Benton RSS Feed
[Commentary] Consider some of the things that have bound our nation together: Universal postal service at a flat rate, whether you live in Santa Monica or Sitka, Alaska. Interstate highways, built with taxpayer funds and free of tolls. Regulated phone and electric service, with lifeline rates for the economically disadvantaged. These were all based on a social contract honoring the notion that essential infrastructure should be available to all — indeed, that those normally left by the side of the economic road might be most in need. But you can kiss that notion goodbye, because today's model of building public infrastructure is to let private companies do it. Americans are becoming more dependent on privately operated toll roads to get where we're going, and on private delivery services like FedEx and UPS to carry our parcels. But the greatest shift has occurred in the sector that is most crucial in the information age: communications and data networks.
When public infrastructure goes private
[Commentary] In the last century, we have seen many technologies come and go. Before the car, came the horse and buggy; before computers, there were typewriters; and before wireless and fiber broadband networks, there was copper wire. There aren’t many horse and buggies on the road and most of us don’t have typewriters sitting on our desks. So why are copper networks still so widely used although they have been rendered obsolete by next-generation technologies? The simple answer is that federal, state and local regulations are stuck in the past.
The legacy copper Public Switch Telephone Network (PSTN) provided the backbone of national telephone networks for more than 100 years. But today, IP-based networks deliver connection speeds and new products and services unequaled by anything delivered via copper. Recognizing this, consumers are abandoning outdated copper services at a rapid pace, instead opting for more reliable wireless and wired IP-based networks. Traditional copper networks are no longer applicable to the needs and benefits of today’s technologies. It doesn't make economic or practical sense to continue requiring telecommunications companies to preserve obsolete copper wire technologies when wireless and fiber networks can offer better connections more efficiently. Regulations should not favor a century-old technology over the most cutting-edge of today’s services.
Copper Wire -- A technology whose time has passed
The House is preparing to work on a cybersecurity bill next week that is similar to a version the Obama administration threatened to veto last year. Republicans will call up the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA H.R. 624), a bill sponsored by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI). The bill is meant to improve information-sharing about cyber threats between companies and the government, with the goal of helping to thwart cyberattacks. It would let the government share classified information with companies to that end, and also provide liability protection for companies so they are not subject to lawsuits for sharing data about cyber threats. This week, the White House signaled it cannot fully support the bill, but stopped short of threatening a veto. The House Rules Committee set a deadline of next Tuesday for members to file amendments to the bill. The committee will also meet Tuesday to approve rule for the bill; once a rule is approved, the House will be able to consider the bill on the floor as early as the next day.
The House will take up other bills next week on cyber issues, although these will be suspension bills that will get less debate and will need to be approved by a two-thirds majority vote. Those bills, which will not require a rule, are:
- H.R. 756, the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act, from Rep. Mike McCaul (R-TX), to boost cyber security research.
- H.R. 967, the Advancing America's Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act, from Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY). This bill is aimed at aiding information technology research.
- H.R. 1163, the Federal Information Security Amendments Act, from Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA). This bill is aimed at creating an updated cyber security framework for systems that support the federal government.
House to take up key cybersecurity bills next week
The escalating cyberattacks on corporate and government computers have provided a rare opportunity for bipartisan legislation to address the problem. But rather than sailing through Congress, the latest cyber security legislation is exposing a fault line in the tech industry. On one side stand some of tech's biggest companies, such as Intel, Oracle and IBM, which are pressing for more government action. On the other side are thousands of smaller tech firms and privacy activists who have launched online protests to raise the alarm over a bill they say harms privacy and civil liberties.
Cyber security bill pits tech giants against privacy activists
The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (H.R. 624) would amend the National Security Act of 1947 to require the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to establish procedures to promote the sharing of information about cyber threats between intelligence agencies and the private sector. The DNI also would be directed to establish guidelines for granting security clearances to employees of the private-sector entities with which the government shares such information. CBO estimates that implementing the bill would have a discretionary cost of $20 million over the 2014-2018 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. Enacting H.R. 624 could affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO estimates that those effects would be insignificant for each year.
