Category Archives: FCC

OPPORTUNITY: Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Nominations for Eight Board Member Positions

Posted on by
Reply

From the FCC…

WIRELINE COMPETITION BUREAU SEEKS NOMINATIONS FOR EIGHT BOARD MEMBER POSITIONS ON THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPANY BOARD OF DIRECTORS

CC Docket Nos. 96-45, 97-21

Nominations Due By:  October 28, 2024

 

Pursuant to section 54.703(c) of the Federal Communications Commission’s rules, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) seeks nominations for the following Board member positions on the Board of Directors of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) listed below for a three-year term.[1]  In addition to the six positions that are expiring as a matter of course at the end of this year, the Commission also seeks nominations for two additional vacancies resulting from a resignation and carryover vacancy of USAC Board members.

  • Representative for interexchange carriers with annual operating revenues of more than $3 billion (position currently held by Alan Buzacott, Executive Director of Federal Regulatory Affairs, Verizon Communications, Inc.)
  • Representative for rural health care providers that are eligible to receive supported services under section 54.601 of the Commission’s rules (position currently held by Brent Fontana, Senior Manager, Amazon Web Services)
  • Representative for state telecommunications regulators (position currently held by Sarah Freeman, Commissioner, Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission)
  • Representative for incumbent local exchange carriers (non-Bell Operating Companies) with more than $40 million in annual revenues (position currently held by Kenneth F. Mason)
  • Representative for schools that are eligible to receive discounts pursuant to section 54.501 of the Commission’s rules (position currently held by Julie Tritt Schell, State E-Rate Coordinator, Pennsylvania Department of Education)
  • Representative for schools that are eligible to receive discounts pursuant to section 54.501 of the Commission’s rules (position currently held by Dr. Daniel A. Domenech, Executive Director, American Association of School Administrators)[2]

[1] 47 CFR § 54.703(c).

[2] Dr. Domenech tendered his resignation from the USAC Board of Directors effective December 31, 2024.  See Letter from Radha Sekar, Chief Executive Officer, Universal Service Administrative Company to Trent Harkrader, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau and Mark Stephens, Managing Director, Office of Managing Director, Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket Nos. 96-45, 97-21 (Aug. 12, 2024) (attaching letter of resignation of  Dr. Domenech).  Pursuant to section 54.703(c) of the Commission’s rules, we solicit nominations to fill the remainder of Dr. Domenech’s term, which expires on December 31, 2025.

  • Representative for information service providers (position currently held by Olivia Wein, Senior Attorney, National Consumer Law Center)
  • Representative for interexchange carriers with annual operating revenues of $3 billion or less (position currently held by Michael Skrivan)[1]

We are persuaded that having Board members with substantive areas of expertise relevant to running a large and complex organization with such skills as accounting, finance, auditing, procurement, data management and information technology will improve the management, administration and oversight of USAC.  If members of the relevant industry or non-industry group fail to reach consensus on a candidate to serve on the Board, or fail to submit a nomination for the particular Board member seat, the Chair of the Federal Communications Commission will select an individual from that industry or non-industry group to serve on the Board as outlined in section 54.703(c)(1).[2]

Pursuant to section 54.703(c)(2) of the Commission’s rules, each nomination must be captioned: “In the Matter of: Nomination for Universal Service Administrative Company Board of Directors, CC Docket Nos. 97-21 and 96-45.”[3]  Nominations may be filed using the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), or by filing paper copies.

  • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings.
  • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
  • Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
  • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
  • S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street, N.E., Washington DC 20554.

People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov, or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

In addition to the electronic or paper filing, copies of each nomination should be submitted to Charles Tyler, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, via email Charles.Tyler@fcc.gov.  Each nomination should specify the position on the Board of Directors for which such nomination is submitted and should be accompanied by the nominee’s professional and biographical information, such as a résumé or professional biography.  All nominations must be filed with the Office of the Secretary by October 28, 2024.

[1] The Commission sought nominations for this position in 2023 but did not receive any.  Consistent with section 54.703(c) of the Commission’s rules and USAC Bylaws, the incumbent, Michael Skrivan, has continued to serve pending selection of a replacement.  Nominations are again invited for this position, which would expire on December 31, 2026.

