1. Monthly archive
  2. April 2010

April 2010

Google changes Buzz privacy settings

Google said Monday it "didn't get everything right" with its Buzz social network. The company said it "moved as fast as possible to improve the Buzz experience." Monday afternoon a message on the company's blog asked users to "confirm" their settings. Some people had complained about privacy issues around a controversial feature called "auto-following." That was an automatic move by the system to create a list of followers from addresses in the user's Gmail account. Now, Google said, that's been replaced by "suggestions for people to follow."

German minister criticizes Facebook on privacy

Consumer protection minister Ilse Aigner has sharply criticized Facebook's handling of personal data and is calling on the social network to upgrade its privacy settings.

Minister Aigner urges Facebook's CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg in an open letter "to revise the privacy policy without delay" and calls on the company not to allow personal data to be passed on to third parties for commercial purposes without users' consent.

Bad U.K. Copyright Bill Will Leap The Pond In No Time

[Commentary] Barring some unforeseen development, the House of Commons in the U.K. will approve a dreadful piece of legislation called the Digital Economy Bill being pushed by the entertainment, sports and other industries. The implications for the U.S. are enormous.

The legislation, which would allow Internet users to be thrown off line for copyright infringement, or even to block access to entire Web sites, is scheduled to come up for consideration tomorrow (Tues.) under a fast-track process called "wash-up," used at the end of Parliamentary sessions, much as the "wrap-up" is used in the U.S. Congress - for bills to be taken up with little debate. The bill has already been passed by the House of Lords, so action by Commons would be the final step in approvals before the current session of Parliament ends, expected to be on April 12. About 20,000 people have already sent letters to their Members of Parliament asking that the bill receive proper debate. It now appears as if several hours of discussion have been scheduled for tomorrow (April 6).

Japan and mobile phone operators agree on unlocking handsets

The Japanese government and four major mobile phone operators have basically agreed to unlock handsets to enable consumers to use them for services offered by any of the companies, Internal Affairs and Communications Ministry officials said Saturday. Handsets in Japan are currently SIM locked to limit their use to services offered by mobile phone companies that market them, but the ministry asked the firms to unlock the capability -- a move that would give more freedom of choice to consumers. If the unlocking is realized, consumers would be able to switch mobile phone service providers without having to buy costly new handsets. Such purchases have often discouraged people seeking to change companies for lower fees or services they find attractive.

Federal Communications Commission
April 13, 2010 from 9:00 a.m.-12:45 p.m
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297292A1.doc

As Americans increasingly rely on broadband services for so many aspects of their lives, including public safety and national security, it is critical for the FCC to gain a better understanding of the survivability of existing networks and explore potential measures to reduce network vulnerability to failures in network equipment or severe overload conditions in emergencies.

The workshop will focus on reliability and security of the nation's communications critical infrastructure. Discussion will address both protecting and securing communications and information systems and incentives that should be in place to encourage increased resiliency and security in communications networks. Panelists will also discuss reliability information collection and how such data can help to improve the reliability and security of wired and wireless communications infrastructures including broadband networks.

The workshop will be open to the public; however, admittance will be limited to the seating available. Those individuals who are interested in attending this event may pre-register on-line at http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/event-registration.html. Those who pre-register will be asked to provide their name, title, organization affiliation, and contact information. Individuals may also contact Deandrea Wilson at Deandrea.Wilson@fcc.gov or via phone at 202-418-0703 regarding pre-registration. The deadline for pre-registration is Friday, April 9, 2010.

Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC's web page at www.fcc.gov/live. The FCC's web cast is free to the public and does not require pre-registration.

Reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities are available upon request. Please include a description of the accommodation you will need. Individuals making such requests must include their contact information should FCC staff need to contact them for more information. Requests should be made as early as possible. Please send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau: 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

For additional information about the meeting, please contact Susan McLean at (202) 418-7868 or by email: Susan.McLean@fcc.gov


Federal Communications Commission
May 6, 2010
10:00 am to 1:00 pm
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-596A1.doc and
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-557A1.doc

10:00 a.m. Welcome and Introductory Remarks

Mary Beth Richards, Special Counsel to the Chairman for FCC Reform

10:20 a.m. - 1:00 pm Roundtable Panel -
Moderator Andrew C. Martin, FCC Chief Information Officer

