Broadcasters joining the call for the FCC to start assessing its regulatory fees on Big Tech — computer companies, streamers, and other edge providers — saying they should not have to pay for computer company efforts — Microsoft in particular — to "degrade" their service.

In comments to the FCC on its proposed fees for fiscal year 2021, the National Association of Broadcasters said that the base of payors should be expanded to include unlicensed spectrum users that also take up a "substantial" amount of FCC resources but don't have to pay for the privilege.

The FCC supports itself through annual user fees levied on broadcasters and cable operators and satellite operators and their use of licensed spectrum. The fee is calculated according to how many full time employees (FTEs) are employed to regulate the various services.

Also Read: NAB Brands Airband Initiative Failed Science Project

NAB has been arguing that the FCC has boosted their fees to "unsustainable levels," in part thanks to its decision to require broadcasters to pay for some of the added funding Congress has said the FCC needs to use to create better broadband maps. Yet Big Tech companies that will benefit from those maps pay nothing.

NAB told the FCC this week it should be reaching into the deep pockets of computer companies for money. It pointed to broadcasters' long-standing battle with Microsoft over the latter's use of the broadcast band's so-called white spaces to deliver wireless broadband, but said others should be paying their own way as well. Microsoft this week expanded that primarily rural broadband effort to large cities.

Microsoft wants the FCC to allow it to use spectrum closer to broadcasters, while broadcasters say that runs a risk of interfering with its signals just as it is rolling out NextGen TV.

"Microsoft is using significant resources of the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) to urge the Commission to adopt further rule changes that will increase the risk of interference to television broadcasters to support its 'Airband Initiative,'" NAB told the FCC, and "only months after the FCC adopted earlier rule changes that benefit this technology. Microsoft is also seeking to overturn rules the Commission recently adopted to further the deployment of Next Generation TV services that will enhance service to television viewers. Yet despite the substantial Commission resources Microsoft and other unlicensed users utilize in these and other proceedings for their benefit, they pay absolutely nothing in regulatory fees to support the work of OET or the Commission generally, while Media Bureau regulatees pay for over 36% of the Commission’s costs."

NAB was focused on Microsoft, but said that Google, Apple, Facebook reap the benefits of commission activities as well. 

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr recently called for the FCC to start making Big Tech contribute some money to the universal broadband effort the government is subsidizing with billions of dollars in tax money. "NAB agrees with Commissioner Carr’s recent call for the Commission to finally stop allowing Big Tech companies, many of which generated over $1 trillion in revenue in 2020 alone, to free ride on the Commission’s activities," the association said.

The FCC plans to abandon two long-standing cable TV regulations that FCC Chairman Ajit Pai considers outdated, as explained in his monthly blog that was issued Wednesday just before the agenda surfaced for the Sept. 30 Open Meeting.

One proposal will allow cable operators to advise subscribers “as soon as possible” – rather than the current 30 days in advance – of any channel carriage changes.

Pai also seeks to eliminate an FCC rule requiring cable operators to maintain online information regarding their attributable interests in video programming services and related carriage of vertically programming.

Both actions are part of the FCC’s “Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative,” Pai explained, saying that the changes will make “consumer notices more meaningful and accurate … [and] make our rules clearer.”

Pai describes the “ASAP” proposal as a plan that will “make sure consumers are accurately informed rather than confused when there are disputes between video programmers and cable operators.”  He said that today’s 30-day notice requirement is no longer feasible.

“In today’s video marketplace, retransmission consent and program carriage negotiations are often concluded within days — if not hours — of the expiration of existing agreements,” Pai wrote. “It is frequently unclear, 30 days prior to a contract’s expiration, whether a new agreement will be reached, there will be a short-term extension, or programming will be dropped.

Related: Mayors Tell FCC to Keep 30-Day Retrans Notices

He fretted that consumers can be “inundated by premature and inaccurate notices” and may ignore or miss out “on notices about actual channel lineup changes.”  He acknowledged that in the confusion, some subscribers might drop their existing provider and subscribe to another service, even though the channel changes never come to pass.

“To make consumer notices more meaningful and accurate, and to make our rules clearer,” the proposed FCC Order will change the notice deadline from 30 days in advance to “as soon as possible” in cases in which carriage negotiations fail during the last 30 days of a contract, he explained.

