May 2014

FCC’s 2014 Quadrennial Regulatory Review Published in Federal Register

On April 15, 2014, the Federal Communications Commission released a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the 2014 Quadrennial Regulatory Review – Review of the Commission’s Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In the 2014 Quadrennial Review FNPRM, the FCC seeks additional comment on the broadcast ownership rules including proposed modifications of those rules. The FCC also seeks comment on certain aspects of the Commission’s 2008 Diversity Order, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit remanded and directed the Commission to address in the context of the media ownership review proceeding. Additionally, the FCC seeks comment on the proposed disclosure of certain broadcast television station sharing agreements.

By this Public Notice, the FCC’s Media Bureau announces that the 2014 Quadrennial Review FNPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 20, 2014.5 Comments must be submitted no later than July 7, 2014. Reply Comments must be submitted no later than August 4, 2014.

Closed Auction of AM Broadcast Construction Permits Closes

On May 13, 2014, the Federal Communications Commission completed an auction of ten construction permits in the AM broadcast service. This auction, which was designated Auction 84, raised (in net bids) a total of $598,160.00, with 10 bidders winning a total of 10 construction permits. This Public Notice provides detailed information concerning winning bidders, down payments, final payments, refunds, long-form application (FCC Form 301) filing requirements, and
licensing matters.

EU Antitrust Chief Casts Doubt on Google Deal Over Rivals’ Links

Joaquín Almunia, the European Union’s antitrust chief, said that he might yet take a tougher stance toward Google in a long-running case that he and the company have been in talks to settle for more than a year.

The announcement is a potential blow for Google, which reached a tentative deal with Almunia in February by agreeing to display rivals’ links more prominently in its search results.

Google has been trying to resolve the three-year case and avoid a potential fine of up to $5 billion. But whether the announcement was an indication of a new hard line by Almunia or a diplomatic nod to the company’s many critics in Europe was not clear. And any action would still be months away.

Net neutrality may be harder to achieve than we thought

[Commentary] Network neutrality requires a lot of neutrality to be effective. Put simply, in situations where consumers have a direct pricing relationship with content providers (such as is the case with Netflix), if you prohibited ISPs from charging different access fees to different content providers, ISPs could use consumer charges to undo any real consequences of that.

Also, the mechanism by which an ISP obtained rents from content providers was by charging consumers more for content from ‘high value’ providers. Strong net neutrality will put all content providers on the same terms and so that mechanism will not be available. Thus, content providers will hang on to the surplus they create in competition with other content providers while ISPs will capture only baseline value common across all content.

Then there’s the critical question of ISP investment incentives. Their investment increases the value of all services. If that increase is correlated positively or is independent of content value, then net neutrality regulation has no impact on the ISPs ability to capture the marginal value of their investments.

So this is not a situation where price discrimination allows ISPs to cover fixed costs they would not ordinarily cover. Instead, when it comes to network quality, net neutrality regulation does not stand in the way of investments that increase quality in a more or less neutral fashion.

Finally, there’s competition amongst ISPs. Many commentators -- myself included -- have suggested that if only we had enough ISP competition there would be no role for net neutrality regulation. Even strong net neutrality will not be effective in ensuring that content providers receive profits consistent with competitive outcomes.

House Commerce Committee Asks How/Whether To Regulate Edge Providers

The House Commerce Committee’s Republican leadership wants input on how and whether the Federal Communications Commission should regulate edge providers.

That was one of the questions teed up in the third in a series of white papers the committee is issuing as part of its review and planned rewrite of communications law.

The latest white paper focuses on competition policy and what role the FCC should have. Among the questions for stakeholder comment is one on competition at the network level and the substitutability of various delivery mechanisms.

"Following the Verizon decision, the reach of the Commission to regulate 'edge providers' on the Internet is the subject of some disagreement," the white paper says, then asks. "How should we define competition among edge providers? What role, if any, should the Commission have to regulate edge providers," which it describes as "providers of services that are network agnostic."

