Source: http://stlro.com/news-information.htm
Timestamp: 2018-06-20 05:29:41
Document Index: 597167594

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1798', '§4', '§2701', '§ 2510', '§ 2510', '§2510', '§2702']

St. Ledger-Roty & Olson LLP - News & Information
FTC Seeks Comment on Proposed Amendments to COPPA Rule
On September 15, 2011 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released proposed changes to the Childrens Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) Rule. The proposed amendments could impose additional compliance burdens on businesses that operate childrens websites or online services -- as well as general audience sites subject to its requirements. The FTC is accepting comments on the proposed changes until November 28, 2011.
expanding the definition of personal information;
The COPPA Rule requires that operators of websites or online services directed to children under 13, or general audience sites that have actual knowledge that they collect personal information from children under 13, obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting, using, or disclosing such information from children.
In 2010 the FTC accelerated scheduled review of the rule to address mounting concerns about threats to childrens privacy posed by their adoption of rapidly evolving technologies, including accessing, viewing and interacting with content over mobile devices. During the review period the FTC expanded enforcement including applying the rule to such new technologies as mobile apps.
The FTC proposes the following changes:
Updating the definition of personal information to include geolocation information and certain types of persistent identifiers used for functions other than the websites internal operations, such as tracking cookies used for behavioral advertising, and identifiers that track a child across websites or online services for targeted advertising. Also included would be information that permits direct online contact with a child, including screen or user names that are not used solely to support internal operations.
Strengthening FTC oversight of self-regulatory safe harbor programs by requiring these programs to audit their members at least annually and report periodically to the FTC the results of those audits.
Operators of childrens websites and other online services, including those operating over emerging platforms such as mobile apps, as well as general audience sites subject to COPPA, should closely monitor developments in this proceeding to anticipate how the proposed changes could affect their business and regulatory strategies.
Please contact Karen Neuman at kneuman@slrno.com if you would like addition information or wish to discuss your business or regulatory strategy in light of the proposed changes.
On August 31, 2011, California Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 24 into law, a measure that amends the states landmark data breach notification statute (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.29 & 1798.82), by mandating the inclusion of certain information in notifications that are already required under existing law to be sent to California residents who may have been affected by a data breach.
SB 24, which will take effect January 1, 2012, also requires that the notifying entity send an electronic version of the notice to the state Attorney General (AG) in instances where a breach affects more than 500 California residents. According to SB 24s sponsor, Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), this requirement is intended to enable law enforcement to see the big picture and better understand statewide patterns of identity theft. Businesses, agencies and individuals subject to the law and who use substitute notice provisions permitted under the current statute must also provide an electronic version of the notice to the states Office of Information Security or the Office of Privacy Protection. Organizations that are subject to HIPAAs HITECH breach notification requirements will be deemed to be in compliance with laws breach notice content requirements but must still comply with the AG notification requirement.
Since 2003, California law required covered entities and individuals to notify affected persons of a data breach. However, unlike other state data breach laws, Californias statute did not mandate what information the breach notices should contain or require that state authorities be notified of the breach. Previous bills that addressed these gaps were vetoed by Governor Browns predecessor.
SB 24 addresses these gaps by establishing the following standard content requirements, which must be written in plain language for required breach notices:
The name and contact information of the notifying entity or person;
a list of the types of personal information that were or reasonably believed to have been breached;
toll-free telephone numbers and addresses of the major credit reporting agencies if the breach discloses Social Security, Drivers license or a California ID card number;
the actual, estimated date or date range of the breach if it is possible to ascertain;
general description of the breach, if it is possible to determine; and
whether notice was delayed due to a law enforcement investigation.
SB 24 also authorizes covered entities and individuals to include in the notices, if they wish to do so, information about measures taken to protect persons whose information has been compromised as well as steps affected persons may take to protect themselves.
Please contact Karen Neuman at kneuman@slrno.com if you would like additional information about Californias breach notification law, as amended by SB 24.