[2] 47 CFR § 54.703(c)(1).

[3] 47 CFR § 54.703(c)(2).

FCC issues citations to 11 companies for broadband data reporting violations – none in MN

Posted on by
Reply

The following companies were issued citations from the FCC for broadband data reporting violations. I’ve added location to the list, because I wanted to make sure none were in Minnesota…

  1. A.C.T.S.: docx pdf txt (Illinois)
  2. City Wireless: docx pdf txt (Arkansas)
  3. Community Cable & Broadband : docx pdf txt (Oklahoma)
  4. Crazy Communications: docx pdf txt (Kansas)
  5. FiberSpark Inc.: docx pdf txt (New York)
  6. Gila Broadband: docx pdf txt (Arizona)
  7. Internet Service: docx pdf txt (Michigan)
  8. Lake Linx Inc.: docx pdf txt (California)
  9. Simple Fiber Communications: docx pdf txt (Texas)
  10. Telecast Communications: docx pdf txt (Kentucky)
  11. WIFAST: docx pdf txt (Florida)

 

Could changes in E-Rate help close the ACP gap?

Posted on by
Reply

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports…

The Biden administration is moving to blunt the loss of an expired broadband subsidy program that helped more than 23 million families afford internet access by using money from an existing program that helps libraries and schools provide WiFi hotspots to students and patrons.

Jessica Rosenworcel, chairwoman of the Federal Communications Commission, told The Associated Press last week that the agency had voted in July to ”modernize” a federal program known as E-Rate to fill at least some of the gaps left by the Affordable Connectivity Program, which gave families with limited income a monthly subsidy to pay for high-speed internet.

More about E-Rate…

The E-Rate program, established in the 1990s, has provided more than $7 billion in discounts for eligible schools and libraries since 2022 to afford broadband products and services. According to a data analysis by the AP, it offered benefits to more than 12,500 libraries, nearly half of them in rural areas, and 106,000 schools.

For the most recent round of funding, the E-Rate program was expanded to include WiFi on school buses. Starting next year, Rosenworcel said, the list of eligible products will expand to WiFi hotspots.

The Affordable Connectivity Program was helping one in six families in the U.S. afford internet access. Rosenworcel said the decision to include WiFi hotspots in E-Rate was partly a response to the failure to extend the subsidies.

82 MN Counties where conditional forbearance from the obligation to offer Lifeline-supported voice service applies

Posted on by
Reply

The FCC reports…

By this Public Notice, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) announces the counties in which conditional forbearance from the obligation to offer Lifeline-supported voice service applies, pursuant to the Commission’s 2016 Lifeline Order.[1]  This forbearance applies only to the Lifeline voice obligation of eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) that are designated for purposes of receiving both high-cost and Lifeline support (high-cost/Lifeline ETCs), and not to Lifeline-only ETCs.[2]  The Appendix lists the counties where the Commission’s conditional forbearance from high-cost/Lifeline ETCs’ Lifeline voice obligation will apply effective on October 15, 2024.

The 2016 Lifeline Order established conditional forbearance from Lifeline voice obligations in targeted areas where certain competitive conditions are met.[3]  To accomplish this forbearance, the Commission directed the Bureau to release a yearly public notice announcing the counties in which the competitive conditions are met.[4]  In particular, the Commission granted forbearance from high-cost/Lifeline ETCs’ obligation to offer and advertise Lifeline voice service in counties where the following conditions are met: (1) 51% of Lifeline subscribers in the county are obtaining broadband Internet access service; (2) there are at least three other providers of Lifeline broadband Internet access service that each serve at least 5% of the Lifeline broadband subscribers in that county; and (3) the ETC does not actually receive federal high-cost universal service support.[5]

The counties listed in the Appendix meet the two competitive conditions;[6] and for ETCs that are receiving high-cost support in these counties, the forbearance applies only in areas within the county

[1] Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization et al., WC Docket Nos. 11-42 et al., Third Report and Order, Further Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration, 31 FCC Rcd 3962, 4082-4093, paras. 335-60 (2016) (2016 Lifeline Order).

