1. Monthly archive
  2. March 2016

March 2016

Lifeline: Striking the Right Balance

From the outset of the Commission’s Lifeline modernization proceeding, one of the primary challenges has been striking the right balance between the Federal Communications Commission’s dual mandates of affordability and access to “advanced communications technologies.” In other words, how can we guarantee that low-income Americans can take advantage of all the opportunities that real broadband Internet access enables – from jobs to education to healthcare – while also ensuring that this access remains within reach financially?

So, it’s not surprising that since FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and Commissioner Mignon Clyburn announced their proposal for including broadband in the Lifeline program, we’ve heard some questions about what the proposed rules – and, in particular the concept of phased in “minimum service standards” – would mean for the affordability of Lifeline-supported services. Understandably, we have also heard concerns about what the proposal means for future availability of mobile voice service in the Lifeline program. To ensure that Lifeline is continuing to meet subscribers’ needs and that our reforms are accomplishing their intended modernization goals, the proposal also specifically requires a mid-2019 program review and report by the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau. There’s another an important proposed change to the Lifeline program that would help considerably with the affordability mandate: shifting all eligibility reviews to the National Verifier and thereby decreasing administrative burdens on providers. By helping Lifeline providers realize significant cost savings in their administrative overhead, the National Verifier would also help promote affordable offers that meet the minimum standards. Finally, modern mobile networks continue to see technological advances that allow services such as voice to be delivered more and more efficiently. For Lifeline, an important trend in the years ahead will be the growing use of so-called Voice-over-LTE capabilities by US wireless providers.

[Jon Wilkins is Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Matt DelNero is Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau]

Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at Digital Northwest Broadband Summit

Mayor Ed Murray of Seattle (WA) asked this morning for a stronger federal partner to help communities in their broadband efforts. I am here today to offer the National Telecommunications & Information Administration as your partner and to urge you to take advantage of our expertise on these issues. Key to this effort is our new BroadbandUSA program, which offers technical assistance, guidance and resources to communities across the country seeking to expand local broadband deployment and adoption.

We launched this program in 2015 to build on the lessons learned, best practices and collective wisdom from across our broadband grant portfolio, and to leverage the federal investments that we have already made through our broadband programs. Today’s Digital Northwest Summit is an important part of this new initiative as we travel the country to convene local, state and federal officials, industry representatives, community activists and other stakeholders to study the broadband challenges they face and explore potential solutions. As part of this initiative, our technical assistance team is here to provide free, one-to-one support to you today and tomorrow.

Trump saves funds thanks to media attention

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are the front-runners for each party’s presidential nomination, but while Clinton is grinding through the old-fashioned way — paying a large ground staff, buying television and digital advertising — her most likely general election rival is still largely taking advantage of free cable and network coverage, according to their campaigns’ most recent balance sheets. Trump's rivals, Sen Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Gov John Kasich (R-OH), find themselves in trickier spots, the latest federal election filings reveal. Both are under financial pressure — Gov Kasich more so than Sen Cruz — which throws doubt on their ability to overcome the advantages of their billionaire rival, who has 100 percent name ID and a historic ability to manipulate the media.

US to Provide Temporary Trade Sanction Relief to China’s ZTE Corp

The US government plans to temporarily lift trade sanctions against China’s ZTE Corp., apparently, easing a source of tension between Washington and Beijing. The US slapped trade sanctions on the telecommunications supplier earlier in March, citing evidence ZTE violated restrictions on exporting American technological goods to Iran and other nations. “As part of the effort to resolve the matter, and based upon binding commitments that ZTE has made to the US government, Commerce expects this week to be able to provide temporary relief from some licensing requirements,” a senior Commerce official said. The official characterized talks with the company as “active” and “constructive.” But the official also emphasized that removal from a blacklist “would be temporary in nature and would be maintained only if ZTE is abiding by its commitments to the US government.” Additional details of the agreement weren’t immediately available. But the official expects more specific information to be revealed when it is published in the Federal Register.

Tim Cook jumps right into discussing Apple-FBI iPhone encryption fight at product launch

As Apple began its product-launch event, there was an elephant in the room: the company’s legal battle with the US government over an encrypted iPhone used by one of the attackers in the San Bernardino (CA) terrorism case. Chief Executive Tim Cook addressed it right away.

Cook said Apple has a responsibility to protect information on people's iPhones and other Apple products from intrusion because the devices have become an “extension of ourselves.” “We will not shrink from this responsibility,” Cook said. Although his remarks were being streamed online across the world, Cook directed his comments about privacy primarily to US users. “We need to decide as a nation how much power the government should have over our data and our privacy,” Cook said. “We didn’t expect...to be at odds with our government. But we believe we have a responsibility to protect your data, your privacy. We owe it to our customers.”

Self-Driving Cars and the Looming Privacy Apocalypse

For self-driving cars to work, technologically speaking, an ocean of data has to flow into a lattice of sophisticated sensors. The car has to know where it is, where it’s going, and be able to keep track of every other thing and creature on the road. Self-driving cars will rely on high-tech cameras and ultra-precise GPS data. Which means cars will collect reams of information about the people they drive around—like the data Uber has amassed about its customers’s transportation habits, but down to a level of detail that’s astonishing. The more personalized these vehicles get—or, the more conveniences they offer—the more individual data they’ll incorporate into their services.

The companies building self-vehicles have been cagey, so far, about how they’re thinking about using individual data. At a Congressional hearing about driverless cars recently, Sen Ed Markey (D-MA) asked repeatedly whether driverless car manufacturers would undertake a minimum standard for consumer privacy protection. No one who was there to testify—including representatives from Google, GM, and the ride-sharing service Lyft—had a clear answer. “You need a minimal standard,” Sen Markey said at one point. “I’m not in a position to comment on that for Google,” said Chris Urmson, the head of Google’s self-driving car project. Google has avoided this question before, too.

Legal Experts See Little Effect on News Media From Hulk Hogan Verdict

Legal scholars were as startled as anyone by the scale of the damages awarded by a Florida jury on March 19 to the retired professional wrestler known as Hulk Hogan in his suit against Gawker.com for posting a sex tape. But several experts on the First Amendment said that the $115 million award was very likely to be reduced and that even if the verdict against Gawker survived scrutiny in higher courts, any wider effect on press freedoms was likely to be limited.

In the end, either the trial judge or an appeals court can reduce the damages. But the case will be watched intently by legal experts because it touches on hazily defined boundaries of constitutional law in the Internet era: What is newsworthy? Where is the line between privacy and freedom of the press? Whether this case has any direct implications for press freedoms depends on what happens next. A jury decision in one lower court does not set a precedent. Because it came from a trial court, the verdict “doesn’t in itself move the bar on the constitutional question in any significant way,” said Geoffrey R. Stone, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. Lawyers for Gawker Media say they have strong grounds for an appeal. Before that happens, though, the company faces a series of legal hurdles as the trial comes to a close. Once the jury sets punitive damages, a process that will probably begin in the coming week, the judge in the case must set a bond that the company will have to post.

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