The FCC should require industry to do more to ensure emergency communications, consumer groups said, responding to critics of their petition to reconsider tech transition backup power rules (see 1601040056). “The public safety is very much at stake. Back-up power requirements are necessary,” said the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates and others in a filing Tuesday in docket 14-174. The FCC rules require fixed providers to give consumers the option of purchasing eight hours -- and 24 hours within three years -- of backup power capability (see 1508100041). The groups said it wasn’t surprising that industry parties opposed the petition, which seeks to require landline carriers to provide greater backup power guarantees. The opponents believe a stronger mandate would be too burdensome and 911 service should be optional and customers should pay for that reliability, the consumer groups said. “But access to 911 is mandated by regulation, and the costs of that access were spread throughout the industry and consumers … just as the cost of back-up power would be,” they said. “The decision was made years ago that the public safety embodied in 911 should not be optional." The groups compared backup power to having seat belts in cars, which is not optional. The opponents stress that many consumers rely solely on wireless voice services, the consumer groups said, but many others use IP-based voice services over cable, fiber and other landline networks. “Many consumers are thus forced to turn to the IP-based services for replacing legacy services,” they said. “The question is whether these IP-based services, like the legacy services they replace, should be designed and engineered to work in times of emergency. If the enduring values are to be preserved, the answer must be affirmative.” Wireless isn’t always available and where it is, it often isn’t reliable and can become overloaded in emergencies, they said.
The FCC should require industry to do more to ensure emergency communications, consumer groups said, responding to critics of their petition to reconsider tech transition backup power rules (see 1601040056). “The public safety is very much at stake. Back-up power requirements are necessary,” said the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates and others in a filing Tuesday in docket 14-174. The FCC rules require fixed providers to give consumers the option of purchasing eight hours -- and 24 hours within three years -- of backup power capability (see 1508100041). The groups said it wasn’t surprising that industry parties opposed the petition, which seeks to require landline carriers to provide greater backup power guarantees. The opponents believe a stronger mandate would be too burdensome and 911 service should be optional and customers should pay for that reliability, the consumer groups said. “But access to 911 is mandated by regulation, and the costs of that access were spread throughout the industry and consumers … just as the cost of back-up power would be,” they said. “The decision was made years ago that the public safety embodied in 911 should not be optional." The groups compared backup power to having seat belts in cars, which is not optional. The opponents stress that many consumers rely solely on wireless voice services, the consumer groups said, but many others use IP-based voice services over cable, fiber and other landline networks. “Many consumers are thus forced to turn to the IP-based services for replacing legacy services,” they said. “The question is whether these IP-based services, like the legacy services they replace, should be designed and engineered to work in times of emergency. If the enduring values are to be preserved, the answer must be affirmative.” Wireless isn’t always available and where it is, it often isn’t reliable and can become overloaded in emergencies, they said.
Disagreements on net neutrality will likely emerge Tuesday during a House Communications Subcommittee legislative hearing, according to written testimony and opening statements released ahead of the 10:15 a.m. hearing in 2123 Rayburn. Contention about the two net neutrality-related measures was expected last week (see 1601070051). House lawmakers will consider four telecom measures in total: the No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act (HR-2666) and a discussion draft of the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act, both dealing with the FCC net neutrality order and lacking Democratic backers, and the bipartisan Amateur Radio Parity Act (HR-1301) and Anti-Spoofing Act (HR-2669).
Disagreements on net neutrality will likely emerge Tuesday during a House Communications Subcommittee legislative hearing, according to written testimony and opening statements released ahead of the 10:15 a.m. hearing in 2123 Rayburn. Contention about the two net neutrality-related measures was expected last week (see 1601070051). House lawmakers will consider four telecom measures in total: the No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act (HR-2666) and a discussion draft of the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act, both dealing with the FCC net neutrality order and lacking Democratic backers, and the bipartisan Amateur Radio Parity Act (HR-1301) and Anti-Spoofing Act (HR-2669).
The FCC released its annual Report to Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges for public comment in docket 09-14, said a Friday public notice from the commission. The report covers the collection and distribution of 911 and E-911 fees and charges for the calendar year ending Dec. 31, 2014, and was submitted to Congress Dec. 31, 2015, the notice said. Eight states reported diverting or transferring 911/E-911 fees for purposes other than 911/E-911, the report said. Of those, five -- California, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Virginia and West Virginia -- used a portion of their 911/E-911 funds to support other public safety or emergency response-related programs, it said. Three -- Illinois, New York and Rhode Island -- diverted a portion of their 911/E9-11 funds for either nonpublic safety, or unspecified, uses, it said. The total amount of 911/E-911 funds diverted by all reporting jurisdictions in calendar year 2014 was $223.42 million or about 8.8 percent of total 911/E-911 fees collected, the survey said. Fourteen states reported collecting 911/E-911 fees at the state level, nine reported collecting fees at the local level and 24 states collected fees at both the state and local level, it said. Fees and charges collected on a per-state basis ranged from a low of $8.16 million by Delaware to a high of $213.98 million by Illinois, the report said. Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia reported spending 911/E-911 funds on next-generation 911 (NG-911) programs in calendar year 2014, it said. The total amount of reported NG-911 expenditures from the fees was $227.57 million or about 9 percent of total 911/E-911 fees collected, it said. Forty-eight states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, the Navajo Nation and three Bureau of Indian Affairs offices responded to the report year’s data request, the report said. Comments are due Feb. 8, replies March 9.