The second cable-related agenda item involves a plan to eliminate the rule requiring that cable operators maintain in their online public inspection file information regarding their “attributable interests in video programming services and their carriage of vertically programming on systems in which they have an attributable interest.” Pai explained that this recordkeeping rule was originally adopted to help the Commission enforce channel occupancy limits.

“But those limits have long since been struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, negating any need for this requirement,” he said. “Moreover, this information can be obtained from sources other than the public inspection files maintained by cable operators, making this reporting requirement unnecessary.”

Also on the Sept. 30 FCC agenda is a plan, developed by the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau involving the Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS), to bring the services into line with its cost while “preserving the viability of IP CTS for those people with hearing loss who need it,” Pai said.  Use of IP CTS is paid for entirely through the FCC’s TRS Fund, and it has grown substantially in recent years. Today, this service represents almost 80% of the total minutes compensated out of the TRS Fund — at a cost of nearly one billion dollars a year.

Pai’s proposal would reduce the provider compensation rate to $1.42 per minute in 2020–21 and $1.30 per minute (the current cost-based rate) in 2021–22. If enacted, this would save the TRS Fund approximately $200 million over the next two years. Among other things, the FCC action would “for the first time … establish objective standards for assessing and testing the quality of IP CTS service,” Pai concluded.

Chicago -- Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer urged small cable operators to keep up the pressure on Washington legislators on key issues facing the industry, telling an audience at The Independent Show that their continued activism is key to their success.

“If you’re not involved, you’re going to lose,” Fleischer said in a Q&A with ACA Connects president and CEO Matt Polka, adding that particularly with complicated issues like net neutrality, few members in the House and Senate fully understand the issues that are weighing on the industry. “The only way they will believe in you is if they see you, they hear you and they feel you. Activism is at the heart of what you have to do.”

Earlier, Fleischer gave his take on the successful campaign of President Donald Trump -- he said that unlike Democratic candidate Hilary Clinton, Trump appealed to blue-collar workers who believed they were being ignored by Washington -- and predicted that the 2020 presidential election will have record turnout.

Fleischer went to bat for small cable operators who have endured criticism that they shouldn’t be trusted with something as vital as the internet, adding that the actions of smaller operators speak louder than words.

“If ever there was an issue where the attacks on your position were exaggerated, it’s this one,” Fleischer said of the net neutrality debate. “As if the FCC’s ruling destroyed the internet? I do think you have history on your side to show that the opposition was wrong. That’s a good starting point.”

Fleischer suggested that cable operators continue to make the case of providing what consumers want, stressing that “superb” customer service is essential.

“If people call you the local hometown provider and they think they are falling into the same type of consumer responsiveness that they get from the giant cable providers, then you haven't differentiated yourself. If you believe in your small town, in touch, local community base, the people who answer your phone and help your customers have got to provide that service, otherwise it rings hollow,” he said.

Fleischer, who had his own disagreements with reporters during his White House tenure, touched on some of President Trump’s criticisms of the press, adding that his assertion that the press is an “enemy of the people” is unwarranted.

“No, the press is not the enemy of the people,” Fleischer said. “Every President needs to have their feet held to the fire. ...They are often liberal reporters who make mistakes. President Trump has proved something, that he can push back, he can fight back in a way that [former Republican Presidential candidates] John McCain and Mitt Romney did not. But I also believe that there are bounds and there must be civility in how we carry out our arguments in the White House and as Americans. I’ll just say that they’re liberals and they’re wrong. I won’t say they are enemies of the people. ”

Fleischer also decried the absence of White House briefings, but said reporters shouldn’t miss them because they have something better -- access to the President.

“I give tremendous credit to President Trump for going out there and being his own press secretary,” Fleischer said. “He takes questions every day. That’s a reporter’s dream come true. As much as reporters complain, as much as they hate the President and the President hates them, and there’s this terrible hostility, he gives them the No. 1 most important thing they need and that is access to him to ask whatever is on their mind.”

Earlier, Fleischer said he would bring back the briefings, but not put them on TV.

“It shouldn’t be a TV show,” Fleischer said. “The briefing should be a normal conveyance of governmental information to reporters with questions so that reporters don’t posture and argue back and stand their ground so they can become famous and get Twitter followers. Take it off the TV and just make it a good old fashioned briefing.” 