Reports Highlight New "Supercookies" Used to Track Web Activity for Social Advertising
Clearspring, whose Addthis tool allows website visitors to share a websites content on social media and used Flash cookies to track people who visited websites with Addthis installed, was a named defendant in one of the actions. That lawsuit, along with a similar action against Quantcast, was settled this year, with the companies agreeing to not use LSOs in their products.2
The 2011 Report, along with additional work by Jonathan Meyer at Stanford,3 has similarly formed the basis for allegations in lawsuits against websites and advertisers who use the new supercookies and other forms of persistent trackers highlighted in the report. The report reviews how Flash cookie use has changed in the last year and identifies two additional supercookies, Cache-Cookies and HTML5 Local Storage. KISSMetrics, a web analytics company, and their now former client Hulu.com, were sued for privacy violations after the report noted their use of ETags, a type of cache-cookie.4
The common thread between the supercookies discussed in the 2011 Report5 is that each is more persistent and allows for greater data storage than standard HTTP cookies. Flash cookies and ETags respawn HTTP cookies after a user has deleted them or gone into private browsing mode to prevent cookie creation. (Private browsing is an option available in many Internet browsers, such as Internet Explorer and Firefox, which prevents websites from downloading cookies or storing new information in the cache after the browsing session ends). HTML5 storage does not respawn HTTP cookies, but where HTTP cookies automatically expire after some period of time, HTML5 storage does not expire and so it must be affirmatively deleted by the user to disable tracking. Flash cookies and ETags can be used to respawn HTML5 cookies, in addition to HTTP cookies.
Flash Local Storage Objects.
Flash LSOs, like other supercookies, are resistant to deletion as they are not deleted through the browser as one would do for standard HTTP cookies. The user is required to take additional steps to prevent tracking. Flash LSOs hold more data than HTTP cookies, enabling better tracking and can be used to respawn or recreate HTTP cookies that a user has deleted. Flash LSOs, the subject of the prior report, have decreased in use since the release of that report. Of the 100 sites investigated by the authors, 100 flash cookies were found, down from 281. Only two sites used flash cookies to respawn HTTP cookies.
Cache-Cookies and ETags.
Cache-cookies are not actually cookies. This method of tracking involves using the web browsers cache to associate information between a deleted cookie and a new cookie. ETags are generally used by websites to tell a browser whether the site has changed, and if not, to use the copy of the website stored in the browsers cache rather than downloading new data.
The report discusses how an ETag in a cached copy of a website can include a unique identifier. Even if a user deletes her cookies, when she returns to the website and downloads a new cookie, the ETag in the cached copy still exists and can give the website enough information to associate the new cookie with whatever data was collected via the old cookie. In this way, the old cookie is said to respawn. Also, if a user visits websites via his or her Internet browsers private browsing mode, this type of tracking is not prevented. Specifically, if a user visits a website while not in private browsing, information is stored in the cache and may then still be retrieved when later visiting the website in private browsing mode. The only way to prevent this tracking is to manually clear the cache prior to revisiting the website.
The Report concluded that HTML5 cookies raise privacy concerns because they never expire. Instead, the user is required to affirmatively delete the cookie. The storage capacity is also significantly greater than any of the other cookies mentioned here, as well as standard HTTP cookies. A number of sites also respawned HTML5 cookies using either ETAGs or Flash cookies and others used matching values for their HTML5 and HTTP cookies, which makes respawning and association between the cookies easier.
Companies wishing to take advantage of social advertising tools should take a close look at the tracking technologies employed by businesses offering those tools to make sure that the technology does not override consumer privacy preferences. One way to obtain assurance is to determine if these businesses comply with pertinent industry best practices and standards. As the lawsuits that rely on the findings of the researchers reports make clear, the plaintiffs bar does not distinguish between the companies that develop persistent tracking technologies and the businesses that use those technologies for legitimate business purposes.
Please contact Karen Neuman at kneuman@slrno.com if you would like to discuss this report and the potential impact of its findings on your business.
