DOCSLIB.ORG

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband ) WC Docket No. 16-106 and Other Telecommunications Services ) ) COMMENTS OF CTIA Thomas C. Power Senior Vice President and General Counsel Debbie Matties Vice President, Privacy Scott K. Bergmann Vice President, Regulatory Affairs CTIA 1400 Sixteenth Street, NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 785-0081 May 26, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ..........................................................................................1 I. The Commission Lacks Authority To Adopt the Proposed Regulations. ...................14 A. The Commission Does Not Have Authority To Reclassify Broadband Services as a “Telecommunications Service” Under Title II of the Communications Act. ..........................................................................................15 B. Even If the Commission Has Authority to Classify Broadband Service as a Telecommunications Service, It Lacks Authority To Extend Section 222 to ISPs’ Provision of Broadband Service. .....................................16 1. The Text of Section 222, as Enacted and Subsequently Amended, Unambiguously Forecloses Application to Broadband Service. ...............16 2. The Legislative History of Section 222 Likewise Demonstrates That Application to Broadband Service Is Impermissible. ........................19 3. The Commission Implicitly Acknowledged Section 222’s Inapplicability to ISPs’ Provision of Broadband Service by Forbearing from Applying Its CPNI Rules in the Open Internet Order. .........................................................................................................23 C. Regardless Whether Section 222 Could Be Extended to Broadband Service, the Proposed Rules Exceed Other Limitations in Section 222. .........23 1. Read Holistically, Section 222 Does Not Permit the Commission to Interpret Section 222(a) to Protect Any Category of Customer Information Beyond CPNI. ........................................................................25 2. Regardless Whether 222(a) Could Be Construed to Vest the Commission with Authority to Define “Proprietary Information” Beyond CPNI, That Category Cannot and Should Not Be Extended to De-Identified Data. ................................................................................35 a. Section 222(c)(1) Unambiguously Excludes De-Identified Data. ...............................................................................................35 b. The NPRM Approach to De-Identified Information Unreasonably Departs from the Uniform Approach Taken by Other Agencies and Organizations and Will Cause Public Interest Harms. ....................................................................37 3. CPNI Is a Narrow and Specifically Defined Category Under Section 222(h) and May Not Be Interpreted to Include Other Information. ...............................................................................................44 4. Any Rules Under Section 222 Cannot Prohibit Data Practices and Instead Must Allow ISPs to Obtain Customer Approval to Use, Disclose, or Permit Access to CPNI. .........................................................45 5. Any Rules Under Section 222 Must Permit ISPs to Use, Disclose, or Permit Access to Information They Receive or Obtain Other Than by Providing Service.........................................................................48 6. The Commission Cannot and Should Not Adopt Prohibitions or Restrictions on ISPs’ Use of Arbitration. ..................................................50 a. Arbitration Benefits Wireless Consumers .....................................50 1) Arbitration provides a fair and effective remedy for the many injured consumers for whom the judicial system is not a realistic option. ......................................... 50 2) Class-action lawsuits provide little benefit to consumers. ........................................................................ 54 b. In Any Event, The Commission Lacks Authority To Prohibit Or Regulate Arbitration. ..................................................55 1) Under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), arbitration provisions are valid and enforceable, unless another federal statute evinces a “contrary congressional command” that overrides the FAA. ........... 55 2) The Communications Act of 1934 does not override the FAA. ............................................................................ 56 3) Any Commission rule regulating arbitration would not receive Chevron deference and would be invalidated. ........................................................................ 58 D. The Alternative Statutory Bases that the Commission Identifies Fail To Provide Authority for Regulating Broadband Customer Privacy.............59 1. Neither Section 201(b) Nor Section 202 Provides a Basis for Regulating the Privacy Practices of Broadband Providers. .......................60 2. Section 705 Does Not Provide Authority for Regulating the Privacy Practices of Broadband Providers. ................................................63 3. The Proposed Rules Are Inconsistent with Section 706. ...........................65 4. Title III Does Not Provide Authority To Promulgate the Proposed Rules for Wireless ISPs. ............................................................................71 II. The Proposed Rules Restricting ISPs’ Uses and Disclosures of Information Collected from and About Customers in the Ordinary Course of Business Are Unconstitutional. .......................................................................................................73 