The following is edited testimony from Rachel Welch, Charter Communications senior vice president of policy and external affairs, at a Sept. 26 Senate Commerce Committee hearing on consumer data privacy.

Advances in technology have radically changed the privacy landscape.

Despite Americans’ daily reliance on websites, apps and social media, it is difficult for consumers to understand and appreciate how companies are collecting, analyzing, sharing and selling a tremendous amount of information about them.

An increasingly important aspect of ensuring that consumers continue to utilize all the services the internet has to offer is making sure that they are confident that their personal information online is protected. While we strive to give our customers confidence with our current policies and practices such as not selling any information that personally identifies our customers to third parties, we recognize that there is still more to do.

That is why, last April, Charter CEO Tom Rutledge called for uniform privacy protections that would provide more meaningful consent for the use of their online information for all Americans no matter where they go on the internet.

Consumers as the Starting Point We appreciate that Congress is taking up the issue of online privacy and data security and recognize that there are a range of ideas and methods for protecting online data. We believe that a national online privacy framework should start with the consumer and be grounded in the concept of empowering and informing consumers to control the personal information that is collected about them online.

Charter believes such a framework should focus on the following core principles:

• The first principle is control. Consumers should be empowered to have meaningful choice for each use of their data. We believe the best way to ensure consumers have control over their data is through opt-in consent. Any legal framework that is ultimately adopted should ensure consumer consent is purposeful, clear and meaningful. That means no more pre-ticked “boxes,” take-it-or-leave-it offers, or other default consents. It also means that the use of personal data should be reasonably limited to what the consumer understood at the time consent was provided. Companies also should ensure that consent is renewed with reasonable frequency.

• The second principle is transparency. Consumers should be given the information they need to make an informed decision. Explanations about how companies collect, use and maintain consumers’ data should be clear, concise, easy-to-understand and readily available. Privacy policies should be separate from other terms and conditions of service. If all online entities provide such transparency, consumers will have the ability to weigh the potential benefits and harms of the collection and use of their personal data, and truly provide informed consent.

• The third principle is parity. Consumers are best served by a uniform framework that is applied consistently across the entire Internet ecosystem not based on who is collecting it, or whether a service is free or paid. From a consumer standpoint, they want their online data protected whether they are using an ISP like Charter, a search engine, an e-commerce site, a streaming service, a social network or a mobile carrier or device. Quite simply, we believe consumers should know that their personal information is being treated with the same level of protections wherever they go on the Internet.

• The fourth principle is uniformity. For these protections to be effective there should be a single, national standard that protects consumers’ online privacy regardless of where they live, work or travel. Whether a consumer’s information is adequately protected should not differ based on which state he or she is logging in from. A patchwork of state laws would be confusing for consumers, difficult for businesses to implement, and hinder continued innovation on the internet, which is a borderless technology.

• The final principle is security. At Charter, we believe privacy is security and security is privacy. Strong data security practices should include administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect against unauthorized access to personal data, and ensure that these safeguards keep pace with technological development.

We support the adoption of legislation that is based on these principles. We also believe that the Federal Trade Commission is the appropriate agency to oversee and enforce online privacy and data security.

Control Is Key

Revelations of data misuse in recent years have led to a long-overdue public conversation about what happens to data online and the vulnerabilities that develop when online data goes unprotected. Consumers today and in the future deserve to have the ability to control how their information is collected and used whenever they use the internet and wherever they go online.

WASHINGTON — Broadcasters and multichannel video programming distributors are trying to get more marketing flexibility in a world where online video is on the rise, and where new video competition is not subject to a host of regulations that apply to traditional TV. However, they face pushback from children’s advocates who argue that would be going in the wrong direction.

At the direction of new chairman Ajit Pai, the Federal Communications Commission voted May 18 to launch a review of all its rules and regs applying to media outlets — broadcast, cable and satellite.

That included input from broadcasters and cable operators on its rules mandating weekly quotas of educational kids shows on TV and the longstanding limits on integrating advertising into those shows.

The National Association of Broadcasters, including programmers Disney, CBS, Fox and Univision, sought more “flexibility” in meeting children’s TV requirements. They said imposing children’s-TV programming mandates on broadcast and cable when such content is readily available and not regulated on the internet should be up for reconsideration. They also want the FCC to reconsider the prohibition on including web links in kids’ shows.