1 Ayenson, et.al., Flash Cookies And Privacy II: Now With HTML5 And ETag Respawning, 2011 (2011 Report)
2 In Re Quantcast Advertising Cookie Litigation, 2:10-cv-05484-GWJCG, (Cal. C.D. 2011)(Settlement Agreement at §4.19).
3 A recent report out of Stanford reviewed Microsofts use of ETags, a cache-cookie. Jonathan Meyer, Tracking the Trackers: Microsoft Advertising (Aug. 18, 2011), http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/6715
5 Ayenson, supra note 1.
U.S. Department of Commerce Releases Privacy Report
Formal comment will be sought through a separate Federal Register Notice on several other key policy recommendations. They include: 1) Creation of a national privacy policy office (PPO) within the Commerce Department to coordinate the development of voluntary, enforceable privacy codes of conduct in specific industries. (Compliance with these codes of conduct would operate as safe harbors); and 2) national data breach legislation for electronic records that contemplates a role, including enforcement, for state authorities. In a nod to the strength of state legislative data breach laws, the report recommends that any federal data breach legislation track state regulatory approaches that have proven effective.
Unlike the FTC report, the Green Paper does not recommend implementing a do-not- track (DNT) mechanism. Instead, the role of the Commerce Department in developing DNT and similar technologies and will be addressed through the Federal Register notice.
The Agency also intends to use the formal comment period to examine the circumstances under which expanded FTC rulemaking authority may be warranted.
TThe report also notes that different approaches to commercial data privacy, both in the U.S. and abroad, can pose challenges for business (and potential consumer harm), and interfere with the promotion of trade and commerce of cross-border compliance obligations. It recommends that the U.S. continue work with the EU and other trading partners to promote increased global interoperability of privacy frameworks. It also recommends that the U.S. support the APEC Data Privacy Pathfinder Project as a model framework for countries with common values but divergent privacy legal frameworks.
The Green Paper can be viewed by clicking: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/2010/IPTF_Privacy_GreenPaper_12162010.pdf. Comments are due on due January 28, 2011. The filing period provides a useful opportunity for business to potentially shape the regulatory outcome of this proceeding.
On November 18, 2010 Karen Neuman discussed legal risks associated with the use of biometric systems for identity management by higher education institutions during an Educause Live! Web seminar. Noting that the emergence of biometrics technologies offers colleges and universities potential new tools for confirming identity for campus security and managing access to facilities, the same technologies create legal and reputational risks that must be considered before implementation. Karen provided a framework for evaluating these risks  taking into account key federal, state, and European privacy laws, as well as common law. She concluded her remarks by offering some strategies for minimizing legal risk based on existing laws and regulations.
Karen Neuman discusses Legal Risks Associated with Local Government Use of Social Media
On September 30, 2010, Karen Neuman shared her perspective about legal risks associated with local government use of social media at the 30th Annual Conference of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers & Advisors in Washington, D.C. In addition to addressing first amendment issues raised by use of social media tools to engage the public, Karen outlined how these tools can trigger state open meetings and public records laws. She also focused on emerging law involving employee use of social media in the workplace and the privacy of constituents who access and interact with government social media sites, particularly when using mobile devices. Observing that the legal landscape is still evolving, Karen offered some strategies for minimizing risk.
Flash Cookie Lawsuits Sound Warning for Industry
A pair of federal court lawsuits filed this summer should sound a warning for website operators using tracking technologies that can override consumer privacy preferences.
The cases, Valdez v. Quantcast Corp., et al, CV10-5484 GW JCG (C.D. Cal, July 23, 2010) and White v. Clearspring Technologies, 2:10-cv-05948-UA (C.D. Cal., August 10, 2010), allege that a number of well known websites violated federal and state privacy and consumer protection laws -- including the Federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and California's Computer Crime Law and Invasion of Privacy Act -- by depositing "Flash" cookies on users' websites to track their online activities. The Plaintiffs in each suit seek unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief.
Flash cookies, more accurately known as "locally stored objects", can be used by websites to collect cookie like information on a user's computer. They can be used for such diverse purposes as remembering preferences, watching online video, setting default volume levels on video players or assigning a unique ID to users for tracking across the web, regardless of browser. Most users are unaware that when a Flash cookie is deposited on a computer the steps they take to prevent online tracking by deleting traditional browser cookies typically do not remove Flash cookies.