[2] Id. at 4078-79, para. 325.

[3] Id. at 4079, para. 326.

[4] Id. at 4093, para. 360.

[5] Id. at 4082-83, 4090-93, paras. 335, 354-60.

[6] Using National Lifeline Accountability Database and Lifeline Claims System data as of April 2024, approximately 89% of the counties identified in the Appendix were also eligible for this conditional forbearance in 2023.  The remaining 11% of the counties newly met both competitive conditions in 2024.  There are also 55 counties that are no longer eligible for conditional forbearance because they did not meet the two competitive conditions in 2024.  See Wireline Competition Bureau Announces Counties Where Conditional Forbearance From the Lifeline Voice Obligation Applies, Public Notice, DA 23-561 (WCB 2023).

where the ETC does not receive high-cost support.[1]  We note that this forbearance does not grant relief from the Lifeline voice obligation as to those Lifeline subscribers that the high-cost/Lifeline ETC serves as of the date of this Public Notice.[2]  Additionally, this forbearance does not preclude ETCs from electing to provide and receive reimbursement for Lifeline-discounted voice service.[3]

This forbearance will apply in the counties identified in the Appendix of this Public Notice, to the extent that ETCs are not receiving federal high-cost universal service support in those areas, until 60 days after the Bureau issues a Public Notice in 2025 updating the list of counties in which the Commission’s conditional forbearance applies.[4]

[1] 2016 Lifeline Order at 4093, para. 359.

[2] Id. at 4083, 4085, paras. 335, 340.

[3] Id. at 4085, para. 342.

[4] Id. at 4093, para. 360.

From the appendix, here are the 82 (out of 87) Minnesota counties listed:

  1. BENTON COUNTY
  2. BIG STONE COUNTY
  3. BLUE EARTH COUNTY
  4. BROWN COUNTY
  5. CARLTON COUNTY
  6. CARVER COUNTY
  7. CASS COUNTY
  8. CHIPPEWA COUNTY
  9. CHISAGO COUNTY
  10. CLAY COUNTY
  11. CLEARWATER COUNTY
  12. COOK COUNTY
  13. COTTONWOOD COUNTY
  14. CROW WING COUNTY
  15. DAKOTA COUNTY
  16. DODGE COUNTY
  17. DOUGLAS COUNTY
  18. FARIBAULT COUNTY
  19. FILLMORE COUNTY
  20. FREEBORN COUNTY
  21. GOODHUE COUNTY
  22. GRANT COUNTY
  23. HENNEPIN COUNTY
  24. HOUSTON COUNTY
  25. HUBBARD COUNTY
  26. ISANTI COUNTY
  27. ITASCA COUNTY
  28. JACKSON COUNTY
  29. KANABEC COUNTY
  30. KANDIYOHI COUNTY
  31. KOOCHICHING COUNTY
  32. LAC QUI PARLE COUNTY
  33. LAKE COUNTY
  34. LAKE OF THE WOODS COUNTY
  35. LE SUEUR COUNTY
  36. LINCOLN COUNTY
  37. LYON COUNTY
  38. MCLEOD COUNTY
  39. MAHNOMEN COUNTY
  40. MARSHALL COUNTY
  41. MARTIN COUNTY
  42. MEEKER COUNTY
  43. MILLE LACS COUNTY
  44. MORRISON COUNTY
  45. MOWER COUNTY
  46. MURRAY COUNTY
  47. NICOLLET COUNTY
  48. NOBLES COUNTY
  49. NORMAN COUNTY
  50. OLMSTED COUNTY
  51. OTTER TAIL COUNTY
  52. PENNINGTON COUNTY
  53. PINE COUNTY
  54. PIPESTONE COUNTY
  55. POLK COUNTY
  56. POPE COUNTY
  57. RAMSEY COUNTY
  58. RED LAKE COUNTY
  59. REDWOOD COUNTY
  60. RENVILLE COUNTY
  61. RICE COUNTY
  62. ROCK COUNTY
  63. ROSEAU COUNTY
  64. ST. LOUIS COUNTY
  65. SCOTT COUNTY
  66. SHERBURNE COUNTY
  67. SIBLEY COUNTY
  68. STEARNS COUNTY
  69. STEELE COUNTY
  70. STEVENS COUNTY
  71. SWIFT COUNTY
  72. TODD COUNTY
  73. TRAVERSE COUNTY
  74. WABASHA COUNTY
  75. WADENA COUNTY
  76. WASECA COUNTY
  77. WASHINGTON COUNTY
  78. WATONWAN COUNTY
  79. WILKIN COUNTY
  80. WINONA COUNTY
  81. WRIGHT COUNTY
  82. YELLOW MEDICINE COUNTY