Cable and broadcast outlets suggest the FCC get out of the children’s TV ad-limiting business entirely and leave that job to the Federal Trade Commission.

NCTA: The Internet & Television Association also wants the FCC to lighten up on the kids TV ad limits, which apply to cable as well as broadcast.

In response, the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and Center for Digital Democracy have told the FCC that kids TV rules remain a necessary check on commercialization by big media. They argue that the fact that edge providers can market to kids without consequences is no argument for leveling that playing field.

“The fact that YouTube and other internet and mobile providers ignore child development research and longstanding children’s media principles is no reason for the FCC to weaken important safeguards for the many children who watch programs on cable or broadcast television,” Angela Campbell, counsel for CCFC and CDD, told the FCC.

Pai has not signaled any response at present.

The following is a transcript of a floor speech made by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, ahead of the chamber’s March 23 vote to invalidate the Federal Communications Commission’s broadband privacy regulations.

As chairman of the Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Internet, I have worked hard to promote policies that encourage the private sector to invest in and grow the Internet ecosystem as a whole.

All of that is jeopardized, however, if government bureaucrats have the ability to overregulate the digital world.

And when it comes to overregulating the Internet, one need look no further than the Democrat-controlled Federal Communications Commission under President Obama.

In a world that was turning away from legacy telecommunications services and instead toward dynamic Internet applications, the FCC found its role gradually diminishing.

This is an inevitable and good byproduct of a more competitive environment brought about by technological innovation and successful, light-touch polices.

Yet the Obama FCC fought hard against this technological progress and instead pursued an aggressively activist and partisan agenda that put government edicts ahead of real consumer desires.

GRABBING FOR POWER
Over the last two years, the FCC made a stunning bureaucratic power grab.

First, the FCC stripped away the Federal Trade Commission’s authority to police Internet providers and seized that for itself by re-characterizing such services as monopoly-era telecommunications.

And then, in 2016, the FCC, which has little experience regulating Internet privacy, decided to turn our country’s privacy laws on their head by abandoning the time-tested enforcement approach of the FTC.

These actions by the FCC ignored both common sense and real-world data and instead focused on hypothetical harms of the future.

Ignoring years of Internet ecosystem precedent, where everyone was treated the same, the FCC’s 2016 broadband privacy regulations would apply only to certain parts of the Internet.

This is a source of significant concern, because at any particular time, consumers will not have reasonable certainty of what the rules are, and how their privacy decisions will be applied.

Are you at home on WiFi? At home on a smartphone? Using your smartphone on a friend’s WiFi? Using the Internet at a library?

Each of these could have very different privacy implications for a consumer because of the FCC’s piecemeal approach to privacy — leading to more confusion and uncertainty, not increased privacy protections as promised.

In enacting these lopsided rules, the FCC seems to have gone out of its way to disregard established FTC practice, by creating new regulations that differ significantly from the FTC’s tried-and-true framework.

The FTC’s privacy regime is clear, easy to understand and applies evenly throughout the marketplace. By contrast, the FCC’s rules are complex, confusing and often lead to the same data being treated inconsistently online.

The FCC’s action would harm consumers in other ways as well. Even though no consumer wants to be in the dark about newer and cheaper services, the FCC rules actually make it more difficult for customers to hear about new, innovative offerings from their broadband providers.

And because the FCC imposed heavy-handed data requirements on these Internet companies, [ISPs] will have less ability to offer services that are tailored to their customers’ needs and interests.

Furthermore, the FCC unfairly distorted the marketplace when it imposed unnecessarily onerous privacy restrictions on broadband providers while leaving the rest of the Internet under the strong, successful regime at the FTC.

MARKETPLACE RULES
When speaking about the economic opportunities the Internet now affords us, President Obama’s last FCC chairman declared that — and I quote — “government is where we will work this out.”

I couldn’t disagree more.

I believe the marketplace should be the center of the debate over how our digital networks will function, not the FCC. And I believe consumers and job creators should be the ones deciding about new technologies, not the government. The resolution before us today is the first step toward restoring regulatory balance to the Internet ecosystem.

The Federal Communications Commission released its 18th Video Competition Report on Jan. 17. Data points in the report demonstrate persuasively that the video services market is characterized by competition among cable, satellite, and telco providers of video subscription services as well as disruptive online video services. The market also is being transformed by the proliferation of media streaming devices and video apps.

