deployment of broadband service, including progress of projects supported by the [BTOP and BIP] grants,” and (4) “a plan for use of broadband infrastructure and services in advancing consumer welfare, civic participation, public safety and homeland security, community development, health care delivery, energy independence and efficiency, education, worker training, private sector investment, entrepreneurial activity, job creation and economic growth, and other national purposes.”

Continue reading DWT"s Analysis of the National Broadband Plan.

Download the National Broadband Plan. 

You can also directly access DWT's analysis of specific topics under the National Broadband Plan here:

• Broadband Deployment
• High-Cost Universal Service
• Intercarrier Compensation
• Mobile Broadband Services and Spectrum Initiatives
• Infrastructure Deployment -- Poles, Conduits, and Rights of Way
• Navigation Devices
• Privacy Advisory
• Cybersecurity
• E-Rate Upgrade
• Broadband Adoption
• Accessibility (Persons with Disabilities
• Smart Grid
• Consumer Disclosure
• Broadband Availability in Tribal Communities
• E-Health Records

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link