Granting ILEC objections, the FCC blocked Bruce Kushnick and Neil Stevens from viewing sensitive company data in the special access rulemaking subject to a protective order. AT&T and Verizon objected to the data-access request from Kushnick, New Networks Institute (NNI) executive director. CenturyLink and Verizon objected to the request from Stevens, a tech policy writer at RedState, a political website. In an order listed in Thursday's Daily Digest and posted in docket 05-25, the Wireline Bureau denied Kushnick’s request and said there was some doubt about whether NNI provided certain commercial services and qualified as an outside consultant to a proceeding participant. Citing various NNI descriptions of its activities, the bureau said “the exact nature of NNI’s activities and Mr. Kushnick’s role (whether Mr. Kushnick is acting as a representative of NNI or is he now acting in his own capacity) is unclear.” Kushnick’s “lack of previous involvement in this proceeding along with the very general nature of his filings” raise doubt about whether he would use the data access to file comments on the specific questions raised in the proceeding, said the bureau. The FCC noted AT&T said Kushnick's main occupation appeared to be writing blog posts and books. The "lack of transparency in who is behind Mr. Kushnick's organizations" combined with his views that special access information should be made public creates added risk he would disclose commercially sensitive data, AT&T said. The FCC noted Kushnick responded that NNI intended to participate meaningfully in the proceeding. But NNI was prevented from doing so because the FCC had allowed the telcos to "run out the clock in the comment cycle, he said in a Feb. 17 filing complaining about the lack of agency action on his request. NNI had answered the telcos' “specious claims” and should be given access to the data because it “has uncovered a massive financial shell game, that was created, in large part, by the FCC, which we have dubbed the ‘Big Freeze’ -- and it directly relates to ALL special access issues in America; the newly collected data should corroborate our filings,” he said. Kushnick told us Thursday he plans to appeal the decision to the full commission. "We have a right to be heard," he said. "Our reports show the FCC has not audited the telco books for 15 years. … Our belief is the phone companies have been able to manipulate the books, and the FCC has helped them." That has led to "massive cross-subsidies," local phone rate increases and discontinuance of network services, he said. In denying Stevens access, the bureau said that “he does not claim to represent or be employed by any other entity or party to these proceedings” and thus didn’t qualify as an outside consultant or counsel to a participant.

Horse trading on the two-year FCC Reauthorization Act (S-2644) likely continued behind the scenes this week as Senate Commerce Committee Republicans sought to secure Democratic backing for the legislation, set for markup 10 a.m. Wednesday in 253 Russell. Chairman John Thune, R-S.D., pushed back against speculation that the item could be yanked from the markup agenda and raised the prospect of later marking up a priority bill for Commerce Committee ranking member Bill Nelson, D-Fla. -- the Spoofing Prevention Act (S-2558).

Horse trading on the two-year FCC Reauthorization Act (S-2644) likely continued behind the scenes this week as Senate Commerce Committee Republicans sought to secure Democratic backing for the legislation, set for markup 10 a.m. Wednesday in 253 Russell. Chairman John Thune, R-S.D., pushed back against speculation that the item could be yanked from the markup agenda and raised the prospect of later marking up a priority bill for Commerce Committee ranking member Bill Nelson, D-Fla. -- the Spoofing Prevention Act (S-2558).