Yet for all the technological advancements and proliferation of choices now available to consumers, much of the video market is still subject to regulatory restrictions that originated in the early 1990s, if not earlier. These regulatory burdens, and the uncertainty posed by the threat of new regulations based on leftover cable analog-era perceptions, impose costs and inhibit investment in advanced digital technologies and business models.

Evidence from the report revealing that the market for video products and services is innovative and competitive includes the following highlights:
MVPD Competition: At the end of 2015, 99% of all households were served by three competing multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), and 18% of households were served by four MVPDs. Cable MVPDs’ share of the national market was 53%, while satelitte providers served 33%, and former telephone company MVPDs served 13.4% percent. Yet total MVPD subscriptions dropped 1 million to a 99.4 million total.

OVD Competition: By the second quarter of 2016, subscriptions to online video distributor (OVD) services, such as Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu Plus grew to more than 120 million. OVDs are negotiating "exclusive streaming rights, which they use to attract consumers seeking specific video content," and also "investing in original programming to attract and retain customers."

Broadcast TV Competition: Broadcast TV also remains a viable choice for video consumers. Households relying on over-the-air  broadcast service exclusive of any MVPD service increased to 12.4 million TV households in 2015. According to an analysis cited in the report, in 2015 retransmission consent fees paid by MVPDs to TV broadcast stations increased to about 23% of total TV revenue, or $6.4 billion.

Video App Use: Consumers are increasingly using apps to view video content on Internet-connected devices. More than 460 million IP-enabled consumer-owned devices support video apps.

Video Device Alternatives: The report grudgingly acknowledged “MVPDs are introducing innovative services on the devices that they lease,” yet claimed the device market lacks competition. But all MVPDs support CableCard-enabled devices manufactured by third parties. And, importantly, alternative digital devices for viewing video content today include smart TVs, Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV, Google's Chromecast, Roku, Sony Playstation and Xbox video game consoles, as well as Internet-connected Blu-Ray players, tablets, and smartphones. These developments point to a video device market that is fully competitive.

In view of the vibrant competition for video services and products reflected in the report, the FCC should review, comprehensively and promptly, its video regulations. Pursuant to its review, it should close regulatory proceedings in which it has previously proposed to expand legacy regulations.

Click here to read more of this blog.

Randolph J. May is president and Seth L. Cooper is a senior fellow of the Free State Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan free market-oriented think tank located in Rockville, Md.

The FCC's privacy vote continued to draw a crowd Thursday (Oct. 27) as more groups weighed in on the FCC's decision to require broadband subs to give affirmative permission for the sharing of their Web browsing and app use histories, and take action to boost disclosure of data sharing and data security and breach notification.

Related:Stakeholders Go Public on Privacy Order

The Open Technology Institute was pleased with the move.

“OTI commends the FCC for taking this important step to protect the privacy of broadband consumers," said Laura Moy, acting director of Georgetown Law’s Institute for Public Representation, which represents OTI. "The rules approved today will finally give consumers the protection that they deserve and the Communications Act requires. We want consumers to have confidence in the internet as a safe platform for the exploration and expression of viewpoints without having to worry their ISP will be looking over their shoulder. By preventing ISPs from snooping into and monetizing private information without first getting their customers’ permission, this Order delivers that confidence.”

Demand Progress was equally upbeat, but also took the opportunity to take aim at the AT&T-Time Warner merger.

“Today, chairman Wheeler and commissioners Clyburn and Rosenworcel should be commended for asserting the FCC's jurisdiction over how internet providers protect their users' privacy," said Demand Progress executive director David Segal. "Time and again, we have seen the country’s largest ISP’s, including AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, violate the public’s privacy — severely eroding trust and chilling free expression online in service of corporate profits. Today’s vote is a step forward, but much more must be done. AT&T in particular is a notorious violator of privacy rights, and these consumer abuses are but one of many reasons why we look forward to fighting the company's attempted takeover of Time Warner.”

The FCC's privacy order makes kids' information sensitive data that requires opt-in consent for sharing.

