Telecommunication

Building on our progress last week modernizing our wireless infrastructure rules so that they are 5G ready, the Federal Communications Commission in April will continue to move full steam ahead in making spectrum available for next-generation 5G networks. At our April meeting, the Commission will vote on a public notice seeking input on auction procedures for the 28 GHz and 24 GHz bands. And under the draft that I have presented my colleagues, the 28 GHz auction would commence on November 14.

The Federal Communications Commission adopted a proposal to move forward in an effort to reduce calls placed by businesses and other legitimate callers to numbers that are no longer assigned to the consumers who consented to receive those calls. The FCC is proposing that one or more databases be made available to give businesses the information they need to avoid making such calls, and thus reduce the number of unwanted calls to reassigned numbers. The Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking  proposes and seeks comment on ways to address this reassigned numbers problem.

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D-CA) and Congresswoman Yvette Clarke (D-NY) sent a letter signed by over 60 House members to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, urging him to protect the Lifeline program which provides access to phone and broadband services to over 13 million low-income Americans, the majority of whom earn less than $10,000 a year. 

The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has decided that not every smartphone is an autodialer subject to the restrictions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In a decision released March 16, the court reversed a 2015 Federal Communications Commission decision that robocalls to numbers of consenting parties that were subsequently transferred to nonconsenting parties violated the TCPA as well as the FCC's definition of the autodialers (automatic telephone dialing system, or ATDS) that can't be used without the call (or text) recipient's prior permission.

March 8, the Voices for Internet Freedom coalition hosted a briefing for members of Congress and their staff about the disastrous policies the Federal Communications Commission is moving forward that would make it harder for poor people to access vital communications services. The FCC’s War on the Poor briefing brought together affected communities, advocates and policy experts for a panel discussion about the FCC’s proposal to roll back the Lifeline program, the vote to undo Title II Net Neutrality, and the agency’s refusal to stand up to predatory prison-phone companies.

March 8, a bipartisan group of US Senators introduced the Inmate Calling Technical Corrections Act that aims to restore federal authority to crack down on what prison reform advocates call the “usurious,” “abusive,” and “exploitative” business practices of a small handful of companies that dominate the $1.2 billion US prison phone industry. For Sen Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), who introduced the bill, addressing the problem of predatory prison phones rates is a practical, as well as moral, imperative.

Verizon and the Communications Workers of America (CWA) have reached a settlement requiring the telco to repair and make improvements to its copper network infrastructure throughout New York state. Under the terms of the agreement, the service provider agreed to repair 54 central offices across the state; replace bad cable, defective equipment and faulty backup batteries; and take down 64,000 double telephone poles.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai says he wants to help poor people. “I have often said that my highest priority as chairman is closing the digital divide–the gap between those who have access to next-generation technologies and those who don’t,” he told a Senate committee in September when talking about reforms to a subsidy program called Lifeline. But critics say he’s doing the opposite, including with that very program. Unlike in the net neutrality debate, critics of Chairman Pai’s latest efforts are now coming from the left and the right.

In this report, we consider which carriers have implemented data caps and how large those caps are. Each provider is ranked by the size of the data cap they offer and the charge they incur for exceeding it. Service provider groups that have no caps are ranked according to company size.