Arvig and BEVCOMM ask the FCC to look into classification of Midcontinent

Posted on by
Reply

Broadband Breakfast reports…

The Minnesota companies said a local competitor does not offer voice service.

A federal agency is planning to take a close look at whether two broadband providers deserve millions more dollars in future support after what they say was a flawed allocation process.

The Federal Communications Commission is seeking input on claims that two Midwest broadband providers saw lower Enhanced ACAM support because a competitor was misclassified.

Here’s more info on the claim from the FCC Public Notice of comment… (Comments due September 13)

By this Public Notice, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) seeks comment on the filing submitted by Arvig Enterprises, Inc. (Arvig) and Rural Communications Holding Corporation (BEVCOMM),[1] which claimed that those companies’ Enhanced Alternative Connect America Cost Model (Enhanced A-CAM) support offers were incorrectly calculated because Midcontinent Communications (Midco) was incorrectly classified as an unsubsidized competitor offering voice service.[2]

[1] Comments of Arvig Enterprises, Inc. (Arvig) and Rural Communications Holding Corporation (BEVCOMM), WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Jul. 16, 2024) (Arvig Comments).

[2] Id. at 2.

Is the Universal Service Fund Unconstitutional? Why does it matter? A Connect This conversation

Posted on by
Reply

Connect This is a regular podcast hosted by the Institute for Local Self Reliance, where smart people talk about complicated technology policy issues. Each participant is smart in his/her own silo and those silos shadow each other but they “dumb down” the conversation a little to be understood. So, the lawyers, the engineers and the policy wonks all use English! Acronyms are explained – but the assumption is that you know what broadband is. It’s rarely a 101 discussion; it’s graduate level but interdisciplinary.

The other day they took on the Universal Service Fund (USF) and its constitutional standing. Sounds wonky – it is. But it’s important to schools, providers, customers who get charged USF and the ones who reap the benefits. RDOF could be in a sticky situation.

Here’s the blurb and video from the ILSR… (pro tip: I walk while I listen so I don’t get distracted and I soak up the MN summer while I can!)

On July 24, 2024, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 9-7 that the Universal Service Fund is unconstitutional.

The decision throws a whole raft of federal broadband programs – including those which help schools pay for connectivity, those which help homes pay for home Internet access, and more – into a state of uncertainty.

All signs point to a stop at the Supreme Court for final ruling on the future of the program. On the most recent episode of the Connect This! Show, hosts Christopher Mitchell (ILSR) and Travis Carter (USI Fiber) were joined by regular guests Doug Dawson (CCG Consulting) and Kim McKinley (UTOPIA Fiber) as well as special guest Casey Lide (Keller and Heckman Law Firm) to talk about the decision. They discuss the impact of the decision in the long-term, including how the USF fits into the jigsaw puzzle of federal broadband funding programs and what we can expect to see if the decision is upheld.

OPPORTUNITY: FCC Announces Anticipated Renewal of its Consumer Advisory Committee and Solicits Nominations for Membership

Posted on by
Reply

From the FCC…

By this Public Notice, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces the anticipated rechartering of the Consumer Advisory Committee (Committee) and solicits nominations for membership. The Commission intends to recharter the Committee for a period of two (2) years following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Service Administration. It is anticipated that after this consultation, the renewed charter will become effective on or before October 13, 2024.  Nominations for membership are due by September 6, 2024.