Although the lawyers are, for the most part targeting high-profile, "deep pocket" defendants, at least one of the defendants, SodaHead, is a small online polling company; no website should be considered under the radar. It would not be surprising to see this effort expanded to other websites that rely on Flash or similar tracking technology, including social media sites, particularly as those sites add location based features.
We expect that this suit will be closely watched by the Plaintiffs'bar, privacy advocates and policymakers. The larger issue appears to be one of consumer knowledge about and control over the collection and use of their information and less about specific technology. That said, the use of technologies like Flash cookies should be viewed as risky because they enable tracking online activities without a user's knowledge, including when consumers believe they have taken the necessary steps to prevent tracking.
A federal judge in California recently determined that private messages transmitted over social network sites are protected from discovery under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. §2701, which restricts the governments ability to require Internet Service Providers to knowingly disclose information in their possession about their customers and subscribers. The Court also ruled that wall postings and comments, such as those posted by users on Facebook and MySpace, may also be protected the SCA, but only to the extent that access to these communications is restricted by users privacy settings rendering them not public.
The plaintiff, an artist, initiated a copyright infringement action against a clothing designer alleging breach of an oral license for the limited use of the Plaintiffs artwork in the manufacture of certain types of garments. The Complaint included allegations that the Defendant violated the terms of the license by failing to include the Plaintiffs logo on various garments displaying the Plaintiffs designs and also sublicensed the Plaintiffs design work without the Plaintiffs consent. During discovery the Defendants served subpoenas on various third parties, including Facebook, MySpace and other social networking websites. The Defendants claimed that the Plaintiffs social media communications revealed the nature and terms of the agreement between the parties. The Court granted the Plaintiffs motion to quash the subpoenas granted by a Magistrate on grounds that 1) the social network sites private messaging and e- mail webmail services constituted electronic communications services (ECS) under the SCA and 2) the web hosting websites and social networking websites were ECS providers under the SCA, which protects unopened private messages transmitted via an ECS provider as temporary storage. 18 U.S.C. § 2510(17) (A). In so ruling, the Court concluded that a private, undeleted message opened by a user renders the communication stored for backup purposes as defined in the statute.
The Court noted that other aspects of social networking sites, Facebook wall postings and comments and MySpace comments presented a distinct and more difficult question requiring an analysis of the SCA, including understanding the distinction between an RCS provider and an ECS provider. Analyzing the statute, the Court first noted observed that the SCA defines an ECS provider as any service which provides to users the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications. 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (15). The Court next observed that the SCA defines an RCS provider as an entity providing the public computer storage or processing services by means of an electronic communications system, and that an electronic communications system is defined as any wire, radio electromagnetic, photo-optical or photo electronic facilities for the transmission of wire or electronic communications and any computer facilities or related electronic equipment for the electronic storage of such communications. Id. §2510(14); §2702(a)(2).
The Court construed these provisions to conclude that social networking services are RCS providers with respect to wall postings and comments since the posts, once made, are stored by the provider within the meaning of the SCA. Accordingly, the Court held that wall postings and comments are protected under the SCA either as restricted access electronic bulletin boards or because social networks are RCS providers that store comments for limited use by a restricted number of users.
The case was remanded to the Magistrate to ascertain whether the Plaintiffs privacy settings rendered the wall postings public and beyond the protection of the SCA.
This case illustrates the challenge courts face when applying a law enacted over two decades ago to rapidly evolving electronic communications technologies. This dilemma is ongoing as regulators and policy makers struggle to keep pace with innovation resulting in a platform specific approach to protecting privacy  an approach that poses challenges to users and business alike as each tries to discern a predictable framework for ascertaining privacy protection for user generated content.
This case should also be seen as a cautionary tale for employers who may now find themselves running afoul of the law if they obtain access without consent to their employees' social networking sites communications when the employees have opted to restrict access. This decision also calls into question whether an employer can use legal processes such as a subpoena to obtain information from the private social networking accounts of employees.
Please contact Karen Neuman at kneuman@slrno.com if you would like additional information about this case or if you would like guidance about the application of privacy law to social media communications.
