Senators of both parties bowed a bill Monday to permit cellphone users to unlock their phones to switch carriers, as was expected (CD March 7 p7) . The Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act offers a legislative fix that one sponsor called a narrow change that restores an exemption to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for cellphone firmware unlocking that permits consumers to use their phones with other carriers once their contract terms have expired. A White House official last week advocated for legislative fixes to give consumers greater control over their devices, after the Copyright Office last year removed an exemption for cellphone firmware unlocking granted in previous triennial reviews of the 1998 law.

Americans should not face jail time if they choose to unlock their cellphones, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai said in a statement Monday. “If a consumer is not bound by a contract, he or she should be able to unlock his or her phone,” Pai said (http://bit.ly/XjiD4a). “The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), as it pertains to this issue, unnecessarily restricts consumer choice and is a case of the government going too far. Fortunately, there’s a simple solution: a permanent exemption from the DMCA for consumers who unlock their mobile devices. I commend the bipartisan efforts already underway to address this problem, and I hope it will be solved expeditiously.” Last week, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and the White House raised concerns over a recent ruling by the Copyright Office limiting handset unlocking (CD March 5 p1).

Americans should not face jail time if they choose to unlock their cellphones, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai said in a statement Monday. “If a consumer is not bound by a contract, he or she should be able to unlock his or her phone,” Pai said (http://bit.ly/XjiD4a). “The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), as it pertains to this issue, unnecessarily restricts consumer choice and is a case of the government going too far. Fortunately, there’s a simple solution: a permanent exemption from the DMCA for consumers who unlock their mobile devices. I commend the bipartisan efforts already underway to address this problem, and I hope it will be solved expeditiously.” Last week, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and the White House raised concerns over a recent ruling by the Copyright Office limiting handset unlocking (WID March 5 p2).

The Homeland Security and Justice departments said they don’t object to the FCC’s tack in an order the commission shared with those agencies Feb. 26 on foreign ownership of common carrier and aeronautical radio licenses under Section 310(b) of the Telecom Act. That second report and order “represents an effort to reach a reasonable compromise based on positions raised by many parties during this proceeding” in docket 11-133, “including those filed by DOJ and DHS,” the two agencies said in a letter posted Thursday in that docket. “Commission staff will continue to coordinate all relevant petitions for declaratory ruling and license applications with the relevant Executive Branch agencies,” the letter said (http://bit.ly/YIBQss). “Such agencies will retain the opportunity to petition the Commission to defer action on, and condition, limit or deny the grant of, petitions for declaratory rulings and applications with foreign ownership, including applications for initial licenses, assignments and transfers of control under Section 310, as well as other sections of the Act as appropriate.” The national-security agencies “will retain the opportunity to request from petitioners, and to evaluate prior to Commission action, additional information relevant to any possible national security and law enforcement concerns,” it continued. The FCC issued a first report and order in the summer (http://bit.ly/13LzXAj). A second report and order circulated Feb. 28, the agency’s list of items on circulation said. It said it was from the International Bureau, the bureau that had its chief, Mindel De La Torre, listed as the recipient of DHS and Justice’s Thursday letter.

An FTC staff report on mobile payments warns of a “potentially confusing landscape” for consumers trying to decide which funding method to choose based on the dispute process for unauthorized charges, the agency said Friday (http://1.usa.gov/10h78H8). “Paper, Plastic... or Mobile?” is based on an April 2012 agency workshop on mobile payments. Among credit card, prepaid card and mobile carrier billing, “consumers may or may not have statutory protections regarding unauthorized charges” through mobile payment, the report said (http://1.usa.gov/14DrBXp). Credit cards generally have the strongest level of protection, with a $50.25 liability cap for unauthorized use; debit cards require reporting a problem within 2 business days to get a $50 cap, a $500 cap after 2 days and “unlimited” liability if consumers don’t report within 60 days after their “periodic statement” is mailed; and there’s no federal statute other than the FTC Act protecting consumers if their mobile mechanism is linked to a pre-funded account or stored-value card like a gift card, the report said. FTC staff filed a comment to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, supporting proposed protections for buyers of general purpose reloadable cards, whose main use is by students and “the underbanked,” the report said. Voluntary liability caps by mobile payment providers are good but “such protections are not consistent, and companies that provide them could withdraw or modify them at their discretion.” Policymakers should consider “the benefits of providing consistent protections across mobile payments, and weigh these benefits against the costs of implementation,” the report said. Mobile carrier billing “raises a unique challenge with regard to third parties” and has already been identified in connection with landline “cramming,” the report said. The FTC told the FCC in a recent comment on mobile cramming that consumers should have the ability to block “all third-party charges,” including “on individual accounts operated by minors in the household,” and that carriers should be required to “clearly and prominently inform” customers how to block third-party charges at account creation and renewal, the report said: Carriers should also set up a clear process for charge dispute, require “aggregators” and others to maintain “sufficient and accessible records” of authorizations, and standardize dispute policies “to more closely align” with statutory protections. The report said FTC staff is organizing a roundtable in May to discuss potential approaches to fraudulent mobile charges. There should be industrywide adoption of strong security measures that cover the whole mobile payment process, especially via end-to-end encryption for sensitive financial information, the report said; encryption possibilities include data authentication during the transaction and secure storage on a mobile device. Companies also need to practice “privacy by design” in mobile payments, give consumers choice and build in transparency “from the outset,” it said. The report also warns that unlike merchants processing credit card transactions, mobile payment providers may have access to “a larger cache of personal information stored on the consumer’s mobile device.” The commission vote to issue the report was 4-0-1, with former Chairman Jon Leibowitz not participating. CTIA General Counsel Mike Altschul said the group welcomes the report: “CTIA and its members remain dedicated to working with retailers, third-party service providers, regulators and law enforcement to ensure consumer privacy and security in transactions involving mobile devices, and to remove fraud from the mobile consumer experience."