A. The Proposed Use Restrictions Are Speaker-Based and Fail To Survive Strict Scrutiny Under Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc. ...............................76 B. Even Under Central Hudson’s Intermediate Scrutiny Test, the Proposed Rules Fail at Every Step. ....................................................................78 ii 1. Because Commercial Speech Promotes the Public Interest, the Commission Bears the Burden of Justifying Restrictions on ISP Speech at Every Step of the Inquiry. .........................................................78 2. The Commission Can Invoke an Interest in Protecting “Privacy” Only Insofar as It Identifies a Particularized Privacy Harm Supported by Record Evidence. .................................................................81 3. The Proposed Rules Are Facially Unconstitutional Because They Lack Any Nexus to Privacy and Are Likely Unconstitutional as Applied to Each ISP Use Case. ..................................................................82 a. Rules Restricting First-Party Marketing Based on Information Collected in the Ordinary Course of Business Without Third-Party Disclosure or Access Fail at Every Step of the Central Hudson Analysis. ............................................84 b. Rules Restricting First-Party Marketing Based on Customer Profiles Developed Through Evaluating Online Activity Without Third-Party Disclosure or Access Fare No Better Under Central Hudson. ..................................................................88 c. Rules Restricting First-Party Delivery of Third-Party Blind Advertising Without Third-Party Disclosure or Access Likewise Fail Central Hudson at Both the State Interest and Tailoring Steps. ..............................................................................90 d. Rules Indiscriminately Restricting ISP Uses that Involve Disclosing or Permitting Access to Customer Information to Unaffiliated Third Parties Fail in Most Cases to Advance a State Interest and Certainly Are Not Narrowly Tailored. ...........91 III. Any Proposed Rules Should Be Based on the Sensitivity of the Data Protected and the Needs for ISPs to Adapt to Changing Technological Developments....................................................................................................................94 IV. The NPRM Approach to Notice of Privacy Policies Degrades the Customer Experience, Fails to Protect Privacy, and Imposes Substantial Costs. .......................98 A. There Is No Need for Expanded Notice Requirements Related to Privacy Policies and Changes Thereto. ..............................................................98 B. If the Commission Nevertheless Adopts the Proposed Notice Rules, It Should Implement the Following Modifications to Preserve ISP Flexibility. ...........................................................................................................101 V. The NPRM Approaches to Customer Choice Ignore Realities of the Broadband Ecosystem and Are Inconsistent with Established Privacy Regulation, Rendering Them Ineffective and Counterproductive. ...........................106 A. The NPRM Starts from an Improper Baseline Assumption About the Use and Disclosure of, and Access to, Information in the Broadband Ecosystem............................................................................................................107 iii 1. The NPRM Incorrectly Assumes That Broadband Customers Currently Receive No Choice, and That Opt-In Approval Is the Only Effective Remedy. ...........................................................................108 2. The NPRM Uncritically Extends the Voice CPNI Model, Ignoring Differences Between the Broadband and Traditional Voice Ecosystems That Undermine the Rules. ..................................................110 3. Harmonizing Privacy Rules Governing Different Regulated Services Could Reduce ISP Costs,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • APRIL 17, 2015 Chairman Tom Wheeler Federal Communications
    APRIL 17, 2015 Chairman Tom Wheeler Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Re: Applications of Comcast Corp. and Time Warner Cable Inc. for Consent to Assign or Transfer Control of Licenses and Authorizations, MB Docket No. 14-57 Dear Chairman Wheeler: It has been more than a year since Comcast announced its intention to acquire Time Warner Cable to form a cable TV and ISP behemoth. The combined company would, among other things: control over half of the high-speed residential broadband connections in the United States; dominate pay-TV across the nation; combine even stronger distribution muscle with NBC-Universal’s “must-have” video programming; and control critical advertising and set-top- box inputs. Opposition to this merger began the day the deal was announced and has grown to historic proportions. Over 700,000 Americans have called on you to reject the proposed merger, far more people than have opposed any other merger in the history of the Commission. Diverse industry and public interest group stakeholders (several of which are represented by the signatories below) have filed extensive documents in strong opposition to the merger. 1 The message is clear: the Commission should reject this merger because it would result in too much power in the hands of one company. You have staked your chairmanship on the importance of fostering competition to protect consumers and spur innovation, investment, lower prices and diversity. We agree. And the only way to protect that competitive future now is to reject the Comcast/Time Warner Cable merger outright — no conditions, no side deals — no merger, period.