A proposal by ISPs on privacy rules included groups representing nearly all ISPs (see 1603010069) except wireless ISPs, said Robert Quinn, AT&T senior vice president-federal, in a blog post Wednesday. FTC oversight has worked well, Quinn said. “All major ISPs have enacted privacy policies which explain to consumers the information that ISPs collect and how that data is used,” he said. “At AT&T, we’ve continued to simplify our policy, including several years ago when we went to a single comprehensive privacy policy that describes plainly and simply the information we collect, how we collect it and how we use it.” Quinn said he was AT&T chief privacy officer for several years and can say firsthand “we take customer privacy and how we communicate our polices to our customers seriously.” But some groups are pushing for much stricter rules than ISPs have faced in the past (see 1603070049), Quinn said. “To get there, those groups have characterized ISPs as ‘gatekeepers,’ asserted that ISPs (as opposed to companies like Google) are the real leaders of targeted advertising and, finally, argued that the Federal Trade Commission is, in essence, incompetent at policing privacy given the tools they have available.” Those arguments aren't supported by the facts, he said, though he warned the FCC may be listening. “Time and time again, the FCC appears to want to place its thumb on the scale in favor of Internet companies and against the companies that invest in broadband infrastructure in this country,” he wrote. “Last year, it was the Title II proceeding. Last month, we were talking about set-top boxes, this month it’s privacy, next month it could be special access.” The FCC did not comment. "I’ve characterized ISPs as ‘gatekeepers’ because that is what they are,” said John Simpson, Consumer Watchdog privacy project director, responding to Quinn. “Edge providers like Google and Facebook do pose serious privacy concerns, but that is no justification for not dealing with the privacy issues raised by ISPs and their unique position. That is what the FCC is legally bound to do now that broadband providers are classified as common carriers.” The FTC has tried to protect consumers' privacy, “but because it doesn’t have rulemaking authority in this area and can only move against ‘unfair and deceptive’ acts, its powers are limited,” Simpson said. “The phone and cable ISP industry is totally disingenuous claiming that the use of privacy policies is an effective way to protect consumers,” said Center for Digital Democracy Executive Director Jeffrey Chester. “These companies are engaged in significant cross device tracking and targeting using their advantage over subscriber information. They are expanding their work with data brokers, acquiring powerful consumer data assets, and are engaged in practices that threaten the privacy of their customers. The FCC has to step in before these broadband giants further invade our privacy.”

FCC reform of the USF high-cost program for rate-of-return carriers was based on an unusual level of collaboration (see 1602190056), FCC Commissioner Mike O’Rielly said at a Faegre Baker lunch Tuesday. “At my request, a number of Commissioners worked extensively with the requisite trade associations in order to fully understand their concerns and the impact of any changes,” O’Rielly said, according to his written remarks posted by the agency Wednesday. The event was closed to the news media. “I also traveled to a number of places around the country to hear firsthand from carriers," said O'Rielly. "After almost a year of discussions, I believe we have a solid framework that provides regulatory certainty for rate-of-return carriers for years to come.” Compared with some of the other areas tackled by the agency, rate-of-return reform was “one of the more inclusive procedural efforts that I have been part of at the Commission,” he said. The order addresses “antiquated rules” to allow reimbursement for stand-alone broadband, he said. The order also imposes build-out requirements and other strictures to ensure money is “wisely and efficiently spent, while providing transitions where appropriate,” he said. O’Rielly had less good to say about two items expected to get a vote at the agency’s March 31 open meeting. Lifeline program changes (see 1603080024) must include controls on the size of the program, O’Rielly said. “I have made clear that I’m willing to support expanding the program to cover broadband but, in return, the Commission must adopt a reasonable overall budget at the same time,” he said. “That is non-negotiable.” O’Rielly also raised concerns about an expected NPRM on privacy rules for ISPs (see 1603080067). The net neutrality order is still pending before the courts, he said, so FCC authority to act is in question. “The Commission doesn’t understand how its new burdens will impose unnecessary and costly compliance on broadband providers,” he said. “Who does the Commission think is going to pay for this? Additionally, by all measures the Commission is ill-prepared to address the complexity of privacy matters, lacking the history and necessary expertise.”

FCC reform of the USF high-cost program for rate-of-return carriers was based on an unusual level of collaboration (see 1602190056), FCC Commissioner Mike O’Rielly said at a Faegre Baker lunch Tuesday. “At my request, a number of Commissioners worked extensively with the requisite trade associations in order to fully understand their concerns and the impact of any changes,” O’Rielly said, according to his written remarks posted by the agency Wednesday. The event was closed to the news media. “I also traveled to a number of places around the country to hear firsthand from carriers," said O'Rielly. "After almost a year of discussions, I believe we have a solid framework that provides regulatory certainty for rate-of-return carriers for years to come.” Compared with some of the other areas tackled by the agency, rate-of-return reform was “one of the more inclusive procedural efforts that I have been part of at the Commission,” he said. The order addresses “antiquated rules” to allow reimbursement for stand-alone broadband, he said. The order also imposes build-out requirements and other strictures to ensure money is “wisely and efficiently spent, while providing transitions where appropriate,” he said. O’Rielly had less good to say about two items expected to get a vote at the agency’s March 31 open meeting. Lifeline program changes (see 1603080024) must include controls on the size of the program, O’Rielly said. “I have made clear that I’m willing to support expanding the program to cover broadband but, in return, the Commission must adopt a reasonable overall budget at the same time,” he said. “That is non-negotiable.” O’Rielly also raised concerns about an expected NPRM on privacy rules for ISPs (see 1603080067). The net neutrality order is still pending before the courts, he said, so FCC authority to act is in question. “The Commission doesn’t understand how its new burdens will impose unnecessary and costly compliance on broadband providers,” he said. “Who does the Commission think is going to pay for this? Additionally, by all measures the Commission is ill-prepared to address the complexity of privacy matters, lacking the history and necessary expertise.”