Allison Ellis, Ericsson, Director, Regulatory Policy
Christopher Imlay, General Counsel, ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio
Brian Higgins, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP Partner
Chris Duffus, Spectrum Bridge, Inc., CFO
Christopher Bjornson, Steptoe & Johnson LLP FCBA Access to Government
Connie Durcsak, PCIA, Senior Director, Industry Services
David Redl, CTIA, Director, Regulatory Policy
Donald Vasek, UTC, Director Spectrum Services
John Garziglia, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC
Joan Griffin, Kelley Drye and Warren, LLP, Of Counsel
Joseph Davis, Chesapeake RF Consultants LLC, President; Member AFCCE
Mark Brennan, Hogan Lovells US LLP
Katie Venticinque, FAA, Aeronautical Info Specialist
Linda Braboy, Bennet and Bennet, and Rural Telecom Group (RTG)
Mark Gibson, Comsearch, Director, Regulatory Policy
Peter Nordby, Sitesafe, Inc., representing APCO
Peter Tannenwald, Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, P.L.C.
Thomas S.Dombrosky Jr, Wiley Rein LLP, Engineering Consultant
Troy Langham, Clear Channel Communications/Radio, Sr. FCC Engineer

FCC Representatives:
Anthony Serafini, OET
David Ward, PSHSB
James Brown, WTB
Jim Bradshaw, MB
Hossein Hashemzadeh, MB
Jim Brown, MB
Kathleen Campbell, IB
Lisa Scanlan, MB
Thomas Nessinger, MB
Thomas Sullivan, IB
Wayne McKee, MB
William Dever, WCB

The Panelists in the Roundtable will be asked to comment on the following topics and questions, which cover electronic filing and correspondence, the application process, data, phased-in implementation, and exceptions.

ELECTRONIC FILING, CORRESPONDENCE AND NOTIFICATIONS

1. What are the major concerns raised if the Commission were to mandate electronic filing where it is not already required? As the Commission recognized in its Ex Parte proceeding, "in some cases, electronic filing is not possible without undue hardship because the person making the oral ex parte presentation does not have access to a computer or the Internet." Would these concerns also arise if the Commission mandated electronic filing of all CLS forms? If so, please provide details, including specific examples of undue hardship.

2. In light of those concerns, should the Commission maintain an option for filing application forms either manually or telephonically for certain services or classes of applicants? If so, which services or classes of applicants?

3. Similarly, should the Commission maintain an exception to mandatory electronic filing for emergency STA's, e.g., should the Commission retain a process for paper or telephonic filing in cases of national emergency? Should the Commission consider accepting STA's on alternative "New Media" such as iPhones, Blackberries, Androids or other electronic devices which may work in an emergency when other devices do not? Should this concept be extended to simple renewals and address changes?

4. Should electronic versions of authorizations be deemed official authorizations? If so, should that affect rules on maintaining records in station files, or posting authorizations?

5. Should correspondence and notifications, e.g., dismissal letters, construction and renewal reminder letters, and other courtesy notices generated through CLS, be provided electronically to the applicant or licensee/permittee and contact-of-record? If so, should the Commission provide an opt-out option, which would allow applicants to receive paper copies of correspondence and notifications through regular mail?

APPLICATION PROCESS

1. What functionalities would be most useful for entering information and other data into a CLS application, e.g., system pre-filling information already in the database; previewing an application before filling out all of the required data fields; allowing third-party access to "draft" applications?

2. What kinds of real-time processing, e.g., "error checks" where the system will notify the filer of errors as information is entered into the system; real-time filing; and real-time monitoring of applications and authorizations, should be incorporated into the system?

3. Should contact information in the Commission's Registration System (CORES) and CLS be integrated? If so, to what extent? Should contact information updated in CLS be automatically updated in CORES? Should contact information updated in CORES be automatically updated in CLS? Should the Commission assign a single FCC Registration Number ("FRN") to each entity doing business with the Commission, with the ability to create sub-accounts that could be associated with the single FRN?

4. Should the Commission consolidate application procedural rules for CLS, to the extent not limited by statute? Should there be statutory changes? If so, please provide examples of where rules could be consolidated. For example, each Bureau employs a different process before accepting applications for filing. Should that process be consolidated across all services in CLS, or should some Bureau processes be maintained?

5. Are there unique terms used in particular service(s) that have a meaning that would be lost if they are conformed to the terms used in other services: If so, please provide examples. Similarly, should terminology be made consistent for purposes of filing applications in CLS? For example, should the term "authorization" cover the terms "license" and "permit;" should there be a distinction between "cancel" and "terminate" and "expire;" should the terms "return," "surrender," and "tolling" be maintained as separate terms; should the terms "consented to" and "granted consent to," as well as "non-consummate" and "dismiss" be consolidated for purposes of transfers and assignments?

6. Are there procedures followed in processing applications for experimental authorizations, wireline service, broadcast, public safety, satellite or wireless service that might benefit from being conformed to those used in other services? In contrast, are there any unique procedures used in the processing of one type of application that should not be changed in the CLS?

ACCESS TO CLS DATA

1. How would the public use application and licensing data in CLS, e.g., to search for individual applications or licenses; to conduct more in-depth analyses regarding a larger set of applications or licenses with interactive tools; and to access raw data to use as needed on an individual basis, e.g., other market-based analyses?