 

PURPOSE AND FUNCTION

 

The Committee’s mission is to make recommendations to the Commission regarding topics of particular interest to consumers that will be specified by the Commission.  For additional background about the Committee, see its website:  www.fcc.gov/consumer-advisory-committee.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Committee will operate in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 10.  Each meeting of the Committee will be open to the public. A notice of each meeting will be published in the Federal Register at least fifteen (15) days in advance of the meeting.  Records will be maintained of each meeting and will be made available for public inspection. All meetings will be fully accessible to individuals with disabilities.

 

Members will serve at the discretion of the Chairperson of the Commission. The Commission will determine the appropriate Committee size necessary to effectively accomplish the Committee’s work.  While there is no required number of meetings, the Committee typically holds meetings three times per calendar year, to be conducted in Washington, D.C., and/or by video conference.

 

Members of the Committee will be expected to participate in at least one working group. The time commitment for participation in any such group may be substantial. However, working group meetings may be conducted informally, using suitable technology to facilitate the meetings, subject to oversight by the Designated Federal Officer of the Committee.

 

WHO MAY APPLY FOR MEMBERSHIP AND OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBERS

 

The Commission seeks nominations from interested nonprofit organizations, corporations, trade associations, government agencies, or other entities from both the public and private sectors, who wish to be considered for Committee membership for a two-year term of service.  Selections will be made based

on factors such as expertise and diversity of viewpoints that are necessary to effectively address the topics before the Committee.

 

Individuals who do not represent an organization, corporation, trade association, or entity, but who possess expertise valuable to the Committee’s work may also apply.  However, any applicants who want to serve in their individual capacities should be aware that government ethics rules may require detailed disclosures as part of the consideration of their application to serve as independent subject matter experts, and if appointed, such individuals would be considered Special Government Employees (SGEs).  Federally registered lobbyists are not eligible to serve as SGEs.  The Commission’s Office of General Counsel conducts ethics reviews of all organizational and individual members of the Committee or its working groups. SGEs, in particular, are subject to a variety of restrictions under the conflict of interest statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 203 et seq., and the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, 5 C.F.R. Part 2635.  SGEs must file confidential employee financial disclosure forms prior to beginning their service and annually thereafter.  SGEs will also be subject to ethics restrictions in section 4(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 154(b), and in the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR Part 19 and 5 CFR Parts 3901 and 3902.

 

NOMINATION PROCEDURE, DEADLINE, AND MEMBER APPOINTMENTS

 

All nominations must be received by the Commission by no later than September 6, 2024, and should be submitted via an online nomination form at www.fcc.gov/consumer-advisory-committee unless use of that form would present a hardship, in which case the information and documents specified below may be submitted by email to CAC@fcc.gov.  Nominations will be acknowledged shortly after receipt. Because mail delivery may be delayed by security screening and precautionary measures due to the COVID-19 pandemic, interested parties are required to submit applications online.

Get more details.

US Bill introduced in Senate to return defaulted broadband grants to states

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Hawley’s website reports…

Today, U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced new legislation to help deliver reliable internet to more rural Americans by returning dormant federal funding back to the state it was intended for.

“Missourians and rural Americans across the country are losing out on internet service thanks to failed funding policies,” said Senator Hawley. “My bill would put states in charge of their own broadband funding—not government-backed companies that overpromise and under-deliver.”

The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) current funding structure favors large companies that reap billions in federal government contracts meant to provide high-speed internet access to rural communities. These companies, however, often fail to meet obligations, leaving federal funds in default and America’s rural communities without internet service.

So far, the FCC’s Rural Digital Opportunity Fund has seen more than $2.8 billion in defaulted funds.

Senator Hawley’s Broadband Fairness Act would:

  • Allocate defaulted FCC funds to the state that originally received the award for broadband deployment;
  • Ensure that the geographic region where an award defaulted is eligible for other broadband funding opportunities; and
  • Allow states to supplement other grant funding to complete broadband projects.

The Missouri Farm Bureau has endorsed Senator Hawley’s legislation.

