Five technology companies dropped motions jointly filed with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court asking permission to release more data about FISC orders, said documents filed Monday with the FISC (http://1.usa.gov/M9TQub). The companies -- Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft and Yahoo -- received permission from the Justice Department Monday to release some information about how many national security orders they receive, and the number of customer accounts targeted with those orders (CD Jan 28 p10). The five companies said in a joint statement that they believe “the public has a right to know about the volume and type of national security requests we receive. We're pleased the Department of Justice has agreed that we and other providers can disclose this information.” The companies said they'll “continue to encourage Congress to take additional steps to address all of the reforms we believe are needed.” Privacy advocates welcomed the decision, in news releases after the administration’s announcement, but said the government could go further. “This is a victory for transparency and a critical step toward reining in excessive government surveillance,” said Alex Abdo, staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project (http://bit.ly/MmGnQB). “Companies must be allowed to report basic information about what they're giving the government so that Americans can decide for themselves whether the NSA’s spying has gone too far.” The ACLU and four other consumer advocates -- the Center for Democracy and Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, First Amendment Coalition and TechFreedom -- filed an amicus brief to the FISC in support of the tech companies’ motions. TechFreedom President Berin Szoka wants the government to go further, he said (http://bit.ly/1k2fgWe). He said the concessions “go just far enough” so President Barack Obama can point to examples of specific surveillance reform in Tuesday’s State of the Union address “without providing Americans the full transparency we need to have a rational debate about balancing national security with privacy.” Szoka pointed to the six-month delay for reporting data, the two-year delay for reporting FISC data and the requirements that the reporting be done in ranges of 1,000: “The transparency allowed by the agreement will paint only a picture of surveillance in the broadest of brush strokes.” Abdo agreed that “even more is needed” on transparency. “Congress should require the government to publish basic information about the full extent of its surveillance,” he said, “including the significant amount of spying that happens without the tech companies’ involvement."

The FCC filing last week in LightSquared’s bankruptcy proceeding likely wasn’t intended to shut the door on the company, said a Medley Global Advisors analyst. The commission said it’s not in a position to confirm whether it can complete the work required to approve LightSquared’s preferred bankruptcy exit plan by Dec. 31 (CD Jan 22 p6). “More likely, the FCC indicated it was keeping the door open (even if narrowly) without predicting which way it might swing in the future,” said analyst Jeff Silva in a research note. The statement, taken in isolation, was arguably not the ideal message LightSquared and its $4 billion reorganization backers wanted in front of the bankruptcy judge so late in the game, he said. “But neither was it necessarily lethal for LightSquared.” That the FCC, NTIA and other agencies in the Obama administration have chosen to remain engaged on the company “suggests some level of political will exists to contemplate reinstatement of LightSquared’s license” and ancillary terrestrial component waiver, he said.

Correction: Ex-Commerce Department General Counsel Cameron Kerry is now affiliated, in visiting capacities, with the Brookings Institution and Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Media Lab (CD Jan 28 p7).

Municipal broadband systems typically charge consumers substantially more than their private-sector rivals for similar triple-play offerings, the Phoenix Center found in a study released Monday (http://bit.ly/1mPncJN). “The evidence suggests that the government’s provision of broadband services does not lead to lower prices,” said Phoenix Center Chief Economist George Ford, in a statement. “While municipal entry may serve valid purposes, lower prices do not appear to be one of them.” The competitive price for a standard triple-play service is about $100 in the U.S., and “the expansion of municipal provision of broadband service won’t alone alter that reality,” the paper said. It’s also not possible to conclude that a lower price implies better consumer welfare, the paper said. The study said it sought to “correct the errors” in a Consumer Federation of America report urging governments to “intervene to protect the public” by building more municipal networks to compete with private-sector providers.

A move to give states USF money in line with what they pay in to the fund is understandable, but has some troubling implications, said Aspen Institute Fellow Blair Levin Monday in remarks to the Alaska Telephone Association. Levin reacted to legislation introduced in December by Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., which would ensure rural states get back 75 cents of every dollar they pay into the fund (http://1.usa.gov/M6dTts). “The troubling part is that if Senators look at the issue through the lens of their own state and only try to solve for the question of how to get their state more money or find a formula that works best for their own state, we will never improve Universal Service,” Levin said in prepared remarks. “Indeed, it is unlikely that Universal Service will survive, unless, like mythical Lake Woebegone, we can create a situation in which all states are above average in obtaining USF support.” The House Republican leadership is proposing to rewrite the Telecom Act, noted Levin, a Democrat and primary author of the FCC’s 2010 National Broadband Plan: “If the Republicans take the Senate, delivering a bill whose purpose will be dramatic deregulation is not unthinkable.”

