The Obama administration believes it’s “critical to find a smart innovation-leaning balance” to cybersecurity legislation, said Danny Weitzner, White House deputy chief technology officer for Internet policy. And part of the balance is for the government to have authority to ensure that companies that have “our critical infrastructure are engaging in adequate security practices,” he said at the Computer & Communications Industry Association’s Washington caucus.
Whether the FCC should promulgate rules for TV antennas came up in several filings, posted to docket 10-235, on a rulemaking notice setting the stage for the agency to hold incentive auctions if it gets congressional authority. The NAB and Association for Maximum Service Television said the regulator ought to look into requiring antennas to carry labels outlining their performance. That filing and others said labeling won’t overcome technical hurdles (CD March 11 p6)to designing antennas so portable devices can get mobile DTV in the VHF band, where the commission seeks to voluntarily move some stations. Consumer electronics industry filings said the FCC lacks authority to take any action on antennas.
CTIA urged the FCC to rely on a collaborative process for developing requirements for hearing-aid compatible (HAC) handsets based on new technologies that go beyond CMRS. But two groups representing the hearing impaired said the FCC should adopt strong requirements that are of maximum benefit for those with hearing loss. Comments were due this week on a rulemaking approved by the commission at its Aug. 5 meeting.
Companies large and small, public interest groups and trade associations offered a divided FCC very different takes on whether proposed net neutrality rules would stifle or spur competition, in replies in the net neutrality proceeding. The biggest change from the first comment round, in January, is that many filers focused on the Comcast decision and the complicated question of whether the FCC has authority to proceed with new net neutrality rules or first would have to change the way broadband is classified to gain clear authority.
The FCC is likely to change its approach to net neutrality after losing a case Tuesday where enforcement of 2005 principles of ISP conduct was at issue, advocates for and opponents of new mandates told us. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the commission lacked ancillary authority to censure Comcast’s network management practice of blocking peer-to-peer transmissions, as was expected (CD Feb 3 p2). The D.C. Circuit said it was unpersuaded by commission arguments that Sections 1, 230(b), 623, 706 and other parts of the Communications Act made the 2008 order within the scope of its congressional authority. Congress’ role is to facilitate “fresh” discussion on net neutrality, get consensus among all stakeholders and write a law, said House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher, D-Va.
ISP’s and their clients should consider the existing leading concepts in terms of privacy and intermediate liability in light of the phenomena of cloud computing, said U.S. State Department Coordinator of International Communications and Information Policy Philip Verveer after a Media Institute speech. Verveer told us cloud computing presents many advantages with respect to more extensive and less expensive services. During his speech Verveer said occasions -- such as the thirtieth anniversary of OECD’s Guidelines and the fifteenth anniversary of EU’s Data Protection Directive -- are sufficient to make a point: the privacy-related implications of cloud computing have been recognized and beginning to be addressed. However, it’s desirable to find an appropriate balance between the values associated with privacy and the opportunities for increased economic efficiency in the cloud concept, Verveer told us: “The closer we can come to an understanding with respect to privacy, jurisdiction, and intermediary liability, the better off we will be, particularly if we take care not to diminish the efficient operation of cloud computing beyond whatever may be necessary to protect other values deemed to be of superseding importance.” Regarding Internet intermediaries and their social and economic role, Verveer said that to the extent that the Internet’s various intermediaries, transmission companies, Internet service providers and application vendors are subject to liability for content provided by third parties, there inevitably will be less diverse content available. “Some of that will be a function of the risks of consequential damages,” Verveer said. “This is a matter where the United States has something very useful to offer the world.” Section 230 of the Communications Act, was passed in 1996 as part of the Communications Decency Act, itself a part of the Telecommunications Act amendments,” he said. The provision, which was introduced as a floor amendment by Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Calif., and former Rep. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has been integral to the development of the Internet as we know it today, Verveer said, and it provides “a federal immunity” to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service.
The three appeals judges who heard FCC v. Comcast expressed skepticism that the commission had ancillary authority to find the company had violated net neutrality principles in blocking peer-to-peer file transfers (CD Aug 4/08 p1). Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit pressed FCC General Counsel Austin Schlick Friday to cite a statute that gave the regulator direct authority over an ISP’s network management. Comcast’s lawyer was challenged to show how the company was harmed by the commission’s order against it, since no fine was imposed.
Yielding to complaints by consumer advocates, including Ohio’s Office of Consumers Counsel, members of the state Senate softened provisions in a telecom deregulation bill. But SB-162 continues to draw fire from Consumers Counsel Janine Migden-Ostrander and others, who say they'll keep up the pressure on the Senate. The opponents also plan to lean harder on the Ohio House, which has a version of the measure, for changes, they said. The state’s telcos defend the measure as reflecting a trend by states to deregulate phone services.
The FCC should begin a rulemaking that would force Internet service providers to report in detail on ways they monitor or interfere with “any level of communication by end users to access or share lawful content and applications on the Internet,” Free Press said in a filing. It came about two months after the FCC released an order sanctioning Comcast for the way it manages its network (CD Aug 21 p2). “Any service provider that wants to manipulate the connection between Internet users and Internet content has an obligation to disclose what it’s doing,” Policy Director Ben Scott said in a news release.
By 3-2, FCC commissioners found that Comcast discriminated against peer-to-peer applications by interfering with them but not other broadband traffic. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin’s Republican colleagues dissented, as expected (CD Aug 1 p1). Martin and Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein criticized Comcast for not being candid with consumers and the FCC about its network management. They and Commissioner Michael Copps called the practices discriminatory and in violation of 2005 FCC net neutrality principles. Commissioner Robert McDowell criticized consideration of the order because major changes were shared with other commissioners but not him the evening of the vote. He disagreed with acting against Comcast after it had agreed not to discriminate and for enforcing principles that aren’t rules.