CTA supported proposed updates to FCC rules for over-the-air reception devices, in reply comments posted Tuesday in docket 19-71. Cities and others continue to counsel restraint (see 1906050014). Other groups are raising RF health concerns. “The availability of broadband is an important factor in the growth of emerging technologies,” CTA said. “Emerging technologies use smaller form factors than previous generation’s macro towers, and these smaller form factors must be closer to end-users. Over the past two years, the Commission took important steps to streamline state and local review of infrastructure siting. … Expanding the OTARD rule to include all fixed wireless equipment is a reasonable next step for the Commission to consider.” Incompas also supported the change. “Fixed wireless is a solution that some of our members use to deliver critical voice and broadband services to their customers,” it commented: “INCOMPAS supports the Commission’s proposal to eliminate the restriction that currently excludes hub and relay antennas from the scope of the Commission’s OTARD provisions.” The U.S. Conference of Mayors and Los Angeles, Boston, Dallas and other local governments said the FCC doesn’t have the authority to act. “The Commission lacks the legal authority, delegated, implied, or ancillary, to take the actions it contemplates,” filing said. “Parties that are supportive of the proceeding fail to demonstrate that there is a predicate for action,” the cities said: “Numerous non-governmental parties offer insights that there is no national movement or scheme to deny OTARD deployments, and the Commission’s proposed actions could retard current plans for wireless developments.” San Francisco also opposed the rules. “The Commission cannot extend the OTARD rule simply because the Commission believes it will be speed-up broadband deployment,” it said: “Where, as here, the Commission is acting under a directive from Congress, the Commission must show that its actions are consistent with that directive, and are not prohibited by other federal laws.” The Wireless ISP Association, which asked for the change, said initial comments broke down into two camps. “Those in the real estate business that seek to maintain the status quo giving zoning and homeowners’ associations unmitigated control over the way their residents’ access video content, and those providers that desire a limited change to the OTARD rule so that consumers have more choices and providers are better able to extend service and offer competitive choice,” WISPA said.

The FAA expects to publish an NPRM for drone remote identification by September (see 1805210045), more than a year after the original deadline for issuing a final rule, said Deputy Associate Administrator-Office of Security and Hazardous Materials Angela Stubblefield. Remote ID would allow authorities to identify unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) through device registration.

With the FCC ending part-time leased access rules earlier this month, considering them contrary to the First Amendment (see 1906060029), media law and Constitution experts see potentially thorny questions emerging as it also considers whether its full-time requirements have similar problems. The agency could find itself in a particularly sticky situation if it decides the statutory requirement underlying its leased access rules seems to have a constitutional problem, said former FCC Deputy General Counsel Peter Karanjia.

As Congress mulls new regulatory approaches to major tech companies, it might want to look at creating an exemption to Communications Decency Act Section 230 to hold service providers liable for publishing or restricting certain kinds of content, the Congressional Research Service reported. Minus an express exemption, there could be legal questions about new laws imposing liability that might conflict with Section 230 general immunity, CRS said Monday. It said such rules might also have First Amendment issues. It said any move to a comprehensive federal data protection law might need to weigh whether to be prescriptive or outcome-based, the definition of protected information and the role of the FTC or another federal enforcement agency. It said reclassification of ISPs as common carriers could create legal uncertainty about data protection obligations since they no longer would be under FTC jurisdiction. It said antitrust action against such tech companies also would raise complicated legal questions such as market definitions for dynamic technology industries. Since many tech companies provide services for free, demonstrating a monopoly could be difficult, CRS said.

If the Trump administration makes good its threat to impose the List 4 Section 301 tariffs, “no matter the level,” it should “immediately establish a product exclusion process" for the goods affected, commented CTA, posted Tuesday in docket USTR-2019-0004. “Adequate, well-reasoned, and prompt review of exclusion requests is particularly important for the proposed tariffs on List 4 because the proposed list is almost entirely comprised of products that will have a substantial and direct impact on U.S. consumers.”

The FAA expects to publish an NPRM for drone remote identification by September (see 1805210045), more than a year after the original deadline for issuing a final rule, said Deputy Associate Administrator-Office of Security and Hazardous Materials Angela Stubblefield. Remote ID would allow authorities to identify unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) through device registration.

Health concerns about the FCC-proposed update of rules for over-the-air reception devices, with an eye on 5G, were raised by Marshall Goldberg, a physician in Washington state. Local and state interests also raised concerns (see 1906050014). “This rule change would allow millimeter wave pulsed transmitting devices to be installed on private homes for the purpose of broadcasting signals out into local neighborhoods,” Goldberg filed, posted Monday in docket 19-36: “Adding such a clause to the 1996 Telecommunications Act is a threat to human health.” The Citizen League Encouraging Awareness of Radiation raised similar health concerns last week, as did others.

Health concerns about the FCC-proposed update of rules for over-the-air reception devices, with an eye on 5G, were raised by Marshall Goldberg, a physician in Washington state. Local and state interests also raised concerns (see 1906050014). “This rule change would allow millimeter wave pulsed transmitting devices to be installed on private homes for the purpose of broadcasting signals out into local neighborhoods,” Goldberg filed, posted Monday in docket 19-36: “Adding such a clause to the 1996 Telecommunications Act is a threat to human health.” The Citizen League Encouraging Awareness of Radiation raised similar health concerns last week, as did others.

Three groups filed an informal FCC complaint against the nation’s four largest wireless carriers for selling customers’ data to aggregators. The Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology, New America Open Technology Institute and Free Press asked for an investigation and potentially enforcement actions. The Communications Act requires providers “to observe heightened privacy obligations for location information,” said the complaint in docket 16-106. AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint "broadly violated those obligations and their customers’ privacy expectations. The Carriers have disclosed customer location information to location aggregators, other location-based services companies, and unauthorized individuals without customer approval. That location information has in some circumstances found its way into the hands of bounty hunters and stalkers.” In May, Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel sent letters to CEOs of the carriers asking what they're doing to make sure real-time location information they collect isn’t being sold to data aggregators (see 1905010167). Commissioner Geoffrey Starks also complained about the practice (see 1902080056). The four companies didn't comment Friday.

Three groups filed an informal FCC complaint against the nation’s four largest wireless carriers for selling customers’ data to aggregators. The Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology, New America Open Technology Institute and Free Press asked for an investigation and potentially enforcement actions. The Communications Act requires providers “to observe heightened privacy obligations for location information,” said the complaint in docket 16-106. AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint "broadly violated those obligations and their customers’ privacy expectations. The Carriers have disclosed customer location information to location aggregators, other location-based services companies, and unauthorized individuals without customer approval. That location information has in some circumstances found its way into the hands of bounty hunters and stalkers.” In May, Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel sent letters to CEOs of the carriers asking what they're doing to make sure real-time location information they collect isn’t being sold to data aggregators (see 1905010167). Commissioner Geoffrey Starks also complained about the practice (see 1902080056). The four companies didn't comment Friday.