Full text of the Broadband Fairness Act is available here.

This could have a large impact on Minnesota, where LTD Broadband was awarded and then defaulted on $311 million.

Appeals Court rules put Universal Service Fund in jeopardy

Posted on by
Reply

KSTP reports…

Calling it a “misbegotten tax,” a federal appeals court in New Orleans ruled Wednesday that a method the Federal Communications Commission uses to fund telephone service for rural and low-income people and broadband services for schools and libraries is unconstitutional.

The immediate implications of the 9-7 ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals were unclear. Dissenting judges said it conflicts with three other circuit courts around the nation. The ruling by the full 5th Circuit reverses an earlier ruling by a three-judge panel of the same court and sends the matter back to the FCC for further consideration. A Supreme Court appeal was likely by advocates for media access.

“The majority’s hostility to the policies underlying the Universal Service Fund is palpable. That, plus the bipartisan group of seven dissenters, makes it almost certain that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the issue,” said Andrew Schwartzman, an attorney representing advocacy groups including the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society.

 

FCC Launches New Mobile Speed Test App

Posted on by
Reply

Broadband Breakfast reports on a new speed test for *mobile* connections. (I had to read it three times before I caught the word mobile.)…

The Federal Communications Commission announced on Tuesday a new Mobile Speed Test app to help users easily challenge provider-reported mobile coverage data, replacing the original FCC Speed Test app.

While the original app allowed consumers to test their mobile and in-home broadband performance, the new app ensures accurate provider-reported mobile coverage data with features such as “Repeated Test” for hands-free testing, displays an in-app map of where a test was taken and the ability to review speed test results on the National Broadband Map.

Midwest Broadband Providers concerned about E-ACAM subsidies

Posted on by
Reply

Broadband Breakfast reports…

 A group of midwest broadband providers is seeking an increase in rural broadband subsidy support from the Federal Communications Commission, claiming a program snafu is causing a multimillion dollar annual shortfall.

The companies receive support from the agency’s Enhanced Alternative Connect America Cost Model program, which the FCC stood up last year to continue subsidizing rural broadband through its Universal Service Fund.

They tagged Midco, ITC, Red River, BEVcomm and Arvig in the post.

Conference of Mayors asks the FCC to rethink franchise fees

Posted on by
Reply

Broadband Breakfast reports on an issue that came up in the Minnesota Legislature this year, the MN Equal Access to Broadband, which would have allowed local governments to charge franchise fees to broadband providers in their area, akin to cable franchising fees. It did not pass, but the idea clearly lives on…

A gathering of American mayors adopted a resolution Sunday designed to obtain fees from cable operators that utilize municipal property to provide consumers with access to the Internet.

The resolution – adopted at the 92nd annual meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Kansas City, Mo. – called on the Federal Communications Commission to modify a rule that shields cable Internet access revenue from the 5% fee collected on cable’s pay-TV revenue.

The mayors’ resolution urged the FCC “to act promptly” to modify its “mixed use” rule that they said costs “local governments millions of dollars in reduced franchise and other right-of-way fees and threaten[s] the future of cable franchise access channel and institutional network requirements.”

Also…

In other action, the USCM passed a second resolution announcing opposition to the American Broadband Act of 2023 (H.R. 3557), a bill which the resolution said would “preempt local governments’ rights-of-way compensation and management authority, zoning powers, cable franchising authority, and property rights.”

FCC has plan to help libraries and schools with cybersecurity

Posted on by
Reply

A heads up to libraries and schools from Broadband Breakfast…

The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday took the first step toward creating a pilot program to invest millions of dollars into cybersecurity software for eligible K-12 schools and libraries.

The agency voted to adopt the proposal 3-2, with Republican Commissioners Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington dissenting.

“The vulnerabilities in the networks that we use in our nation’s schools and libraries are real and growing, so today we’re going to do something about it,” FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said in her statement.

The proposal, first introduced last November, would provide $200 million from the Universal Service Fund to pay for firewall protections in eligible schools and libraries over the next three years. The funds will also go toward studying the most effective equipment, services and tools to safeguard digital infrastructure.

