State education boards are well positioned to shape and guide student data privacy policies by strengthening data protection, informing parents and others about how information is used and protected, establishing model rules and laws, and improving training to reduce data security incidents, the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) said in a report Monday. At least 36 state boards have some legal authority over student data privacy and states continue to consider expanding such powers, wrote NASBE Education Data and Technology Director Amelia Vance, the study's author. But those boards that haven't weighed in on privacy need to, she added. "Data privacy will be ever more important as education becomes more personalized and dependent on technology." There is significant activity in this area. In 2013, 34 states passed new laws on student data privacy while "an even larger number" have created new policies and regulations, Vance wrote. Last year, 187 bills in 48 states were introduced, up from 110 in 2014 (see 1601050064). The report outlines current and proposed state and federal bills and model legislation put forth by other stakeholders such as the American Civil Liberties Union. But many bills and policies "unintentionally restrict educational technology use and innovation," Vance said, and it's vital boards review and address such issues. She also said that it's "a matter of practicality" for schools to partner with companies with far more expertise and money to provide up-to-date security, and that schools convey that to parents who worry about companies' access and use of student information.
Consumers and small businesses in five states received 1 Gbps Internet service on Monday, according to announcements from Windstream and GCI. Windstream launched a 1 Gbps speed tier in Lincoln, Nebraska; Lexington, Kentucky; Sugar Land, Texas; and seven North Carolina communities. Separately, GCI continued its 1 Gbps rollout across Alaska, announcing an expansion of the fiber service to Juneau.
Verizon dismissed union rallies in New York as “like a bad April Fool’s joke.” Hundreds of union workers rallied Thursday at Verizon’s offices in New York City and White Plains, New York. The workers, represented by Communications Workers of America (CWA) and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, protested about job security and health and retirement benefits amid a labor contract dispute with Verizon. “Verizon’s CEO makes more than 200 times as much as the average frontline worker, but the company refuses to bargain the fair contract Verizon workers and their families need and deserve,” said CWA District 1 Vice President Dennis Trainor. “It’s time for management to stop slashing frontline workers’ job security and living standards.” A Verizon spokesman replied that it's “simply foolish to believe these meaningless disruptions have any impact on the bargaining process.” Verizon is committed to the long-term success of its business, he said. “We hope union leaders would feel the same.” CWA has also been on the attack at the New York Public Service Commission, where it has successfully petitioned the commission to open an investigation into the quality of the telco’s copper-based services (see 1603230044).
A California bill authorizing telcos to end legacy copper service in 2020 will get a hearing April 13 in the California State Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee. The bill (AB-2395) would authorize telcos to discontinue legacy telephone service in 2020, as long as they first educate consumers about the transition. The bill’s sponsor, Assembly Member Evan Low (D), has said the bill will keep California at the forefront of technology (see 1603300054). But consumer groups are coordinating to fight the proposal, which they say would authorize AT&T to strand many Californian customers who still rely on the copper network, including people in rural areas, low-income households, seniors and people with disabilities (see 1603290055). The hearing starts at 1:30 p.m. PDT and will be webcast.
AT&T, Sprint and Verizon made the list of top utilities and telecom companies in a California supplier diversity program in 2015, the California Public Utilities Commission said Wednesday. The 30 companies in CPUC’s program procured more than $8.9 billion in goods and services in 2015 from women-, minority- and disabled veteran-owned business enterprises, the CPUC said. In 2015, AT&T California spent $1 billion to diverse firms, or nearly 48.6 percent of total procurement buys, while Sprint spent $585.2 million (44.5 percent) and Verizon spent $82.7 million (51.23 percent), the commission said. Supplier diversity reports filed by the companies are on the CPUC website.
A bill in the California State Assembly to push telecom customers toward IP services (AB-2395) will keep California at the forefront of technology, said a spokesman for the bill’s sponsor, Assembly Member Evan Low (D). The bill would authorize telcos to discontinue legacy telephone service in 2020, as long as they first educate consumers about the transition. Consumer group The Utility Reform Network slammed the bill Tuesday (see 1603290055) because it said the proposal would authorize AT&T to strand many Californian customers who still rely on the copper network, including people in rural areas, low-income households, seniors and people with disabilities. Low, who represents the Silicon Valley, believes it’s time to push adoption of IP telecom services in California, his spokesman said. “This bill is the nexus in terms of advancing California’s innovation economy.” Other states have passed similar legislation and this is a case of California playing catch-up, he said. The bill includes “backstops” recognizing that IP infrastructure might not be an option for all Californians, he said. Under the bill, customers can petition the state commission to review availability of IP service at their location if a telco gives notice it's discontinuing legacy telephone service. If the commission finds there's no provider, the commission can help the customer find an alternative, or order the withdrawing telco to continue providing voice service to the customer for another 12 months. A committee hearing in the California State Assembly is expected on AB-2395 in April.