On June 17, 2010 the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in City of Ontario, California v. Quon , 1 in which it ruled unanimously that a Police Departments search of an employees Department-provided mobile communications device was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The case was decided much more narrowly than anticipated; the Court stopped short of addressing the broader question of an employees claim to privacy in his or her electronic communications, and the content of those communications, while at work. Instead, the Court appeared to invite further litigation on this issue in order to better understand changes in information transmission technology and what society accepts as proper behavior. Nevertheless, the opinion provides some practical guidance for public and private sector employers about employer regulation of and access to employee communications transmitted over employer-issued devices, and underscores the need for comprehensive policies.
The case arose when the City of Ontario initiated an investigation into an exchange of text messages originating from the lead Plaintiff, Quon, a city SWAT team officer, to his wife and two other SWAT team members, including one with whom he was romantically involved. The Citys service plan had a monthly character limit for outgoing messages tied to each device and the City was charged a fee for exceeding the limit. The City had a policy that warned employees that they should have no privacy expectation in communications sent over their Department-provided devices. Despite the policy, Quons superior told him that his text messages would not be audited as long as he personally paid for any overages.
Quon exceeded the monthly character limit, prompting the Police Chief to investigate whether 1) the character limit was too low for the Citys law enforcement needs and, if so, 2) whether police officers were being required to pay for sending work-related messages. At the Citys request, its service provider, Arch Wireless, searched the text messages on Quons pager and provided the City with a transcript of his messages. The City then conducted an audit of Quons on-duty messages. The audit revealed that the majority of the messages Quon sent during work hours were personal, many of which were sexually explicit. Quon, his wife, and the two other colleagues brought suit against the City and Arch Wireless claiming in part that the audit violated their Fourth Amendment rights. The district court concluded that the Citys audit was reasonable because its purpose was to determine whether the service plan was appropriate and not simply to investigate Quons use of his government- issued pager. The Ninth Circuit reversed. It ruled that although conducted for a legitimate purpose, the search was unreasonable because there were less intrusive means the City could have utilized to determine whether the service plan was inadequate for the police departments needs. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy concluded the search was reasonable, noting that the Citys policy reserved the right to monitor employee communications and therefore limited employee expectations of privacy in them. The Court rejected Quons argument that the policy was informally modified by his superiors assurance that his text messages would not be audited as long as he paid for overages. Although narrowly decided on Fourth Amendment grounds, this opinion seems to recognize that the Court will ultimately be asked to decide the appropriate framework for determining the respective rights of employers and employees with respect privacy in the workplace when it comes to employee communications and employee privacy regarding those communications. Nevertheless, this case strongly suggests that employers can take the following measures to minimize the risk of litigation initiated by employees, as well as by non- employees involved in a questionable exchange:
Public employers will want to pay particular attention to the impact of state public records laws when assessing public employees privacy interests in workplace communications. The majority surmised that Quon should have known that, as a law enforcement officer, his on-the-job communications were likely subject to disclosure under Californias Public Disclosure Act.
The Court noted that employers increasingly (if reluctantly) tolerate personal use of employer equipment for private use. Increased employee access of personal e-mail accounts, social media and texts using employer-issued devices requires a thoughtful, holistic evaluation of the workplace technology and communications ecosystem, and a realistic assessment of employee practices. This evaluation should result in carefully written use and privacy policies that put employees on unambiguous notice about the circumstances under which the employer can monitor and access employee communications.
Use and privacy policies should be comprehensive and address all media, platforms, devices and technologies, including social media.
Use and privacy policies should ensure that access to the contents of employee communications is obtained pursuant to a clearly articulated, legitimate business or work-related purpose, such as the investigative purpose asserted by the City in this case. Employer activities that are performed for a legitimate business purpose will be less likely to be found unreasonable.
Develop employee training materials and conduct employee training programs to minimize the potential that a supervisor will unintentionally create an expectation of privacy, like appears to have happened in Quon, verbally or through other means. Training materials and programs should be periodically updated to reflect changes in the law and communications technologies or practices.