A proposal by ISPs on privacy rules included groups representing nearly all ISPs (see 1603010069) except wireless ISPs, said Robert Quinn, AT&T senior vice president-federal, in a blog post Wednesday. FTC oversight has worked well, Quinn said. “All major ISPs have enacted privacy policies which explain to consumers the information that ISPs collect and how that data is used,” he said. “At AT&T, we’ve continued to simplify our policy, including several years ago when we went to a single comprehensive privacy policy that describes plainly and simply the information we collect, how we collect it and how we use it.” Quinn said he was AT&T chief privacy officer for several years and can say firsthand “we take customer privacy and how we communicate our polices to our customers seriously.” But some groups are pushing for much stricter rules than ISPs have faced in the past (see 1603070049), Quinn said. “To get there, those groups have characterized ISPs as ‘gatekeepers,’ asserted that ISPs (as opposed to companies like Google) are the real leaders of targeted advertising and, finally, argued that the Federal Trade Commission is, in essence, incompetent at policing privacy given the tools they have available.” Those arguments aren't supported by the facts, he said, though he warned the FCC may be listening. “Time and time again, the FCC appears to want to place its thumb on the scale in favor of Internet companies and against the companies that invest in broadband infrastructure in this country,” he wrote. “Last year, it was the Title II proceeding. Last month, we were talking about set-top boxes, this month it’s privacy, next month it could be special access.” The FCC did not comment. "I’ve characterized ISPs as ‘gatekeepers’ because that is what they are,” said John Simpson, Consumer Watchdog privacy project director, responding to Quinn. “Edge providers like Google and Facebook do pose serious privacy concerns, but that is no justification for not dealing with the privacy issues raised by ISPs and their unique position. That is what the FCC is legally bound to do now that broadband providers are classified as common carriers.” The FTC has tried to protect consumers' privacy, “but because it doesn’t have rulemaking authority in this area and can only move against ‘unfair and deceptive’ acts, its powers are limited,” Simpson said. “The phone and cable ISP industry is totally disingenuous claiming that the use of privacy policies is an effective way to protect consumers,” said Center for Digital Democracy Executive Director Jeffrey Chester. “These companies are engaged in significant cross device tracking and targeting using their advantage over subscriber information. They are expanding their work with data brokers, acquiring powerful consumer data assets, and are engaged in practices that threaten the privacy of their customers. The FCC has to step in before these broadband giants further invade our privacy.”

Lawyers for the FTC and LabMD squared off Tuesday during oral argument before FTC commissioners who will now decide whether to uphold or overturn an administrative law judge's Nov. 13 decision (see 1511160069) that agency attorneys failed to prove the now defunct cancer-detection laboratory's "alleged unreasonable data security caused, or is likely to cause, substantial consumer injury." A spokesman said the commission has no deadline to decide the case.

Lawyers for the FTC and LabMD squared off Tuesday during oral argument before FTC commissioners who will now decide whether to uphold or overturn an administrative law judge's Nov. 13 decision (see 1511160069) that agency attorneys failed to prove the now defunct cancer-detection laboratory's "alleged unreasonable data security caused, or is likely to cause, substantial consumer injury." A spokesman said the commission has no deadline to decide the case.

The ascendency of Donald Trump as the favorite to be the Republican nominee for president is raising the same kinds of questions in communications circles as it has on many other fronts. Few major communications players have rallied to his support, just as he has tallied few endorsements among Republican officials nationwide. Industry officials express uneasiness with Trump. They said it's unclear who he would pick for his transition teams on the FCC and communications issues, or who he would tap to lead the FTC or FCC, as NTIA administrator, or for the other key positions overseeing communications policy.