1. NAM Responds to Gate's Export Control Reform Proposals
BURLINGAME, Calif. -- Discussion of net neutrality is unnecessary or even a distraction from much more important broadband policy questions, a range of speakers said Tuesday at an emerging-communications conference. “Net neutrality is a waste of time,” and the debate is confusing legislators, other policymakers and the public, President Susan Estrada of the nonprofit FirstMile.US said at the eComm conference. Instead of that “crazy” issue, everyone “should be discussing how we get pipes” to everyone, she said. Richard Bennett of the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation said the main question should be getting fiber to the home throughout the U.S.
BURLINGAME, Calif. -- Discussion of net neutrality is unnecessary or even a distraction from much more important broadband policy questions, a range of speakers said Tuesday at an emerging-communications conference. “Net neutrality is a waste of time,” and the debate is confusing legislators, other policymakers and the public, President Susan Estrada of the nonprofit FirstMile.US said at the eComm conference. Instead of that “crazy” issue, everyone “should be discussing how we get pipes” to everyone, she said. Richard Bennett of the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation said the main question should be getting fiber to the home throughout the U.S. Executive Director Tracy Rosenberg of the Media Alliance supported structural separation of network operations from control over services, which she said the National Broadband Plan “was not strong on.” Bennett dismissed structural separation as “just price controls … and mandated wholesale access,” suitable in a European broadband market dominated by DSL but inapplicable in the U.S. He said the FCC broadband team had essentially “discarded” structural separation proposals as “irrelevant” because the U.S. has cable as well as teleco broadband. The problem in this country is that “the citizens don’t want to pay for the higher-speed access” because they're scared of Internet scams or haven’t been convinced of broadband’s benefits, Bennett said. “There’s a lot more access than there is uptake.” Rosenberg did say that service providers’ imposing “pay to play” charges on content and applications providers would reduce the freedom of expression and economic growth that the Internet has promoted. Verizon thinks that the FCC’s Internet principles are enough to handle the rare network-discrimination problem, said regulatory executive Paul Brigner. He said the carrier has a “concern” with the National Broadband Plan’s “focus on set-top boxes.” There’s “a lot of innovation in the devices” already, so “it’s premature for the government to come and try to set policy.” Estrada complained that the plan wasn’t ambitious enough, saying a theme is “lets beg for 100 meg.”
Nearly 50 German organizations urged the government to back away from Internet and telephony traffic data retention rules. The Federal Constitutional Court declared traffic storage provisions unconstitutional in March but “some voices are already calling for the re-enactment of new data retention legislation,” the groups wrote in an April 20 letter to Federal Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger. The voided law was intended to enact into national legislation the 2006 EU data retention directive which requires phone companies and ISPs to store data about customers’ communications for use in law enforcement investigations. But the regime allows the collection of information about social contacts, movements and private lives in the absence of any suspicion, the organizations said. Telecom data retention “thus undermines the professional secrecy of lawyers, physicians, clergy, help lines and other professionals, and creates the risk of data losses and data abuses,” they said. It also compromises freedom of the press and the protection of sources, and raises costs for ISPs and telecom providers, they said. Studies show that communications data available today is usually adequate for effective criminal investigations, they said. Legal experts expect the European Court of Human Rights to strike down data retention in the absence of suspicion, and EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding and Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmström said they'll investigate the directive’s compatibility with the EU fundamental rights charter, the groups said. They asked Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger to “reject blanket retention of telecommunications data, regardless of a possible EU infringement procedure.” Signatories include civil rights activists, scientists, psychologists, police officers, women’s help desks and emergency lines, journalists, consumers, lawyers, judges, doctors, trade unions and ISPs.
Nearly 50 German organizations urged the government to back away from Internet and telephony traffic data retention rules. The Federal Constitutional Court declared traffic storage provisions unconstitutional in March but “some voices are already calling for the re-enactment of new data retention legislation,” the groups wrote in an April 20 letter to Federal Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger. The voided law was intended to enact into national legislation the 2006 EU data retention directive which requires phone companies and ISPs to store data about customers’ communications for use in law enforcement investigations. But the regime allows the collection of information about social contacts, movements and private lives in the absence of any suspicion, the organizations said. Telecom data retention “thus undermines the professional secrecy of lawyers, physicians, clergy, help lines and other professionals, and creates the risk of data losses and data abuses,” they said. It also compromises freedom of the press and the protection of sources, and raises costs for ISPs and telecom providers, they said. Studies show that communications data available today is usually adequate for effective criminal investigations, they said. Legal experts expect the European Court of Human Rights to strike down data retention in the absence of suspicion, and EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding and Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmström said they'll investigate the directive’s compatibility with the EU fundamental rights charter, the groups said. They asked Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger to “reject blanket retention of telecommunications data, regardless of a possible EU infringement procedure.” Signatories include civil rights activists, scientists, psychologists, police officers, women’s help desks and emergency lines, journalists, consumers, lawyers, judges, doctors, trade unions and ISPs.
Wall Street has had a mixed view of the National Broadband Plan since it was unveiled by the FCC last month, Simon Flannery of Morgan Stanley said at a New York Law School symposium Monday. Blair Levin, who headed development of the plan, said it’s important that universal service reform did not emerge as a major issue of debate during last week’s Senate hearing on the plan.
The FCC is moving fast on the public safety network and quick actions in areas like interoperability and the emergency communications system are expected, Public Safety Bureau officials said during an FCBA lunch Friday. The agency is also seeking to increase its involvement with cybersecurity and critical infrastructure survivability where it doesn’t have much of a track record, they said.
Stations should get 90 days’ or four months’ notice of nationwide emergency alert system tests, which shouldn’t take place more than yearly, the NAB said last week in reply comments to the FCC. “The additional time will allow radio and television stations to better plan and notify their audiences of the coming EAS exercise, and coordinate the national test with their regularly scheduled weekly and monthly EAS tests.” The association agreed with a proposal that monthly tests not be done the month of the national test. Monthly EAS tests aren’t done at the same time in all markets. Not all commenters agree about all specifics in a rulemaking notice on the subject, the Named State Broadcasters Associations said, but “despite any disagreements, the parties to this proceeding all desire that the process will continue to move forward."
The Government Accountability Office has issued a briefing to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees on rare earth materials in the Department of Defense supply chain, as required by The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.
The Department of Homeland Security’s track record in implementing the Einstein network monitoring technology doesn’t give confidence as the agency preps for the system’s next generation, House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee Chairman David Price, D-N.C., said at a Thursday hearing. Setbacks in Einstein and elsewhere had Phil Reitinger, deputy undersecretary for the National Protection and Programs Directorate, explaining to skeptical lawmakers why DHS reduced its FY2011 budget request for cybersecurity activities. He stressed that lawmakers shouldn’t be preoccupied by well-known technologies such as Einstein as DHS continues its cybersecurity “journey."