Please contact Karen Neuman at kneuman@slrno.com if you would like more information about this case or guidance about privacy in the workplace.
The FTC announced on May 28, 2010 that it is again postponing enforcement of the Red Flag Rule until December 31, 2010. Enforcement has been postponed several times since the Rule was promulgated last year in order to clarify the scope of its coverage and give businesses time to comply with the requirement that they develop and implement programs to detect indicia of potential identity theft. As noted previously several entities protested application of the Rule as to their members, including the ABA and AMA. The current delay is in response to pending house and senate legislation.
FCC SEEKS COMMENT ON RECLASSIFYING BROADBAND
Comments are due on July 15, 2010; reply comments are due on August 12, 2010.
If you would like more information about this proceeding and the proposed changes, please contact Karen Neuman or Jeff Olson at 202-454-9401.
Karen Neuman discusses Local Government Use of Social Media
Karen Neuman shared her perspective on several legal issues associated with local government use of social media at a regional meeting of telecommunications officers and advisors in Long Beach, California June 3, 2010. In addition to focusing on first amendment issues associated with government use of social media, Karen outlined how use of these tools can trigger state open meetings and public records laws, as well as privacy issues. Observing that the legal landscape is still evolving, Karen offered some strategies for minimizing risk.
Karen Neuman to Moderate May 19, 2010 FCBA Privacy & Data Security Committee Brown Bag Program About Privacy and Data Security Issues Involving Marketing to Minors.
The better approach is to jettison the Title I jurisdictional predicate and, instead, recognize what now is obvious and declare that Internet service providers (ISPs) are in fact carriers, directly subject to Title II jurisdiction. While this would represent a reversal of longstanding Commission policy, the agency has full statutory authority to reverse a prior policy course based upon, e.g., changed circumstances. Clearly, the record assembled in the Net Neutrality rulemaking, coupled with the lengthy proceedings that led up to the adoption of the NBP, provide a more than adequate basis for the Commission to conclude that its old policy of categorizing ISPs as non-carriers no longer serves the public interest and that, as a factual matter, ISPs now conduct themselves - - particularly from a consumers perspective - - in a manner indistinguishable from traditional common carriers.
For example, when the FCC first decided that ISPs should not be subject to Title II regulation, it did so in part because: (1) the then-nascent ISPs had no market power; (2) their services were distinguishable from traditional communications services; and (3) the agency did not want to stifle the new industrys development through unnecessary regulation. As with any similar Commission policy judgment, there would be adequate opportunity to revisit the issue as the industry evolved. Today, the ubiquity of the Internet, its central role in commerce, and the ISPs growing head-to-head competition with traditional telephony-based services (e.g., VOIP), provide an unassailable basis for revisiting the Title II question. The Commission can reasonably conclude that in a marketplace in which traditional wireline and mobile carriers are subject to Title II (and the agencys statutory forbearance authority), it is irrational to leave one - - now mature - - competitor operating essentially unregulated. Articulated properly - - and backed by record evidence - - such a policy reversal should be sustained on the inevitable appellate review.
The above scenario has been dubbed the nuclear option, mainly by the ISPs and their financial backers, because it arguably would subject the ISPs to a host of new regulations and, most importantly, financial burdens, mostly in the form of having to contribute to the Universal Service Fund (USF) for the first time. However, it does not necessarily follow that exercising the nuclear option will inexorably lead to nuclear winter for the ISPs.
First, the bulk of Title II requirements that might otherwise be imposed on the ISPs can be eliminated under the Commissions forbearance authority, just as those burdens have been eliminated for the traditional carriers. Second, it makes no sense to continue to exempt the ISPs from USF obligations when it is generally agreed that a critical national goal for the next decade is to ensure universal broadband access to the Internet, just as universal access to the telephone network was a national goal of the last century. While this no doubt would subject the ISPs to new financial obligations - - and perhaps skew their near-term financial projections - - such a result would hardly signal the devastation of this industry segment. To the contrary, there is no reason to believe that the ISPs will find that, simply by virtue of having become subject to Title II, the entrepreneurial acumen that drove them to their current level of success suddenly will desert them.