Communications providers will be allowed to disclose the “number of national security orders and requests issued to communications providers, and the number of customer accounts targeted under those orders and requests including the underlying legal authorities,” said Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in a joint statement Monday (http://1.usa.gov/1et64oR). They said the move arose from President Obama’s speech on surveillance, in which he outlined several proposed changes to the government’s information collection practices (CD Jan 21 p1). After consulting with other agencies, Clapper’s office “determined that the public interest in disclosing this information now outweighs the national security concerns that required its classification,” the statement said. “Permitting disclosure of this aggregate data resolves an important area of concern to communications providers and the public.” The statement also indicated “additional steps must be taken” in the coming weeks “to fully implement the reforms directed by the President."

The framework for moving forward with IP transition trials will be based on the four principles laid out last spring by FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, industry and agency officials told us. The principles include protecting public safety, preserving universal service, keeping competitive markets functioning and protecting consumers. An order has been circulated that would set procedures for proposing and evaluating IP transition trials, and is likely to be supported by all the commissioners (CD Jan 10 p1). The commission will also consider an NPRM and NOI at the FCC meeting, according to a notice released Thursday (http://fcc.us/KQ20qQ). In addition to setting the framework for the IP transition and related trials, the order considers ways to encourage broadband buildout in rural areas, industry officials said. In meetings last week, CenturyLink officials described their plans for “proposed transition to new third party points of connection, transition from existing TDM hub and spoke architecture, and a model for a packet switched voice network with state level connectivity” (http://bit.ly/1hsTxFa). The Communications Workers of America spoke Wednesday with the FCC’s acting General Counsel Jonathan Sallet to emphasize “the critical importance of data collection regarding the employment impact of the IP Transition Trials,” an ex parte filing said (http://bit.ly/1hsU3mK). Such data would “help ensure that employees can transition to the work on IP networks, and keep quality telecom jobs in the United States,” CWA said.

President Barack Obama’s big data study will conclude with a report “that anticipates future technological trends and frames the key questions that the collection, availability, and use of ‘big data’ raise -- both for our government, and the nation as a whole,” said Counselor to the President John Podesta in a Thursday blog post (http://1.usa.gov/1mMuWiG). In remarks on proposed changes to the government’s surveillance programs (CD Jan 21 p1), Obama revealed a “comprehensive review” of how data collection and data use is affecting society, with Podesta heading the effort. The final report “will help identify technological changes to watch, whether those technological changes are addressed by the U.S.’s current policy framework and highlight where further government action, funding, research and consideration may be required,” Podesta said. The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology will also participate, he said. PCAST “will conduct a study to explore in-depth the technological dimensions of the intersection of big data and privacy,” Podesta said. The review will also include consultations with “industry, civil liberties groups, technologists, privacy experts, international partners and other national and local government officials,” as well as think tanks and academic institutions, he said. Podesta said he expects the working group to complete most of its work over the next 90 days, but “we don’t expect to answer all these questions, or produce a comprehensive new policy” in that timeframe.

In high-technology mergers, the Justice Department now views protecting “innovation” as a key consideration, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Renata Hesse said in remarks to the Conference on Competition and IP Policy in High-Technology Industries at Stanford University. “While competitive prices are -- and will remain -- a key objective, the division fully appreciates the importance of innovation,” Hesse said, according to prepared remarks (http://1.usa.gov/1aN1vIf). “Innovation can dramatically improve consumer welfare by motivating the introduction of extraordinary new products, including some that meet demands that consumers didn’t even anticipate.” Hesse said DOJ looks closely at “evidence that shows that a firm being acquired has been a particularly innovative or disruptive competitor,” in considering a merger. Hesse cited DOJ’s 2011 decision to block AT&T’s purchase of T-Mobile. DOJ said at the time: “AT&T’s acquisition of T-Mobile would eliminate a company that has been a disruptive force through low pricing and innovation."

The “common carrier” prohibition discussed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in its net neutrality decision “raises significant concerns” about the IP transition, Public Knowledge told FCC acting General Counsel Jonathan Sallet Monday, an ex parte filing said (http://bit.ly/LHojj9). “With regard to Verizon’s pending request to discontinue service on the New Jersey Barrier Island, the decision raises significant concern because grant of the request, without finding Voice Link to be a Title II service, would leave residents of Mantoloking without a guarantee of basic voice service,” PK said. The FCC would have questionable ability to enforce a voluntary decision by Verizon to provide Voice Link on terms similar to those offered for their wireline service, PK said: As the court explained, “the Commission may not impose on a Title I service provider a Title II common carriage obligation.” Without classifying Voice Link as a Title II service, “it is difficult to see how enforcement of a core common carrier obligation (obligation to serve the public indiscriminately) could be enforced,” PK said. The commission may also lack authority to resolve disputes on “interconnection, intercarrier compensation, rural call completion or other areas touching on ‘core’ common carrier obligations,” PK said. “At best, the FCC can impose a duty to negotiate in good faith."