A group of Democratic legislators have introduced a bill to create a nonprofit to help the government and its various broadband subsidy programs close the digital divide.

The goal of the Digital Equity Foundation Act is to close the equity, inclusion and literacy gaps that stand between current broadband use and the Biden administration’s goal of universal broadband deployment.

The bill would create a nonprofit foundation to “leverage public and private investments.”

The public investments include tens of billions of dollars, most going to the states, in broadband infrastructure and uptake subsidies through the National Telecommunications & Information Administration, which is overseeing most of the new broadband subsidies, and the Federal Communications Commission, which oversees some COVID-19-related subsidies and its Universal Service Fund.

The foundation will “award grants, support research, provide training and education, engage with stakeholders, collect data, and promote policies to improve digital equity outcomes,“ the legislators said in a joint statement Thursday (Sept. 15) unveiling the bill.

“As our world rapidly shifts online, Americans must be equipped with the knowledge and skills to use technology properly and successfully,” said Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), chair of the Communications Subcommittee and lead sponsor of the bill. “That’s why I’m introducing legislation that creates a long-term solution to close the divide on digital equity.”

Joining Luján in sponsoring the bill are Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.). Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) is lead sponsor of a House version. ■

The Republican-led House Communications Subcommittee wants to look at protecting CPNI (Customer Proprietary Network Information) beyond the 1996 Communications Act requirement on telecom nets.

It is yet another dive into the different regulatory standard for networks versus edge platforms.

"Under the Communications Act of 1996, telecommunications carriers must protect the confidentiality of..the personal information that consumers relay when communicating over telecommunications networks," the subcommittee explained in scheduling the hearing. "However, consumers today communicate across many other types of networks via apps, and online platforms and services."

There are many pages of CPNI rules dictating access and use.

The Subcommittee says it is "critical that consumers' personal information is protected no matter what kind of network they're using."

Both the Act and FCC rules require telecoms and interconnected VoIP providers to protect CPNI, which includes phone numbers called and the frequency, duration and timing of calls, and requires providers to file annual reports to certify compliance.

CPNI is considered sensitive info and FCC rules require customer approval (opt-in) for its use by third parties or for other than providing the telecom service--routing calls, for example--or marketing the providers own services within a category of service the subscriber already gets or preventing fraud. .

"[W]e thank Chairman Pai for his swift response on this 50th Anniversary of the Commission’s original EEO decision," said MMTC acting President Maurita Coley. "The Chairman’s decision to urge that EEO enforcement be moved from the Media Bureau to the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau speaks volumes about his willingness to listen, and to act, on proposals from civil rights and social justice advocates about diversity. The FCC’s bold decision 50 years ago in a divided nation to stop discrimination in broadcast hiring paved the way for diverse leaders such as Chairman Pai and former Acting Chairwoman Mignon Clyburn – the first Indian-American and African-American woman FCC Chairs, respectively – to rise to leadership positions that were previously inaccessible to people of color. The action today will help the world to see that ensuring equal opportunity is serious business at this FCC, and it sets an example for other industries, such as the tech industry, that have missed the mark.”

FCC chairman Ajit Pai said Wednesday (March 8) during a Senate Commerce Committee FCC oversight hearing that he would get an agency staff legal analysis confirming his belief that, based on the way the AT&T-Time Warner merger is being structured, the FCC has no authority to conduct a public interest review of the deal.

The Justice Department is currently reviewing the proposed merger for antitrust issues, but the deal was not submitted to the FCC for a public interest review, which looks beyond preventing competitive harms to weighing the benefits to consumers and the marketplace.

Asked by Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), ranking member of the Communications Subcommittee, whether the FCC would be reviewing the deal, Pai said that since no license was changing hands -- the "jurisdictional hook" for the FCC's review -- the agency would not have a role.

"In so far as that remains the case, it is my belief the FCC would not have the legal authority to review that transaction," Pai said.

Schatz asked whether Pai had asked his staff for a legal analysis confirming it would have no role. Pai said no, but agreed when pressed by Schatz that he would do so and share the findings with the committee.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) asked if Pai would do a public interest review analysis of the deal anyway. The chairman said if the deal is not filed with the FCC, it would have no fact set on which to review it. But he did say he would take that request back to the General Counsel's office.

The Senate Communications Subcommittee will hold its first hearing of the new Congress March 2 and the subject is spectrum, specifically its value to the U.S. economy.

That will include looking at the demand for licensed and unlicensed spectrum, as well as the FCC's spectrum auctions--the broadcast incentive auction is wrapping up at the end of March. It's value to the Treasury is at least $7 billion.