2. How would the public use tower siting and tower registration data?

3. What types of data would the public need to access in CLS to support those types of uses?

4. How should data in CLS be made accessible, e.g., access to individual applications or authorizations through standard web pages; access to larger amounts of data in easily accessible formats such as spreadsheets; access to very large amounts of data in various formats?

5. What historical data, e.g., tracking a license from issuance to the present (much like a title search) should be made accessible in the system?

6. Are there concerns about conversion of data? How should the FCC approach improving the accuracy of current data? Are there concerns about methods for improving data accuracy?

7. What kinds of mapping capabilities should be considered? What would be useful and to which user communities would these capabilities be most useful?

Phased-in Implementation. The Commission will deploy CLS in phases over several years. What problems have occurred from the perspective of system users when the Commission has implemented new electronic licensing systems in the past, including the Consolidated Data Base System, the International Bureau Filing System, and the Universal Licensing System?

Exceptions. Are there any services or types of filings for which CLS should not be used?


Google Searches for a Foreign Policy

When Google announced that it would shut its censored online search service in China, it was doing more than standing up to a repressive government: it was showing that, with the United States still struggling to develop a foreign policy for the digital age, Internet companies need to articulate their own foreign policies.

Google is hardly the first American company to stray into the State Department's bailiwick. Since the bad old days of the United Fruit Company in Latin America, powerful multinationals have conducted themselves like quasi-states, influencing the foreign lands in which they operate by deciding whether to accommodate or resist the unsavory practices of authorities there. For Internet companies, that choice has been sharpened by the fact that the World Wide Web is no longer just a force for freedom and diversity but also a tool for repression. Governments use it to spy on dissidents, human rights activists, and other troublesome elements. This change happened so fast that it left the foreign policy establishment gasping to catch up. It also exposed Washington's deep ambivalence about information technology: while it champions the free flow of ideas in closed societies like Iran, it fears being a target for cyber-attacks by hostile governments and doesn't want to export technology that could be diverted into military uses. Conflicted and confused, Foggy Bottom has little to offer Silicon Valley by way of support or even guidance.

Google Gets Little U.S. Corporate Support in Internet Fight With China

Google is using Internet freedom as a rallying cry in its confrontation with China. But the deafening silence from U.S. corporations underscores how increasingly isolated Google looks in its hope to rewrite the rules in the country with the biggest number of Internet users.

Only GoDaddy.com, the Internet domain name and Web host company, immediately followed Google's lead in protesting Chinese policies. It said that it would no longer register domain names in China because of new rules requiring it to collect customers' photos. The action by GoDaddy, which has not been known in the past for taking a strong stance on Internet freedom, contrasts sharply with the modest responses from other companies. Microsoft, Yahoo and others have trumpeted the general principles of Internet freedom, but none have directly echoed Google's call for an end to Web censorship in China. And, GoDaddy aside, no other technology company has hinted at a change in business practices in China to protest regulations and restrictions there.

Networks turn clock back to family hour

For a while there, it looked like family television was dead. In answer to the hard-R rating of cable, both network dramas and comedies became increasingly dark, grisly and/or sexually oriented, while the family comedy, once the keystone of prime time, dwindled to "The Simpsons" and a couple of live-action shows, one of which was "Two and a Half Men."

But this past fall, with very little fanfare, television got back on message. Between the recent renaissance of the family comedy and the increasing popularity of kinder, gentler crime-solving shows, the long-lost family hour has quietly reconstructed itself. After years of being dominated by shows about graphic police work, medical procedurals and the sexual antics of friends and colleagues, the television landscape is once again dotted by homesteads, ringing with the sound of multigenerational and mostly non-profane voices.

Vodafone confident of upper hand in Verizon fight

Vodafone is increasingly confident that the balance of power in its tempestuous relationship with Verizon Communications is shifting in the UK mobile phone group's favour. Vodafone thinks its negotiating position with Verizon Communications over the future of Verizon Wireless, the US mobile phone operator that the two groups jointly own, is getting stronger, according to people familiar with the UK company. Verizon Communications, the US telecommunications group that owns 55 per cent of Verizon Wireless, has blocked the mobile operator from making dividend payments since 2005, so that the business can pay down debt. Vodafone owns the other 45 per cent of Verizon Wireless and has been trying, so far without success, to restore the dividends. Verizon Wireless generates about 30 per cent of the UK group's earnings but contributes no cash. The lack of dividends is one reason for tension between Verizon Communications and Vodafone. Another is Verizon Communications' wish to secure full ownership of Verizon Wireless, which is the largest mobile phone operator in the US.

© 1994-2026 Benton Institute for Broadband & Society. All Rights Reserved.