The issue the white paper raises is whether edge providers are also potentially subject to that regulation (for example, would paid priority in a search engine's rankings be something that impedes the "virtuous cycle" of unfettered access to content that the FCC is pledging to preserve through new open Internet rules).

See which ISPs Google, Microsoft and Netflix trade Internet traffic with

The network interconnection deals between content providers and Internet service providers (ISPs) are often shrouded in secrecy, at least when it comes to the question of whether any money is changing hands. But it's possible to figure out which companies are directly exchanging traffic with ISPs by examining publicly available information if you know where to search.

Analyst Dan Rayburn shows which ISPs the likes of Google, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, Netflix, Pandora, eBay, and Apple have direct connections with. The connections are "public information that anyone can look up simply by knowing the networks' Autonomous System number (AS) and looking at their peers," Rayburn wrote. "You don’t have to be a networking engineer to look at BGP [Border Gateway Protocol] relationships and see what is taking place. It’s all public info."

House Rules Committee Sets Debate For USA Freedom Act

The House Rules Committee has set the rules for the House floor debate of the USA Freedom Act (H.R. 3361).

The bill, which passed unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee would end bulk data collection by the National Security Agency, as well as boost transparency and reporting requirements for targeted data requests, require more specificity in those requests, and minimize retention and dissemination of nonpublic data.

The bill now goes to the House floor for one hour of debate, 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of Judiciary, and 20 minutes divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It could be scheduled for that House vote as early as May 21 according to the office of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), which has it on the calendar for "possible consideration."

There will be a mix of Republican and Democratic amendments to consider, including ones that would allow intelligence agencies to negotiate with telephone companies to store call record details for national security purposes, one that could require the government provide the public with the total number of requests for data and the number of individuals affected, requires probable cause for data searches, and prevents intelligence agencies from mandating that a device manufacturer, software developer, or standards organization build in a backdoor to circumvent encryption or privacy protections of their products.

Workshop on Mobile Device Theft

Federal Communications Commission
June 19, 2014
9:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0520/DA-1...

The Commission’s workshop will include three panel discussions centered around:

  • Developing practical consumer-oriented technical solutions to deter device theft;
  • Making more standardized and accessible data available for mobile device crime reporting for law enforcement and other uses; and
  • Establishing best practices to facilitate greater coordination between federal, state and local law enforcement, including greater involvement of customs enforcement officials.


National security journalists say it’s only getting harder to report on intelligence agencies

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued new policies requiring that all public writings and remarks -- even by former employees -- be checked beforehand for sensitive information, and circumscribing how employees can talk about classified material that’s already out in the public sphere.

Long-time intelligence reporters say it’s too soon to say whether the directives -- in effect since April -- are specifically causing sources to clam up. But the policies contribute to a climate where government sources are increasingly twitchy about talking with reporters, even on unclassified matters.

Another privacy threat: DNS logging and how to avoid it

AT&T is dredging domain name server (DNS) records, the lookup table that converts domain names and selling the results to would-be advertisers -- unless AT&T customers pay for it to stop.

DNS logging is widespread, even in places where you might not expect it. Every time you use a DNS, it records your IP address (and thus your approximate location), the domain name you looked up, the current time, and the name of your ISP.

Many organizations that run DNS servers are beginning to learn that there's money to be had in those logs. Google, of course, has known that since the beginning of time.

But a new service from Golden Frog offers zero DNS logging -- for a price. The company just launched an encrypted, zero-logging DNS. Golden Frog says on its site, "We developed our zero-logging VyprDNS service to increase user privacy and defeat censorship across the world."

VyperDNS is built into Golden Frog's virtual private network service called VyperDNS. When you connect with VyprVPN, all DNS activity is handled on Vypr/Golden Frog servers. VyprVPN has 700 servers, located in more than 40 cities around the world.