The Agricultural Marketing Service proposed revised Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) requirements for muscle cut covered commodities, which would align labeling requirements for muscle cut meats wholly produced in the U.S. with current requirements for foreign beef. The proposed rule comes after the World Trade Organization held in July 2012 that current COOL requirements discriminate against cattle and hogs imported from Canada and Mexico. Comments on the proposed rule are due by April 11.

An FTC staff report on mobile payments warns of a “potentially confusing landscape” for consumers trying to decide which funding method to choose based on the dispute process for unauthorized charges, the agency said Friday (http://1.usa.gov/10h78H8). “Paper, Plastic... or Mobile?” is based on an April 2012 agency workshop on mobile payments. Among credit card, prepaid card and mobile carrier billing, “consumers may or may not have statutory protections regarding unauthorized charges” through mobile payment, the report said (http://1.usa.gov/14DrBXp). Credit cards generally have the strongest level of protection, with a $50.25 liability cap for unauthorized use; debit cards require reporting a problem within 2 business days to get a $50 cap, a $500 cap after 2 days and “unlimited” liability if consumers don’t report within 60 days after their “periodic statement” is mailed; and there’s no federal statute other than the FTC Act protecting consumers if their mobile mechanism is linked to a pre-funded account or stored-value card like a gift card, the report said. FTC staff filed a comment to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, supporting proposed protections for buyers of general purpose reloadable cards, whose main use is by students and “the underbanked,” the report said. Voluntary liability caps by mobile payment providers are good but “such protections are not consistent, and companies that provide them could withdraw or modify them at their discretion.” Policymakers should consider “the benefits of providing consistent protections across mobile payments, and weigh these benefits against the costs of implementation,” the report said. Mobile carrier billing “raises a unique challenge with regard to third parties” and has already been identified in connection with landline “cramming,” the report said. The FTC told the FCC in a recent comment on mobile cramming that consumers should have the ability to block “all third-party charges,” including “on individual accounts operated by minors in the household,” and that carriers should be required to “clearly and prominently inform” customers how to block third-party charges at account creation and renewal, the report said: Carriers should also set up a clear process for charge dispute, require “aggregators” and others to maintain “sufficient and accessible records” of authorizations, and standardize dispute policies “to more closely align” with statutory protections. The report said FTC staff is organizing a roundtable in May to discuss potential approaches to fraudulent mobile charges. There should be industrywide adoption of strong security measures that cover the whole mobile payment process, especially via end-to-end encryption for sensitive financial information, the report said; encryption possibilities include data authentication during the transaction and secure storage on a mobile device. Companies also need to practice “privacy by design” in mobile payments, give consumers choice and build in transparency “from the outset,” it said. The report also warns that unlike merchants processing credit card transactions, mobile payment providers may have access to “a larger cache of personal information stored on the consumer’s mobile device.” The commission vote to issue the report was 4-0-1, with former Chairman Jon Leibowitz not participating. CTIA General Counsel Mike Altschul said the group welcomes the report: “CTIA and its members remain dedicated to working with retailers, third-party service providers, regulators and law enforcement to ensure consumer privacy and security in transactions involving mobile devices, and to remove fraud from the mobile consumer experience."

NATOA updated the FCC on the association’s “ongoing efforts” with PCIA to create best practices for the siting of wireless facilities, according to a Thursday ex parte filing (http://bit.ly/15CmSre). NATOA Executive Director Steve Traylor said there are issues raised in Section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act regarding this. The parties also discussed the FCC engaging in more education outreach efforts, the filing said, referring to recent webinars on FirstNet. “Similar webinars could be used effectively to educate local government officials on issues surrounding the deployment of additional wireless broadband facilities, including the proposal of increased collocation on public safety facilities,” Traylor said.

Two of three judges asked skeptical questions of WealthTV’s lawyer, in the independent programmer’s attempt (CD March 13 p5) to get the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn an FCC denial of the indie’s program carriage complaint against four cable operators. At the oral argument Thursday in Pasadena, Calif., Judge Paul Watford asked almost all the questions of attorneys for WealthTV, the commission and the four operators. He also homed in on the FCC’s lawyer over whether there was a violation when the FCC administrative law judge, whose recommendation against the indie’s case was upheld by the full commission in 2011, didn’t consider some testimony as evidence.

A handful of the Senate’s top cybersecurity hawks commended President Barack Obama for issuing a cybersecurity executive order to improve the security of the nation’s most critical infrastructure, at a joint hearing Thursday by the Senate Commerce and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committees. Despite previous warnings that an order would actually hurt U.S. companies’ ability to protect themselves from cyberattacks, even some Senate Republicans offered veiled praise for the order. Agency leaders at the Department of Homeland Security and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which are tasked by the executive order to help U.S. owners of critical infrastructure, told lawmakers that they're working hard to comply with the order but said they are concerned the sequester may negatively affect their agencies’ ability to protect the nation from attacks.