The witness list has been set. It comprises Scott Bergmann, VP, regulatory affairs, CTIA–the Wireless Association; Roger Entner, founder, Recon Analytics; Dave Heiner, VP and deputy general counsel, Microsoft; Pat LaPlatney, president, Raycom Media; and Tom Stroup, president, Satellite Industry Association.

The House took a serious, and mostly bipartisan, look Wednesday (Nov. 16) at the cybersecurity threat posed by the Internet of Things.

A joint hearing, "Understanding the Role of Connected Devices in Recent Cyber Attacks," was held in the Communications Subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), and the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade, chaired by Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-Texas).

The hearing was held in the wake of the distributed denial of service attack on Oct. 21 that restricted access to some major websites.

Apparently, the attack only employed 150,000 of about 1.5 million IoT devices still infected with the botnet that allows them to be commandeered to deliver similar or larger attacks in the future.

The seriousness of the issue was highlighted by the fact that the witnesses agreed that that the DDOS attack, which affected Netflix, Twitter and others -- was relatively benign compared to, say, an attack on critical systems that could cost lives.

Rep. Pete Olson (R-Tex.), a former Navy aviator, said the biggest threat to security is not bombs and missiles but ones and zeros and that, in the current environment, the government has to be proactive.

In fact, Republicans and Democrats were both using the R word (regulation) to talk about addressing the threat, as were all of the witnesses to some degree, though Dale Drew, SVP and chief security officer at Level 3 Communications, focused on standards and existing regs rather than new ones.

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), ranking member of the Communications Subcommittee, also suggested that approach. When one witness said a new government agency might be needed to deal with IoT cybersecutiry, she said that would not happen in the new administration. Walden joked that for every new agency created, they could eliminate two, a reference to President-elect Donald Trump's proposed requirement that two regulations be scrapped for every one added.

But Walden got serious, saying that the IoT cybersecurity issue was bipartisan and the Republican leadership would continue to address it.

Walden told the witnesses he was concerned about the government stepping into the marketplace, but primarily because he had heard cybersecurity witnesses before warn government to "first do not harm" and to be careful not to lock things into statute.

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the Communications Subcommittee, pointed out that some have argued that regulating devices will constrain innovation.

Witness Bruce Schneier, adjunct Lecturer, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, conceded the point, but said the government would definitely need to step in because the risk was too great. He said there's "a fundamental difference between your spreadsheet crashing and losing your data, and a connected car crashing and losing your life."

He emphasized that it was a catastrophic risk, crashing all connected cars, for example.

"It is an arms race, and the current edge is to the attacker," Schneier said, adding that given the scale of the Web and the ability to affect physical objects via IoT, "it might be that the Internet of fun and games is over."

WASHINGTON — With control of the Senate possibly passing to the Democrats and the House perhaps losing a dozen to two dozen seats, there could be some big changes in the principal Federal Communications Commission oversight committees.

After the Nov. 8 election, the second campaign season gets in gear as legislators angle for those plum posts in a new Congress.

Even though the House is unlikely to change hands — Republicans have the biggest majority (59 seats) in almost 100 years — most of the potential post-election action in the lame-duck Congress on the communications oversight front is in that chamber.

House Energy & Commerce Committee chairman Fred Upton (D-Mich.) and Communications Subcommittee chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) are term-limited and will have to give up their respective seats. Walden is looking to take over Upton’s chair, but has competition from John Shimkus (R-Ill.), who has seniority.

Walden is well-liked and, as head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, raises money and strategizes to help elect and re-elect Republicans to Congress. There were differing opinions on that race from sources both on and off the Hill, who asked not to be identified. One source believed seniority would win out and Shimkus would get the big chair. But another said Walden’s fundraising counted for a lot and predicted he would get the full committee chairmanship.

While Republicans will almost certainly lose seats, Walden reportedly has been advising them to run local races for a year now, a wise strategy given the questionable coattails of the eventual Republican presidential nominee.

If Walden does not get it, there might be a way for him to remain atop Communications despite his term limits. There have been talks about moving oversight of the Federal Trade Commission from the Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade Subcommittee to Communications, which would reconstitute Communications and allow Walden to chair that newly reconstituted committee.

That would make sense now that the FCC and FTC are having to team on overseeing online privacy.

If the FTC move doesn’t happen, vice chair Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) would be in line for the chairmanship of the Communications Subcommittee given that she is currently vice chair.