    [Show full text]
  • The FCC's Knowledge Problem: How to Protect Consumers Online
    The FCC’s Knowledge Problem: How to Protect Consumers Online Hon. Maureen K. Ohlhausen* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. A FRAMEWORK FOR THINKING ABOUT REGULATION: COMPARING THE FCC AND THE FTC .................................................................. 205 A. The Regulator’s Knowledge Problem....................................... 206 B. The FCC’s Prescriptive, Ex Ante Regulatory Approach .......... 208 C. The FTC’s Flexible, Ex Post Enforcement-Based Approach ... 212 II. NET NEUTRALITY AND THE FCC: A CASE STUDY IN REGULATORY DIFFICULTY ..................................................................................... 214 A. What is Net Neutrality? ............................................................ 215 1. Proponents of Net Neutrality Regulation .......................... 215 2. Opponents of Net Neutrality Regulation .......................... 216 B. The FCC’s History of Broadband Regulation: The Road to Reclassification ........................................................................ 218 1. Broadband as a Title I information service ....................... 218 2. The Verizon Decision ........................................................ 220 3. The Aftermath of Verizon ................................................. 221 Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission. I would like to thank Neil Chilson for his contributions to this essay. The views expressed here are solely my own and do not necessarily represent the views of the Commission or any other individual Commissioner. Portions of this essay were adapted from a keynote
    [Show full text]
  • BROADBAND SPECIFICATION GUIDE Everything You Need to Know to Specify a Broadband/RF System
    BROADBAND SPECIFICATION GUIDE Everything You Need to Know to Specify a Broadband/RF System One Jake Brown Road, Old Bridge, NJ 08857 Version 6 • $25.95 U.S.A. 800-523-6049 • Fax: 732-679-4353 www.blondertongue.com Rev: 130211 Broadband Specification Guide Introduction This Broadband Specification Guide has been designed to break down a broadband system into simple building blocks to be used when specifying an RF System for any type of facility. Blonder Tongue Laboratories, Inc. has been in the business of manufacturing equipment for broadband systems for over 60 years. We have taken that knowledge and experience to formulate this Broadband Specification Guide especially for specifiers/architects/engineers using easy-to- understand descriptions accompanied with relevant diagrams. While the information presented in this guide is intended to help you design a RF systems it is not intended to be applicable or suited to every circumstance which might arise during the design or construction phases of such a system. The information and diagrams contained in this guide are the exclusive property of Blonder Tongue Laboratories, Inc., and may be reproduced, published for specifying, designing a RF system, or promoting Blonder Tongue products. No warranty or liability is implied, nor expressed and this guide should not be construed to be a replacement for knowledge and experience provided by a professional RF designer/engineer. Suggestions or feedback? Simply e-mail us at [email protected] with the subject line of “Broadband Specification Guide.” ©2012 Blonder Tongue Laboratories, Inc. All rights reserved. All trademarks are property of their respective owners.
    [Show full text]
  • Alpha ELT Listing
    Lienholder Name Lienholder Address City State Zip ELT ID 1ST ADVANTAGE FCU PO BX 2116 NEWPORT NEWS VA 23609 CFW 1ST COMMAND BK PO BX 901041 FORT WORTH TX 76101 FXQ 1ST FNCL BK USA 47 SHERMAN HILL RD WOODBURY CT 06798 GVY 1ST LIBERTY FCU PO BX 5002 GREAT FALLS MT 59403 ESY 1ST NORTHERN CA CU 1111 PINE ST MARTINEZ CA 94553 EUZ 1ST NORTHERN CR U 230 W MONROE ST STE 2850 CHICAGO IL 60606 GVK 1ST RESOURCE CU 47 W OXMOOR RD BIRMINGHAM AL 35209 DYW 1ST SECURITY BK WA PO BX 97000 LYNNWOOD WA 98046 FTK 1ST UNITED SVCS CU 5901 GIBRALTAR DR PLEASANTON CA 94588 W95 1ST VALLEY CU 401 W SECOND ST SN BERNRDNO CA 92401 K31 360 EQUIP FIN LLC 300 BEARDSLEY LN STE D201 AUSTIN TX 78746 DJH 360 FCU PO BX 273 WINDSOR LOCKS CT 06096 DBG 4FRONT CU PO BX 795 TRAVERSE CITY MI 49685 FBU 777 EQUIPMENT FIN LLC 600 BRICKELL AVE FL 19 MIAMI FL 33131 FYD A C AUTOPAY PO BX 40409 DENVER CO 80204 CWX A L FNCL CORP PO BX 11907 SANTA ANA CA 92711 J68 A L FNCL CORP PO BX 51466 ONTARIO CA 91761 J90 A L FNCL CORP PO BX 255128 SACRAMENTO CA 95865 J93 A L FNCL CORP PO BX 28248 FRESNO CA 93729 J95 A PLUS FCU PO BX 14867 AUSTIN TX 78761 AYV A PLUS LOANS 500 3RD ST W SACRAMENTO CA 95605 GCC A/M FNCL PO BX 1474 CLOVIS CA 93613 A94 AAA FCU PO BX 3788 SOUTH BEND IN 46619 CSM AAC CU 177 WILSON AVE NW GRAND RAPIDS MI 49534 GET AAFCU PO BX 619001 MD2100 DFW AIRPORT TX 75261 A90 ABLE INC 503 COLORADO ST AUSTIN TX 78701 CVD ABNB FCU 830 GREENBRIER CIR CHESAPEAKE VA 23320 CXE ABOUND FCU PO BX 900 RADCLIFF KY 40159 GKB ACADEMY BANK NA PO BX 26458 KANSAS CITY MO 64196 ATF ACCENTRA CU 400 4TH
    [Show full text]
  • Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission
    S. HRG. 114–175 OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION MARCH 18, 2015 Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 98–498 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Nov 24 2008 10:32 Feb 08, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\GPO\DOCS\98498.TXT JACKIE SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington MARCO RUBIO, Florida CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota TED CRUZ, Texas RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut DEB FISCHER, Nebraska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii JERRY MORAN, Kansas EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska CORY BOOKER, New Jersey RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TOM UDALL, New Mexico DEAN HELLER, Nevada JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia CORY GARDNER, Colorado GARY PETERS, Michigan STEVE DAINES, Montana DAVID SCHWIETERT, Staff Director NICK ROSSI, Deputy Staff Director REBECCA SEIDEL, General Counsel JASON VAN BEEK, Deputy General Counsel KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director CHRIS DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Director CLINT ODOM, Democratic General Counsel and Policy Director (II) VerDate Nov 24 2008 10:32 Feb 08, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\DOCS\98498.TXT JACKIE C O N T E N T S Page Hearing held on March 18, 2015 ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The High Cost of Doing Nothing on Net Neutrality Introduction
    ISSUE BRIEF: Q4 2019 UPDATE THE HIGH COST OF DOING NOTHING ON NET NEUTRALITY INTRODUCTION Business Forward has organized hundreds of briefings across the country on technology and innovation, collecting recommendations from local business leaders on a range of issues, from how to protect IP to helping small businesses use the internet to find new markets. Few issues are as important – or contentious – as net neutrality. This issue brief explains why net neutrality matters and offers a path to achieving it. The term “net neutrality” was coined in 2003, capturing the belief that the best way to ensure an open and vital internet is to prevent network operators from interfering with traffic to favor data from some sites or applications over others. Without net neutrality, network operators could censor viewpoints, stifle startups by charging exorbitant tolls, or undermine competition by favoring their own web offerings over their competitors’ offerings. With net neutrality, companies operating at the “edge” of the network are more likely to invest in distance learning, telemedicine, media streaming, and other new, data-intensive businesses. FOUR DIFFERENT FCC CHAIRS, SERVING TWO PRESIDENTS, SUPPORTED NET NEUTRALITY PRINCIPLES, POLICIES OR RULES – BUT THEY LACKED CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THEM. The FCC began working on ways to promote net neutrality in 2004. Four different FCC chairs (Michael Powell, Kevin Martin, Julius Genachowski, and Tom Wheeler) serving two presidents (George W. Bush, Barack Obama) issued net neutrality principles, policies or rules. But federal courts or subsequent FCC orders struck down these efforts. Martin’s “policy statement” was found to be unenforceable because it wasn’t a formal regulation.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Service Commission Must Fight for Internet Freedom by Roger
    Public Service Commission Must Fight for Internet Freedom by Roger Koopman When, in the spirit of bipartisanship, Congress and the Clinton Administration deregulated the Internet in 1994, the results were predictable. Fueled by freedom and entrepreneurship, the United States became the international Internet leader, attracting a steady stream of investment capital and creating the most robust, innovative and competitive broadband market in the world. All of that is about to change though, because the Federal Communications Commission knuckled under to a president whose vision for America is conformity, not liberty -- a place where free thought and free expression must first approved by the federal government. They call it “Net Neutrality,” which, like the camel’s nose under the tent, appears harmless enough. But what’s the real agenda here? Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem, based on the unsubstantiated fear that unless the government steps in and places its homogenizing thumb on the Internet, service providers (ISPs) will somehow create unequal access for transmission of broadband data. Thus, we must be protected from such bureaucratic boogeymen as “throttling,” “fast lanes,” and “blocking.” But guess what? Free market competition (which the FCC stands ready to ruin) has already exorcized those ghosts and goblins. Our nation has 17 large broadband providers and over 3,000 smaller ones. There is no monopoly and there is no problem. There is only the insatiable appetites of Obama Administration extremists, who wish to place every human activity under the expert supervision of the government elite. The biggest target of the professional controllers and planners is the Internet.