"Common Sense applauds chairman Wheeler and the Commission for approving strong new protections for the privacy of children and families in their online lives and the right for broadband consumers to make informed choices about the use and sharing of their and their kids’ online information, including web and app activity, IP addresses, and geolocation," said Common Sense Kids Action founder James Steyer. "The new FCC rule will also protect families as they move from computers and mobile devices to a growing Internet of Things. This is an excellent step in increasing privacy protections for Americans overall, and we look forward to supporting the rule’s implementation as well as to supporting similarly robust rules for other online actors." Currently edge providers like Google and Facebook are not subject to similarly strong opt-in requirements, but some in Congress are looking to give the FTC more authority.

But there were plenty of pans, or at least partial pans, for the order, which ISPs have said could disrupt the ad-supported free content on the Web and give an unfair advantage to edge providers who are not under an opt-in regime for sharing Web and app info with third-party marketers.

“The FCC’s new privacy rules board up the windows while leaving the doors unlocked," said Rick Boucher, former Democratic chair of the House Communications Subcommittee and currently honorary chair of the Internet Innovation Alliance. "Rather than expanding the definition of sensitive data to include all Web browsing and app usage history, the FCC should adopt the FTC’s more sensible framework as the privacy requirements for ISPs so the entire internet ecosystem is governed by the same rules.

"The bifurcated system that the Commission has created will surely harm consumers by creating confusion," Boucher added. "There is a better way.”

Advertisers and ad associations were not happy.

"The FCC’s new sweeping privacy rules decision is unprecedented, misguided, counterproductive, and potentially extremely harmful," said the Association of National Advertisers. "Subjecting virtually all web browsing and application use data to opt-in consent is completely inconsistent with its long-standing treatment by the FTC, the states, and the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA) self-regulatory program. ANA believed it was a positive step when the FCC stated it would distinguish between sensitive and non-sensitive data, but this proved to be merely misleading lip-service. The new definition of sensitive data adopted by the Commission today would encompass and swallow a vast amount of routine consumer data on the Internet and mobile media."

Dave Grimaldi, EVP of the Interactive Advertising Bureau, said: “Today the FCC took an unfortunate step toward destabilizing the ad-supported internet economy. By voting to approve an overly-broad definition of “sensitive information” that includes web browsing history, the Commission’s action could impair the ability for online ads to support the wealth of consumer benefits we all have come to expect.”

Software developers said that while they recognized that the FCC needed to address the regulatory gap -- the FTC can't regulate common carrier privacy, so the FCC deeded itself oversight when it reclassified ISPs as common carriers in the Open Internet order -- the commission had gone too far. 

“We are concerned that this new privacy regulation strays from the current FTC framework which focuses on information that is actually sensitive," said Software & Information Industry Association VP Mark MacCarthy. "The Commission is casting too wide of a net by classifying web browsing information, app history and other such data as ‘sensitive.’ This broad opt-in requirement is likely to create substantial confusion for consumers.”

USTelecom's reaction was mixed.

“When this proceeding began, USTelecom and many others urged the commission to harmonize its proposal with the framework developed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) given its years of experience with protecting consumer privacy," said USTelecom president Walter McCormick. "The FTC’s approach, endorsed by the White House, has supported innovation across the internet to deliver services that consumers want. The FCC’s partial revision of its proposal to more closely align with the FTC approach is a welcome change for consumers."

But there was a "but."

"Unfortunately, the FCC has chosen to depart from the FTC framework in some areas, for example, by summarily classifying all Web browsing as sensitive information," McCormick added. "This is a disservice to the goal of providing consumers with consistency in privacy expectations when they use the internet and poses a threat to continuing web innovation. The FCC’s argument that broadband providers have unique access to consumer information compared to other internet firms is simply wrong, as the record in the proceeding amply demonstrates."

Verizon, which is a member of USTelecom, was even more cautiously upbeat.

"Verizon is encouraged by the preliminary information we heard this morning about the privacy order approved by the FCC," said Kathy Grillo, SVP and deputy general counsel. "Our company cares deeply about our customers’ privacy, and we strongly believe maintaining consumer trust is critical in each facet of our operations."

"From the outset of this proceeding, we stressed the importance of creating a consistent approach to privacy that gives consumers the same information and choices about the use of their data, regardless of the type of company they interact with online. While we will need to closely review the text of the FCC order after it is released, the final order appears to adopt rules that are much more closely aligned with the Federal Trade Commission’s privacy framework that has long applied to our ISP business and that continues to apply to the rest of the internet ecosystem.”