The bill would impose intergovernmental and private-sector mandates, as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), by extending civil and criminal liability protection to entities and cybersecurity providers that share or use cyber threat information. The bill also would impose additional intergovernmental mandates on state governments by preempting state disclosure and liability laws. Because of uncertainty about the number of cases that would be limited and any forgone compensation that would result from compensatory damages, CBO cannot determine whether the costs of the mandate would exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($150 million in 2013, adjusted annually for inflation). However, CBO estimates that the aggregate costs of the mandates on public entities would fall below the threshold for intergovernmental mandates ($75 million in 2013, adjusted annually for inflation).
CBO Scores CISPA
A group of Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee are disappointed that a pair of privacy-focused amendments were not adopted into a controversial cybersecurity bill this week.
In an addendum filed to the committee report on the measure, four Democratic committee members said they support the aim of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). But they expressed concern it provides broad liability protection to businesses and believe it should require them to remove personal information from cyber threat data prior to sharing it with the government and other companies. Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Luis Gutiérrez (D-IL) and Jim Himes (D-CT) signed the document. "We support the intent of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, but we are disappointed in some aspects of it and believe that it can be improved to better protect privacy and civil liberties, while still working effectively to enhance cybersecurity," the four lawmakers write.
House Intelligence Committee Dems push for privacy changes in CISPA
Two months after giving holders of 700 MHz A-block spectrum more time to build out their networks, the Federal Communications Commission granted an extension for 700 MHz B-block licensees as well. Both types of licensees now could have until at least December to complete construction to at least 35% of their coverage area. The B-block deadline extension does not apply to carriers that already have filed construction notices for any of their B-block holdings, which would include U.S. Cellular and some other carriers. It also may not apply to larger carriers that have resisted efforts to increase interoperability in the lower 700 MHz band.
FCC Grants B-Block Build-Out Extension but Not for Everyone
Dish Network Chairman Charlie Ergen informally approached Deutsche Telekom AG about a possible merger with the German company’s T-Mobile USA unit, a deal that would let him bundle wireless service with his satellite-TV offerings, according to people close to the situation.
Dish made the proposal sometime before April 10, when Deutsche Telekom announced a sweetened bid for MetroPCS Communications, according to the people. Deutsche Telekom might consider Dish’s proposal, though only after the transaction with MetroPCS closes and after verifying that a separate deal with Sprint Nextel isn’t feasible, said the people, who asked not to be named because the talks are private.
Dish Is Said to Approach Deutsche Telekom About T-Mobile Bid
Clearwire’s board is reviewing an unsolicited offer to acquire its licenses to provide wireless Internet access, presenting a new wrinkle as shareholders consider a takeover offer from Sprint Nextel.
Clearwire received the proposal for its airwave permits in large markets on April 8 from an unnamed “strategic buyer,” it said yesterday in a regulatory filing. The party offered $1 billion to $1.5 billion, minus the present value of the leases, “which could be substantial,” Clearwire said. Sprint, which owns a slight majority of Bellevue, Washington-based Clearwire’s shares, is seeking to gain those same airwave licenses by buying out other investors for $2.97 a share. Dish Network has presented a competing bid for $3.30 a share. “This might provide some competition for Dish,” said Walt Piecyk, an analyst at BTIG LLC in New York.
Clearwire Board Reviews Unsolicited Offer for Airwave Licenses
Verizon's handset upgrade discounts for customers in a two-year contract will now only be available after the two years are up, rather than after 20 months, the carrier announced. In addition, any "New Every Two" credits that customers may have built up will expire in three days. Customers with Verizon were formerly able to start looking for and purchasing new phones at new contract prices a few months before their contracts were up. On the downside, customers had to begin new contracts early, but it also meant they had quicker access to newer phones. Starting with customers whose contracts end a little less than a year from now (January 1, 2014), customers will have to wait out the full two years before they can get the new-contract prices on phone upgrades. Customers whose contracts end before that will still be able to get their early upgrades.
Verizon kills early upgrade program, even for some current customers