    [Show full text]
  • The FCC Is Involved in a Never Ending Fight to Ensure Net Neutrality As a Law Volume 1 (2) 2015
    The FCC is Involved in a Never Ending Fight to Ensure Net Neutrality as a Law Volume 1 (2) 2015 Fast Lanes without Slow Lanes: The FCC is Involved in a Never Ending Fight to Ensure Net Neutrality as a Law Matthew C. Quattrochi* 1. Introduction The overall purpose of this work is to discuss the current state of net neutrality. Given Federal Communication Commission (“FCC”) Chairman Tom Wheeler’s most recent proposal to pass net neutrality into law, net neutrality is ripe for discussion.1 The court ruling striking down the infrastructure of the Open Internet Order in Verizon v. F.C.C., and the devaluation of Title I regulatory authority exhibited in the decision made in Comcast Corp. v. F.C.C. bring about an appropriate point to stop and reflect concerning the options the FCC has to instill net neutrality regulation.2 Part II of this work will be dedicated to explaining net neutrality and addressing the overall question of whether net neutrality needs to be enacted into law. Part III will be dedicated to discussing Verizon v. F.C.C. and Comcast Corp. v. F.C.C. as well as other applicable case law concerning net neutrality violations. Part IV will address FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s most recent net neutrality proposal, now law. Part V will consider the authoritative options that the FCC has in regulating net neutrality violations. * Matthew C. Quattrochi is a 3rd Year law student at Barry Law School in Orlando Florida. He is an Orlando Chapter Attorney Liaison and the member of American Constitution Society.
    [Show full text]
  • THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION Brookings Cafeteria Podcast How We Connect: Network Revolutions from Gutenberg to Google February 22, 2019
    THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION Brookings Cafeteria Podcast How we connect: Network revolutions from Gutenberg to Google February 22, 2019 CONTRIBUTORS FRED DEWS Host Managing Editor for New Digital Products BILL FINAN Host Director, Brookings Institution Press TOM WHEELER Visiting Fellow, Governance Studies, Center for Technology Innovation JOSEPH PARILLA Fellow - Metropolitan Policy Program (MUSIC) DEWS: Welcome to the Brookings Cafeteria. The Podcast about ideas and the experts who have them. I’m Fred Dews. How we connect defines who we are says former SCC Chair Tom Wheeler, the guest on today’s episode. He is author of a new book published by the Brookings Institution Press titled, From Gutenberg to Google: The History of our Future. In which he brings to life the great network revolutions of our past to help us understand and deal with what is to come. You’ll hear my colleague, Bill Finan’s interview with him in just a moment. Also, on today’s episode, Metropolitan Policy Program Fellow, Joseph Parilla, shares his thoughts on Amazon’s decision to discontinue plans to open a new headquarters in New York City and what this means for economic development incentives. You can follow the Brookings Podcast network on Twitter @policypodcasts to get the latest information about all our shows, including Dollar and Cents, the Brookings’ trade Podcast, Intersections, and 5 on 45. Find them on our website, on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you like to get Podcasts. And now, on with the interview. Here’s Bill Finan, Director of the Brookings’ Institution Press. FINAN: Fred, thanks, and Tom, hello.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 State of Media
    UNDERSTANDING GROWTH TARGETING THE NEW MOBILE AUDIOAND FRAGMENTATION 26 CONSUMER82 STATE OF MEDIA 2013 ANALYTICS DEATH OF BIG DATA, RISE OF SMART DATA 68 ESPN: End of an Empire? 34 02 VIDEO EVERYWHERE FACT, FICTION & FUTURE Letter from the President For me, working in the discussions that will continue this industry has to drive growth and progress. always been an exciting adventure. Offline and online are cohabitating It still is to this now more than ever to earn day. Nevertheless, viewers’ time, so let’s examine the continuous shakeup of content and provider advancements models. Today technologies like in the media Dish Network’s Hopper and landscape Aereo (page 6) are stirring the can make pot, but tomorrow, who knows? our jobs and the task of tracking I also happen to be a tablet addict, trends a challenging endeavor. so it’s been enjoyable to see my These rapid changes are what favorite magazines adapting to the encouraged us to write our very ever-increasing push for crossover first STATE OF MEDIA (SOM) content (page 22). This process has four years ago, and I am proud to already made for some truly creative say our mission to keep business uses of the medium and I can’t wait partners, clients, new friends and to see what’s next. Again, it all ourselves informed has successfully reminds me that we should dispel continued to this day. Now, just the premonitions and instead look like the industry in which we work, at the opportunities a more unified KSM is evolving our publication media ecosystem will produce.