The FCC released its annual Report to Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges for public comment in docket 09-14, said a Friday public notice from the commission. The report covers the collection and distribution of 911 and E-911 fees and charges for the calendar year ending Dec. 31, 2014, and was submitted to Congress Dec. 31, 2015, the notice said. Eight states reported diverting or transferring 911/E-911 fees for purposes other than 911/E-911, the report said. Of those, five -- California, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Virginia and West Virginia -- used a portion of their 911/E-911 funds to support other public safety or emergency response-related programs, it said. Three -- Illinois, New York and Rhode Island -- diverted a portion of their 911/E9-11 funds for either nonpublic safety, or unspecified, uses, it said. The total amount of 911/E-911 funds diverted by all reporting jurisdictions in calendar year 2014 was $223.42 million or about 8.8 percent of total 911/E-911 fees collected, the survey said. Fourteen states reported collecting 911/E-911 fees at the state level, nine reported collecting fees at the local level and 24 states collected fees at both the state and local level, it said. Fees and charges collected on a per-state basis ranged from a low of $8.16 million by Delaware to a high of $213.98 million by Illinois, the report said. Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia reported spending 911/E-911 funds on next-generation 911 (NG-911) programs in calendar year 2014, it said. The total amount of reported NG-911 expenditures from the fees was $227.57 million or about 9 percent of total 911/E-911 fees collected, it said. Forty-eight states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, the Navajo Nation and three Bureau of Indian Affairs offices responded to the report year’s data request, the report said. Comments are due Feb. 8, replies March 9.
Since June, 46 additional state and local organizations obtained permission to send wireless emergency alerts, said the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Integrated Public Alert and Warning System Program Management Office in an FCC filing in docket 15-91. That makes 622 organizations with such permission as of Wednesday. Forty-eight organizations have actually sent the alerts, an increase of two since Nov. 18 and 14 since June, FEMA said. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has sent 21,357 WEA alerts since 2012, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has sent 589, it said. The Jan. 28 FCC meeting will see a vote on an emergency alert system item on state and local EAS participation (see 1601070061).
A Republican presidential contender raised the issue of reallocation of government spectrum without prompting. “The federal government also owns an extensive amount of wireless broadband,” Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., told The Des Moines Register editorial board Wednesday, changing the topic from federal control of U.S. land. “The entire world is moving to wireless. Everything is now wireless. Wireless communication happens across the spectrum of broadband -- it’s like a road, and we control far too many lanes in the federal government.” The newspaper posted video showing the full hourlong conversation. Rubio, a member of the Commerce Committee, has introduced multiple pieces of legislation involving spectrum and pressed for more reallocation of government-held spectrum for the private sector. His Senate office has stayed engaged on the spectrum overhaul effort within Commerce and wants stronger language in the draft Mobile Now bill from Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune, R-S.D. (see 1511130036). Rubio made a high-profile promise during a summer campaign event in Chicago to reallocate spectrum if elected president (see 1507070034). “We should keep those lanes that are critical for emergency or national security use and the rest should be auctioned off to the private sector so that more broadband capability is available in the United States for investment in broadband technology,” Rubio said Wednesday. “Otherwise we are going to have higher prices and slower connection times that will in the long term put us at a competitive global disadvantage in a 21st century economy that will extensively be driven by increasing wireless technology.” No member of the newspaper’s board had asked about technology issues or spectrum, and members initially responded to his comments with silence. “I was just looking for a chance to drop that in -- it’s an important issue,” Rubio said of the lack of immediate response from the editorial board. “It just doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker.”
A Republican presidential contender raised the issue of reallocation of government spectrum without prompting. “The federal government also owns an extensive amount of wireless broadband,” Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., told The Des Moines Register editorial board Wednesday, changing the topic from federal control of U.S. land. “The entire world is moving to wireless. Everything is now wireless. Wireless communication happens across the spectrum of broadband -- it’s like a road, and we control far too many lanes in the federal government.” The newspaper posted video showing the full hourlong conversation. Rubio, a member of the Commerce Committee, has introduced multiple pieces of legislation involving spectrum and pressed for more reallocation of government-held spectrum for the private sector. His Senate office has stayed engaged on the spectrum overhaul effort within Commerce and wants stronger language in the draft Mobile Now bill from Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune, R-S.D. (see 1511130036). Rubio made a high-profile promise during a summer campaign event in Chicago to reallocate spectrum if elected president (see 1507070034). “We should keep those lanes that are critical for emergency or national security use and the rest should be auctioned off to the private sector so that more broadband capability is available in the United States for investment in broadband technology,” Rubio said Wednesday. “Otherwise we are going to have higher prices and slower connection times that will in the long term put us at a competitive global disadvantage in a 21st century economy that will extensively be driven by increasing wireless technology.” No member of the newspaper’s board had asked about technology issues or spectrum, and members initially responded to his comments with silence. “I was just looking for a chance to drop that in -- it’s an important issue,” Rubio said of the lack of immediate response from the editorial board. “It just doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker.”
TV station groups are creating standards and guidelines for programmatic advertising, the Television Bureau of Advertising said in a news release Wednesday. Programmatic ads use automated ad buying and selling, data and targeted ads to compete with digital advertising tech. TVB released a collection of suggested guidelines and best practices for the new type of ads in an online document and asked for edits and suggestions. "These guidelines will be maintained as an open and collaborative effort between broadcasters, advertising agencies, rep firms, aggregators and platform providers," TVB President Steve Lanzano wrote. "This document is expected to continue to evolve through successive updates, and is open to input from all companies and individuals who wish to contribute."