WASHINGTON — The National Cable & Telecommunications Association says it has risked billions of dollars to get into the business data services (BDS) market — a market the Federal Communications Commission has said is key to the rollout of 5G — and its reward from the agency is the potential of rate regulations and unbundling that will hurt its chances of reaping any gains from that investment.

In its comments on the FCC's proposal to institute a technology-neutral framework — which means regulating competitors and new entrants, as well as incumbents, based on an as-yet undefined definition of market competitiveness — the NCTA said the FCC's proposal, which was approved along party lines in April, threatens the key goal of fostering facilities-based competition.

The NCTA has said the key issue is what providers of BDS service, and the answer should be the dominant carriers, but not their competitors. “The commission has long understood that there is never a need to regulate a new entrant because it has no ability to charge unjust and unreasonable prices,” the trade group told the FCC.

The NCTA said the FCC's reason for the regulatory remake — “technology neutrality” — has no basis in statute and “never has been the basis for imposing rate regulation on companies that do not possess market power.”

The NCTA does not buy the FCC's tentative conclusion that the enterprise data marketplace is broken. “Worse, the commission appears set on a course that will decrease investment and harm competition by not only imposing significant rate reductions on incumbent providers, but also seeking to require competitive providers to share their networks [unbundling] at those newly regulated rates.

“In a stark departure from sound economic and regulatory policy, the commission proposes to regulate a market that exhibits all of the hallmarks of a well-functioning, highly competitive market,” the NCTA said.

The trade group said that some 500 companies report providing this service as of 2013, and that is probably an underestimation.

WASHINGTON — Stakeholders have come up with voluntary best practices for data collection by commercial and private drone users, but journalists have received a carve-out from those guidelines.

The stakeholders involved cited the reliance of the public on an independent press and the protections of the First Amendment. Those stakeholders developed the voluntary regime under the auspices of the National Telecommunications and Infrastructure Administration (NTIA), part of the Commerce Department.

"For this reason, these best practices do not apply to newsgatherers and news-reporting organizations,” the guidelines said. “Newsgatherers and news-reporting organizations may use UAS in the same manner as any other comparable technology to capture, store, retain and use data or images in public spaces.

“Newsgatherers and news-eporting organizations should operate under the ethics rules and standards of their organization, and according to existing federal and state laws,” the guidelines continued.

Among the practices that apply to other users — including TV and film producers that are increasingly using the technology — include making reasonable efforts to provide prior notice; limiting the collection, use and storage of data covered by the guidelines; protecting the collected data; and monitoring and complying with state laws.

“I want to congratulate the hard-working stakeholders who reached consensus on privacy, transparency and accountability best practices related to private and commercial use of unmanned aircraft systems,” Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker said. “As the president recognized when he directed NTIA to convene this process, these best practices can help promote Commerce priorities by allowing the industry to grow, develop and innovate while helping to build consumer trust.”

The best practices are the latest in a series produced by NTIA-curated stakeholder meetings in an effort to put some meat on the bones of the Obama administration’s Privacy Bill of Rights.

WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission has finally issued its lengthy statement  — plus scathing comments from the five commissioners — from last month's contentious decision regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Omnibus Declaratory Ruling and Order.

Predictably, the final details, published last Friday (July 10), triggered even more critiques of the order, along with speculation as to how the restrictions will affect marketing, promotions and other outreach initiatives by media companies.

It also quickly triggered a court challenge. ACA International, an association of credit and collection professionals, on Friday filed a suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seeking judicial review of the FCC's June 18 TCPA ruling.  Other organizations are expected to seek an overturn of the FCC's ruling, according to legal observers following the case.

Although much of the concern about automated calling — including text messages and phonecalls to mobile devices — has involved the financial-services and healthcare industries, many observers voiced concern about the extent of the FCC's ruling. Online service providers, entertainment companies, sports teams and social media networks have already been hit with lawsuits by consumers who claim they improperly received robocalls or other prohibited contacts.

In its almost 200-page ruling, the FCC noted, "We have not viewed 'legitimate' businesses as somehow exempt from the statute."  The agency said its goal is to “strengthen the core protections of the TCPA.” In the report, the FCC confirmed the notions that "Internet-to-phone text messages require consumer consent" and that “text messages are ‘calls’ subject to the TCPA.”