    [Show full text]
  • US Supreme Court Leaves Legal Precedent Supporting Net Neutrality
    US Supreme Court leaves legal precedent supporting net neutrality November 6, 2018 As the OCC has reported on our website on several occasions over the last few years, net neutrality has had its ups and downs. The greatest up was on February 26, 2015, when Consumer Counsel Elin Swanson Katz, State Broadband Policy Coordinator William Vallee, Senator Beth Bye, and Comptroller Kevin Lembo were invited by FCC Chair Tom Wheeler and his Special Counsel Gigi Sohn to attend an historic vote to ensure “net neutrality” to protect consumers with a level playing field, ordering that no consumer must pay more or charge more to gain faster speed at the expense of other users. Consumer Counsel and Other State Official Attend Historic FCC Hearing on Net Neutrality Consumer Counsel and Senator Beth Bye talking with Apple co- founder Steve Wozniak (“The Woz”) at the Historic FCC Hearing on Net Neutrality. Photo: Vallee We also reported on the low point last December 2017 when the Pai FCC overturned the 2015 Order by repealing (in effect, June 2018) the consumer protections granted by the Wheeler FCC’s net neutrality rules. On Monday. November 5, 2018, the Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) declined to hear a Trump administration and telecom industry federal appeal of the 2016 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling in favor of the 2015 Wheeler FCC Order in favor of net neutrality. By so doing, SCOTUS essentially makes no “decision on the merits,” but the ramifications of not taking up the industry appeal (opposing net neutrality) of the D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 March 7, 2016 Tom Wheeler Chairman Federal Communications
    March 7, 2016 Tom Wheeler Chairman Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., SW Washington, D.C. 20554 Re: Broadband Privacy Rulemaking Dear Chairman Wheeler: On March 1, 2016, five large trade associations for broadband Internet service providers (“ISPs”) proposed a framework for the Federal Communication Commission’s (“FCC”) forthcoming rulemaking on broadband privacy.1 While it is encouraging that ISPs now appear willing to engage on this issue and to recognize the importance of FCC data security and data breach regulations, the proposed framework fails to provide consumers with the robust protections needed in light of ongoing ISP information collection practices. We therefore submit this letter reviewing the collection practices of ISPs across multiple platforms (including their video offerings), and urging the FCC to adopt rules that will provide meaningful protections for broadband consumers. ISPs currently play a leading role in the complex ecosystem of online behavioral advertising and related forms of data-driven, targeted marketing. These companies are showing an increased interest in monetizing the data they collect about their customers, and they are leveraging their position as gatekeepers to the Internet to harness this data in powerful and invasive ways. Verizon, for example, has in place powerful data-driven tracking and targeting infrastructure for multiple platforms and devices, including mobile phones. Verizon’s acquisition of both AOL and Millennial Media in 2015, as well as its advertising partnership with Microsoft, provide the company with extraordinary capabilities for data gathering, analysis, and monetization of subscriber information.2 1 Letter of American Cable Association, Competitive Carrier Association, CTIA, NCTA and USTelecom to Tom Wheeler, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission (Mar.
    [Show full text]