Municial broadband initiatives across the country seem to be gaining steam as cities look to encourage equitable access — but pitfalls around cost and taxpayer risk remain. Despite many cities and counties looking to put together a municipal broadband initiative of their own, there remains strong opposition from telecom companies, as well as concerns over cost. While the Columbia Telecommunications Corporation report found that municipal internet in Seattle is feasible, it also raised concerns about the price tag of the project, which is complicated by the fact that Seattle City Light cannot assume additional financial risk and so would need guaranteed payments to cover operations and maintenance. And the need to raise money through a tax hike put San Francisco’s plans for citywide broadband on hold after polls showed that a revenue initiative would not have received the two-thirds support needed from voters. The Federal Communications Commission seems to agree that the private sector is helping close the digital divide and deploying broadband in a timely manner. Deb Socia, executive director of nonprofit Next Century Cities that works with cities to promote equitable internet access, said that localities have been relied upon to build all manner of public services, and if internet is viewed as such, this would be an extension of those efforts. “The issue is: the market isn't solving the problem,” she said. “I don't expect a for-profit company to take on an effort that will not make them money; that's not what they do, they are for-profit.”

The connective tissue that unites Louis Brandeis’s view of legislative action, the creation and enforcement of antitrust law, and the use of sectoral regulation is the willingness to experiment. We are well-acquainted with Brandeis’s invocation of the “laboratories of the states” but his reliance on experimentation, what we might today call innovation, runs much deeper than that well-known aphorism.

Honesty with the Federal Communications Commission is a foundational requirement for a broadcast licensee. Indeed, providing false statements to the FCC has been a basis for license revocation since the inception of the Communications Act in 1934. But the dissolution of the Sinclair/Tribune consolidation is a circumstance that would render a hearing at this time in the context of this proceeding an academic exercise. That is not to say that Sinclair’s alleged misconduct is nullified or excused by the cancellation of its proposed deal with Tribune. Certainly, the behavior of a multiple-station owner before the FCC “may be so fundamental to a licensee’s operation that it is relevant to its qualifications to hold any station license.” That broad inquiry, however, would be more appropriately considered in the context of a future proceeding in which Sinclair is seeking FCC approval, for example, involving an application for a license assignment, transfer, or renewal. At that time, it may be determined that an examination of the misrepresentation and/or lack of candor allegations raised in this proceeding is warranted as part of a more general assessment of Sinclair’s basic character qualifications to be an FCC licensee. Absent a specific transaction or other proceeding to provide context for this unresolved character issue, however, conducting a hearing at this time would not be a prudent use of FCC time and resources. Accordingly, Sinclair’s request to terminate this hearing proceeding is granted.

The Federal Trade Commission is seeking comment on proposed amendments to two rules that protect the privacy and security of customer information held by financial institutions. In separate notices to be published in the Federal Register shortly, the FTC is seeking comment on proposed changes to the Safeguards Rule and the Privacy Rule under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The Safeguards Rule, which went into effect in 2003, requires a financial institution to develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive information security program. The Privacy Rule, which went into effect in 2000, requires a financial institution to inform customers about its information-sharing practices and allow customers to opt out of having their information shared with certain third parties. “We are proposing to amend our data security rules for financial institutions to better protect consumers and provide more certainty for business,” said Andrew Smith, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “While our original groundbreaking Safeguards Rule from 2003 has served consumers well, the proposed changes are informed by the FTC’s almost 20 years of enforcement experience. It also shows that, where we have rulemaking authority, we will exercise it as necessary to keep up with marketplace trends and respond to technological developments.”