In short, whatever basis previously existed to support the regulatory fiction that the ISPs were not really acting as common carriers, the facts on the ground today no longer sustain that position. In a sense, the Comcast court did the FCC a favor by forcing it to at least consider revisiting the matter. Particularly given the centrality of the Internet-based economy to the nations future well-being, it would be irrational for the agency to continue to rely on a patently out-dated rationale to maintain this regulatory fiction.
Moreover, the courts historically have accorded the FCC considerable deference when it has reversed course based on substantial record evidence and a reasoned explanation for its actions. This is so, even when the Commissions action has the effect of overturning a prior adverse court decision. The Commission clearly has the statutory authority to take such action in the context of the ongoing Net Neutrality rulemaking, and the evidentiary basis for doing so.
1 Comcast Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 08-1291 (D.C. Cir., Apr. 6, 2010).
FTC Announces Review of COPPA Rule
Comments are due June 30, 2010. A public roundtable meeting has been scheduled for June 2, 2010, during which interested parties may share their views with agency staff, scholars, privacy advocates and businesses. Click here to view the text of the request for comment.
If you would like more information about the rule and the proposed changes, please contact Karen Neuman at kneuman@slrno.com.
One of the most interesting provisions of the NBP is the identified need for some 500 MHz of additional spectrum to support mobile broadband, a substantial portion of which is proposed to be reallocated from television broadcasting. The broadcast and mobile services industries have been engaged in a running battle over spectrum for decades. In the late-1970s through early-1980s the FCC reallocated the then-generally fallow 800 MHz segment of the UHF TV band for the development of the first cellular networks. Twenty-some years later, the broadcasters surrendered another hefty slice of their upper-UHF allocation, the 700 MHz band (the bulk of which was auctioned off 3 years ago for Advanced Wireless Services), in return for which they were authorized to provide digital television, as well as multichannel video and information services. Now, having completed that not-inexpensive transition to digital operation a year ago, the FCC is proposing that television licensees voluntarily surrender their licenses for reallocation and auction for mobile services, in return for a portion of the auction revenue.
While the FCC clearly has the legal authority under the Communications Act to reallocate the subject spectrum today (setting aside whether it has the political will to exercise that authority), granting the broadcasters a piece of the auction pie is not within the agencys gift. That part of the proposed deal will require congressional approval, which, if granted, will also provide the Commission with the necessary political cover for the reallocation.
Another component of this deal that that has been mentioned is granting those broadcasters who surrender their licenses the opportunity to become (for lack of a better characterization) local cable channels, with guaranteed access to the local cable systems (the ex-broadcast signal presumably would be distributed directly to cable head-ends via fiber). Here, too, congressional action would be required to create this new broadcast/cable relationship. How this might fare in the face of the inevitable constitutional challenge is problematic at best, given the fairly thin constitutional reed that presently upholds the current must-carry regime.
The obvious battle lines have been drawn on the Hill, and, as always, the devil will be in the details, while the law of unintended consequences - - the most pervasive law in Washington, DC - - will be fully in play. It will be fascinating - - if not necessarily an inspiring civics lesson - - to watch this process play itself out.
Additional spectrum-related issues also will be addressed in the various inquiry and rulemaking proceedings that will be initiated or reactivated by the FCC during the following months. These will involve, among others, examining ways to accelerate the deployment of spectrum-based smart-grid systems, low-power patient-monitoring technologies, and networks designed to operate in the white spaces. Particularly with respect white-space technologies, the Commission faces a potential dilemma. Its recent opening of the TV white spaces for various smart low power technologies has generated considerable investment in the development and deployment of such systems. However, the goal announced in the NBP, to reallocate a substantial portion of the TV band, may negatively impact the development of these new white space systems. The Commission must take considerable care to not inadvertently undermine these valuable new technologies, which can greatly increase the efficiency of use of many spectrum bands.
To read the full text of the National Broadband Plan, please click here.
For additional information on this or other matters, please contact Jeff Olson at jolson@stlro.com, 202-454-9401 or 703-628-2142.
Archived STLRO News & Information