Comcast urged a federal district court to dismiss a complaint by two Georgia counties on a dispute about collection of 911 charges. The counties of Cobb and Gwinnett filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court in Atlanta, alleging Comcast failed to bill, collect, report and remit the appropriate amount of 911 charges from customers. The counties seek to collect the charges from Comcast. But in a motion to dismiss filed Friday, Comcast said it didn't underbill 911 charges -- and in any case, the counties don't have authority to hold telecom providers liable for unpaid 911 changes. The governing law in the state, the 1977 Georgia Emergency Telephone Number 9-1-1 Service Act (911 Act), doesn't authorize the counties to collect 911 charges from telcos, Comcast argued. “The 911 Act does not create a right of action against service suppliers for unpaid 911 charges and most certainly does not enable an action against suppliers to collect from them 911 charges that have not been billed,” it said. “The Counties ask this Court to manufacture from wholecloth [sic] a right of action that does not exist under the 911 Act and a remedy that the 911 Act does not allow. The law is clear that their complaint must be dismissed.” The counties’ 911 complaint is one of a spate of lawsuits lately facing telecom providers, said Comcast. “This lawsuit is one of over a dozen lawsuits filed by Cobb and Gwinnett Counties. It also mirrors more than a dozen other, similar lawsuits filed by or on behalf of local governments across the nation.” Comcast said the source of all the complaints is consulting firm Expert Discovery, which “presents itself as an ‘auditor’ of telephone service providers and works on a contingent fee basis.” Expert Discovery didn’t comment.
The FTC supported a telehealth bill in the Alaska legislature that would remove a requirement that physicians be located within the state. Telehealth provisions in SB-74 would allow licensed Alaska physicians located out of state to provide telehealth services in the same way as in-state physicians, and would allow certain Alaska-licensed behavioral health professionals to provide services remotely. It would authorize regulations to establish a standard of care for physicians prescribing medications without a physical examination. The Alaska Senate passed SB-74 March 11; the House referred the bill to the Finance Committee March 14. Telehealth provisions in SB-74 would make "a procompetitive improvement in Alaska’s telehealth law,” the FTC said in a letter to state Rep. Steve Thompson, the Republican co-chairman of the House Finance Committee in the Alaska legislature. FTC Office of Policy Planning Director Marina Lao, Economics Bureau Director Ginger Zhe Jin and Competition Bureau Director Deborah Feinstein signed the letter. “These provisions would likely increase the supply of telehealth providers, enhance competition, and reduce health care costs, thereby benefiting Alaskans, especially underserved populations with limited access to health care,” the letter said. But the FTC said parts of the bill could discourage patients who are concerned about privacy. “While SB 74 might encourage greater use of telehealth by behavioral health professionals, its requirement that behavioral health professionals providing services remotely, unlike those providing services in person, share sensitive mental health records with a primary care provider could discourage its use for patients who wish to keep such records confidential,” the agency said. Also, a proposed requirement for special standards of care for remote health providers could hurt competition, it said. “A telehealth provider who has not made a physical examination is already subject to the state’s licensure requirements, including an obligation to meet the state’s existing standard of care. The development of additional ‘safeguards’ solely for telehealth providers might lead to the adoption of unnecessary restrictions that would only serve to restrict competition, and thereby undermine SB 74’s goal of enhancing access to telehealth services.” The FTC vote to issue the staff comment was 4-0.
Delaware, followed by the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Maryland and Rhode Island, enjoy some of the fastest Internet speeds on the planet, with 10 states ranking among the 20 fastest Internet territories around the globe, according to the latest Akamai State of the Internet report, NCTA recounted in a blog post Friday. The Akamai report from Q4 found average U.S. connection speeds were 14.2 Mbps, up 29 percent from a year earlier, and average peak connection was 61.5 Mbps, up 25 percent, NCTA said. It said Delaware, at average peak speed of 88.3 Mbps, was the state with the fastest connections and fourth in Akamai's top-20 list, while D.C. had an 82.5 average, with Massachusetts at 81.2, Maryland at 79.8, Rhode Island at 79.1, Virginia at 77.5, New Jersey at 77.3, Utah at 74.6, Washington at 73.8 and New York at 72.7. Topping the Akamai rankings overall was Singapore with 135.7, while the global average was 32.5, it said.
The FCC should carve out Alaskan wireless carriers from a proposed 3G minimum broadband standard for mobile services in the upcoming Lifeline order (see 1603240052), Alaskan carrier General Communication Inc. said in an ex parte filing posted Friday in docket 10-90. GCI met Tuesday with Stephanie Weiner, aide to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. “By our best estimate, Remote Alaska contains at least 100 communities with a combined population of more than 40,000 that have access only to a 2G network,” GCI said. “A few years ago, many of those consumers had no wireless service at all. As Alaska wireless providers continue to build out and upgrade service in rural Alaska, the Commission should not make it more difficult for such communities to afford the best service available.” GCI said the simplest option is to exclude all facilities-based Alaska wireless carriers from the 3G minimum requirement. Or, it could apply the minimum standard only where commercial 3G service is offered, it said. “As a last resort,” the FCC could request waivers from carriers that offer 2G service in certain areas, said the cable and telecom provider. “That solution, however, would create uncertainty, cause delay, and unnecessarily tie up Commission and carrier resources.” GCI, a backer of the so-called Alaska Plan for a looming FCC rate-of-return USF overhaul (see 1602250025), also lobbied on that broadband deployment proposal.