Each of the five FCC members issued a statement about the decision. 

“There is no legal reason carriers shouldn’t offer their customers popular robocall-blocking solutions,” chairman Tom Wheeler said.

FCC commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, acknowledged “we have more work to do,” while the agency’s third Democrat, Mignon Clyburn, said, “The commission is striking a difficult-but-necessary balance with this item.”

The FCC's Republican members were far more verbose and hostile. Commission member Michael O’Rielly called the decision a "farce" that "penalizes businesses and institutions acting in good faith to reach their customers using modern technologies."

Commissioner Ajit Pai, in an extraordinarily long 12-page dissent, concluded that "the order is likely to leave the American consumer, not to mention American enterprise, worse off."  Pai insisted that the FCC's action "dramatically expands the TCPA’s reach."  He said that under the plan, "each and every smartphone, tablet, VoIP phone, calling app, texting app — pretty much any calling device or software-enabled feature" could become a target for a legal complaint.

Many analysts have pointed out that TCPA restrictions have opened the door to ambulance-chasing lawyers, who sue companies for perceived violations — often unintended or unknowingly — of the consumers' do-not-call preferences. 

Some individual TCPA lawsuits settlement may soon "break the $100 million barrier, according to Bradley M. Baglien, Heather Zachary and  D. Reed Freeman Jr. (all of the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr) in a Bloomberg Law analysis. In their paper, posted just before the FCC released its TCPA text, the attorneys warned that businesses "need to be vigilant about TCPA compliance."

“The commission’s TCPA decision will hurt legitimate businesses, seeking to provide consumers with the calls and text alerts they have requested, said Mark Brennan, a partner at law firm Hogan Lovells focusing on TCPA compliance and FCC policy issues. That is “completely contrary to the TCPA’s statutory language and Congress’s intent,” he said. 

“The retroactive effect of the declaratory ruling will have plaintiffs’ counsel sprinting to the courthouse to file even more spurious class action lawsuits that will drive up costs and reduce services for all consumers," Brennan said.  The FCC's decision "will give rise to new confusion as legitimate businesses struggle to comply with the FCC’s opaque language," he added.

Complaints about violations of the TCPA are the FCC's most numerous complaint category, with more than 215,000 grievances filed last year, according to the agency.

A national survey released last week revealed that most Americans don’t have a clue what “net neutrality” means.

If true (and it is, even among TV executives) that doesn’t bode well for smooth assimilation into the regulatory construct of new FCC rules governing the Internet.

The phone survey by Hart Research Associates, with 800 adults 18 and over, echoes what I’ve gleaned talking to TV executives: Nearly three out of four (74%) Americans are unfamiliar with the term “net neutrality” and what it actually means.

In its simplest form, “net neutrality” means that cable and phone companies, which own the main plumbing of the Internet, should not block content or discriminate and should manage their networks transparently.

Beyond that, anyone trying to describe it to a lay person will see listeners zone out within seconds, typically accompanied by a nictitating membrane covering the eyes and slow, polite nods.

Now, the debate has evolved into a such a confusing cacophony of strident free-speech declarations and network- management business-speak that it’s little wonder most consumers are stumped. The term itself has been intentionally co-opted by giant corporations on both sides of the debate to the point where it means whatever its supporters want it to mean — which would require a mind reader with a law degree to divine, and maybe not even then.

That explains, in part, why 73% of Americans want greater disclosure of the details of the FCC’s proposal to regulate the Internet. FCC chairman Tom Wheeler has proposed regulating the Internet like a utility under Title II of the Communications Act to ensure his — and President Obama’s — vision of net neutrality.

But only one in three Americans, the survey found, thinks that regulating the Internet like telephone service will be helpful. It’s a fact that belies the confusion: Big free-speech fans — some of the very “Save the Internet!” viewers roused by comedian John Oliver’s acerbically funny dissection of Big Cable on his HBO series Last Week Tonight — really don’t trust big government to do the job either.

Is broadband so essential that the government should be more active in regulating a flourishing, privately capitalized Internet?

Wheeler seems to think that is just the role the FCC needs, given his view of ISPs as the potentially competition-crushing link in the virtuous cycle of edge to net to consumer.

He may not feel it is appropriate to make details of the new rules public before the coming vote, but he should do so afterward, and ASAP.