KSTP 5 on your Side video on new broadband nutrition labels

Posted on by
Reply

KSTP 5 reports…

The new labels show the provider’s name, the plan’s name and the base monthly price for internet service, along with any additional one-time or recurring fees — like installation charges, modem rental fees and other equipment-related fees, which must be separated from the base price.

The new labels are mandated by the Federal Communications Commission after nearly a decade of lobbying by Consumer Reports and other advocacy groups.

FCC Fines Largest Wireless Carriers for Sharing Location Data

Posted on by
Reply

From the FCC…

Today, the Federal Communications Commission fined the nation’s largest wireless carriers for illegally sharing access to customers’ location information without consent and without taking reasonable measures to protect that information against unauthorized disclosure.  Sprint and T-Mobile – which have merged since the investigation began – face fines of more than $12 million and $80 million, respectively.  AT&T is fined more than $57 million, and Verizon is fined almost $47 million.

“Our communications providers have access to some of the most sensitive information about us.  These carriers failed to protect the information entrusted to them. Here, we are talking about some of the most sensitive data in their possession: customers’ real-time location information, revealing where they go and who they are,” said FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel.  “As we resolve these cases – which were first proposed by the last Administration – the Commission remains committed to holding all carriers accountable and making sure they fulfill their obligations to their customers as stewards of this most private data.”

The FCC Enforcement Bureau investigations of the four carriers found that each carrier sold access to its customers’ location information to “aggregators,” who then resold access to such information to third-party location-based service providers.  In doing so, each carrier attempted to offload its obligations to obtain customer consent onto downstream recipients of location information, which in many instances meant that no valid customer consent was obtained.  This initial failure was compounded when, after becoming aware that their safeguards were ineffective, the carriers continued to sell access to location information without taking reasonable measures to protect it from unauthorized access.

Under the law, including section 222 of the Communications Act, carriers are required to take reasonable measures to protect certain customer information, including location information.  Carriers are also required to maintain the confidentiality of such customer information and to obtain affirmative, express customer consent before using, disclosing, or allowing access to such information.  These obligations apply equally when carriers share customer information with third parties.

“The protection and use of sensitive personal data such as location information is sacrosanct,” said Loyaan A. Egal, Chief of the FCC Enforcement Bureau and Chair of its Privacy and Data Protection Task Force.  “When placed in the wrong hands or used for nefarious purposes, it puts all of us at risk.  Foreign adversaries and cybercriminals have prioritized getting their hands on this information, and that is why ensuring service providers have reasonable protections in place to safeguard customer location data and valid consent for its use is of the highest priority for the Enforcement Bureau.”

The investigations that led to today’s fines started following public reports that customers’ location information was being disclosed by the largest American wireless carriers without customer consent or other legal authorization to a Missouri Sheriff through a “location-finding service” operated by Securus, a provider of communications services to correctional facilities, to track the location of numerous individuals.  Yet, even after being made aware of this unauthorized access, all four carriers continued to operate their programs without putting in place reasonable safeguards to ensure that the dozens of location-based service providers with access to their customers’ location information were actually obtaining customer consent.

The Forfeiture Orders announced today finalize Notices of Apparent Liability (NAL) issued against these carriers in February 2020.  The fine amount for AT&T and Sprint are unchanged since the NAL stage.  Both the T-Mobile and Verizon fines were reduced following further review of the parties’ submissions in response to the NALs.  The law does not permit forfeiture amounts for specified violations to escalate after issuance of an NAL.

The Forfeiture Orders are available here:

In 2023, the Chairwoman established the Privacy and Data Protection Task Force, an FCC staff working group focused on coordinating across the agency on the rulemaking, enforcement, and public awareness needs in the privacy and data protection sectors, including data breaches (such as those involving telecommunications providers) and vulnerabilities involving third-party vendors that service regulated communications providers.  More information on the Task Force is available at: https://www.fcc.gov/privacy-and-data-protection-task-force.

It’s like finding your toddler in the backyard alone. Happy you found her, yet so many questions.