Now that the comment cycle is complete, move on proposals to allow TV white spaces (TVWS) devices to operate with higher power in less-congested areas, Microsoft and other commenters asked the FCC. Others continue to raise concerns (see 2005050033). Replies were posted through Wednesday in docket 20-36 on an NPRM that commissioners approved 5-0 in February (see 2002280055). Make the changes discussed in the NPRM but address other changes in future items, Microsoft replied. There's broad support for TVWS changes from service providers, tech companies, businesses and schools in rural areas and public interest organizations, the company said: “The record also demonstrates that the proposed rule changes will accelerate the pace of TVWS deployments and significantly improve the ability of TVWS technology to narrow the digital divide.” There's broad agreement “more robust rules” here “would improve connectivity in rural, tribal, and other unserved and underserved areas,” the Public Interest Spectrum Coalition said. New America’s Open Technology Institute, Public Knowledge, Consumer Reports, Access Humboldt, Next Century Cities, Common Cause, the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition and Benton Institute for Broadband and Society were among those on the filing. “Limit this proceeding to the narrow set of proposals set forth in the NPRM” and don't “consider extraneous requests that would dramatically expand those proposals or effectively rewrite Part 15 of the Commission’s rules,” NAB said. Some would expand the proceeding to consider “areas that have already been fully debated and where there have been no new developments that would warrant changes,” the group said. The National Public Safety Telecommunications Council endorsed the changes in general for rural areas, seeking companion tweaks for private land mobile radio operations on TV channels 14-20. NPSTC is “simply seeking to maintain an equivalent level of protection to that offered today,” the group said: “The proposed doubling of the allowed TVWS antenna height will have a significant effect on the separation distance needed to maintain an equivalent level of protection” to public land mobile radio operations. Wireless mic makers kept up their concerns. “Refine the movable platforms proposal by narrowing the scope of eligible vehicles and accounting for antenna height and directionality in the design of the rules,” Shure said: “Retain the less congested areas framework while rejecting impractical/computationally intensive alternative proposals centered around population density and/or terrain-based modeling.”

The FCC is expected to act on the wireless infrastructure ruling teed up for a commissioner vote Tuesday. That's despite concerns from local and state governments and calls from Commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Geoffrey Starks to consider delay. It's unclear how the two Democrats will vote, though both are expected to raise concerns at the meeting. Officials expect some tweaks based on ex parte filings by opponents and proponents of the item, but broader eighth-floor discussions are just getting started.

Maine’s ISP privacy law doesn’t raise First Amendment concerns or run afoul of federal law, Public Knowledge said Monday in an amicus brief (in Pacer) supporting the state at the U.S. District Court of Maine. Consumer privacy advocates supported Maine last week (see 2005280062). The law contested by cable and telecom associations “is part of a longstanding and continuing tradition of complementary state and federal laws that prohibit communications networks, whether paper or electronic, from disclosing any information relating to the acts of communication,” PK wrote. Access Now and New America’s Open Technology Institute filed jointly to support Maine. “ISPs sit in a privileged position,” they said (in Pacer). “Customers cannot reasonably avoid sharing details of their private lives with ISPs.” The Maine law shouldn’t face heightened First Amendment scrutiny because it doesn’t regulate speech and isn’t meant to suppress a particular viewpoint, Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute wrote (in Pacer).

Maine’s ISP privacy law doesn’t raise First Amendment concerns or run afoul of federal law, Public Knowledge said Monday in an amicus brief (in Pacer) supporting the state at the U.S. District Court of Maine. Consumer privacy advocates supported Maine last week (see 2005280062). The law contested by cable and telecom associations “is part of a longstanding and continuing tradition of complementary state and federal laws that prohibit communications networks, whether paper or electronic, from disclosing any information relating to the acts of communication,” PK wrote. Access Now and New America’s Open Technology Institute filed jointly to support Maine. “ISPs sit in a privileged position,” they said (in Pacer). “Customers cannot reasonably avoid sharing details of their private lives with ISPs.” The Maine law shouldn’t face heightened First Amendment scrutiny because it doesn’t regulate speech and isn’t meant to suppress a particular viewpoint, Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute wrote (in Pacer).

Having approved Ligado license modifications, the FCC is expected to consider the 1675-1680 MHz band, on which the agency took comment last year. NOAA is preparing a report on potential effect on federal users of sharing the band, but it’s unclear whether it will be made public, industry officials said in interviews. Ligado asked for the NPRM and could combine it with its other spectrum, for 40 MHz for 5G.

Ligado’s L-band license modification OK should have gone through a spectrum reallocation notice-and-comment process, with the final decision coming in an open commission meeting, some said in the petitions for reconsideration this week in docket 11-109. Others said any problems the FCC had with analyses raising red flags about possible interference should have been brought up before the perfunctory dismissal of them. The commission hasn't resolved concerns about GPS interference.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday that would remove liability protections for online platforms that censure or edit content (see 2005270016). There would be a role for antitrust agencies and the FCC, whose commissioners reacted along party lines to the EO. “We’re here today to defend free speech from one of the greatest dangers,” Trump said, claiming tech monopolies have “unchecked power” to censor and restrict human interaction.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday that would remove liability protections for online platforms that censure or edit content (see 2005270016). There would be a role for antitrust agencies and the FCC, whose commissioners reacted along party lines to the EO. “We’re here today to defend free speech from one of the greatest dangers,” Trump said, claiming tech monopolies have “unchecked power” to censor and restrict human interaction.

Progressive Democrats Wednesday announced opposition to the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act (see 2005140061) after a Democratic amendment was dropped. The House was expected to vote on the underlying bill Wednesday. Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairs Pramila Jayapal, Wash., and Mark Pocan, Wis., raised concerns about warrantless online surveillance. Mirroring a measure from Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Steve Daines, R-Mont., an amendment from Reps. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, would have banned warrantless search and browsing history. The Wyden-Daines amendment was narrowly defeated in the Senate. “Despite some positive reforms, the legislation is far too narrow in scope and would still leave the public vulnerable to invasive online spying and data collection,” Jayapal and Pocan said. President Donald Trump urged Republicans to vote no on the bill.

Progressive Democrats Wednesday announced opposition to the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act (see 2005140061) after a Democratic amendment was dropped. The House was expected to vote on the underlying bill Wednesday. Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairs Pramila Jayapal, Wash., and Mark Pocan, Wis., raised concerns about warrantless online surveillance. Mirroring a measure from Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Steve Daines, R-Mont., an amendment from Reps. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, would have banned warrantless search and browsing history. The Wyden-Daines amendment was narrowly defeated in the Senate. “Despite some positive reforms, the legislation is far too narrow in scope and would still leave the public vulnerable to invasive online spying and data collection,” Jayapal and Pocan said. President Donald Trump urged Republicans to vote no on the bill.