Stories tagged with “Federal Communications Commission”

David Ortiz And The FCC’s Reconsideration Of Its Broadcast Indecency Policies

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Apr 23, 2013 at 2:02 pm

On Saturday, at the first baseball game in Boston after a suspension of the one that was scheduled to be played as city police and federal officials were hunting for Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, David Ortiz declared at a pregame ceremony, “This is our fucking city. And nobody gonna dictate our freedom. Stay strong. Thank you.” Normally, this is the kind of thing that would have invited a fine, but Federal Communications Chairman Julius Genachowski tweeted on the agency’s official account: “David Ortiz spoke from the heart at today’s Red Sox game. I stand with Big Papi and the people of Boston.”

It was an apparently inconsistency with agency policy that lead Lawyers Guns and Money blogger Erik Loomis to note: “It would be nice if the FCC would more generally assume people are grown-ups and allow the language used in everyday life to be part of mass media on a more general basis. I’m not sure that reserving the word for political occasions where the agency’s head deems it appropriate has much value.”

He may not precisely get his wish. But the good news is that the FCC is opening up comments “on whether the full Commission should make changes to its current broadcast indecency policies or maintain them as they are.” As Eriq Gardner explains further in The Hollywood Reporter:

According to an advance copy of a document set to be published on Friday in the Federal Register, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau and the Office of General Counsel is seeking comments on whether it should maintain current protocol or change with the times on issues including isolated expletives on TV and fleeting instances of non-sexual nudity. The call for comments will surely invite attention from broadcasters who have fought several high-profile legal battles in recent years. Broadcasters believe that it’s time for a change.

In 1978, in FCC vs. Pacifica Foundation, the Supreme Court took a look at comedian George Carlin’s famous monologue, “Seven Words You Can Never Say On Television” and considered the government’s role in regulating indecency over the public airwaves. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens upheld the FCC’s authority while preaching some vague restraint. “We simply hold that when the Commission finds that a pig has entered the parlor, the exercise of its regulatory power does not depend on proof that the pig is obscene,” he wrote.

This is a significant opportunity to reassess an area of broadcast policy that’s shifted back and forth over time and that observers on every side of the debate have found frustrating. It’s an area where I’ll almost be as curious to read the comments and see how they break down as to see where the final ruling lands, particularly given our current debate over the impact of depictions of violence in the media on real-world acts of violence. And I hope one area of the conversation that emerges is the relative treatments of sexual content, sexual violence, and other categories of violence. If parents really believe that violent media has an enormous real-world effect on their children, I’d expect to see more people writing in to suggest that depictions of violence be treated with similar care and suspicion as depictions of nude bodies or consensual sexuality. And I hope we can have a discussion about the actual relative harms of these depictions, and of fleeting language, uttered in instances in which public figures behave a lot more like human beings than most of the people we actually see on television.

()

Economy

The White House Agrees: It’s Time to Legalize Cell Phone Unlocking

By Andrea Peterson on Mar 4, 2013 at 4:25 pm

Two weeks ago, a petition asking the White House to act on a recent Library of Congress decision that restricted consumer use of cell phones reached the required threshold for a response. The administration replied today by agreeing that it’s time to legalize cell phone unlocking:

The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties. In fact, we believe the same principle should also apply to tablets, which are increasingly similar to smart phones. And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren’t bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network. It’s common sense, crucial for protecting consumer choice, and important for ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive wireless market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers’ needs.

This is particularly important for secondhand or other mobile devices that you might buy or receive as a gift, and want to activate on the wireless network that meets your needs — even if it isn’t the one on which the device was first activated. All consumers deserve that flexibility.

Cell phone unlocking — allowing consumers control over the phone they paid for, like the ability to switch carriers but use the same device, or swap out their SIM card to avoid excessive roaming charges overseas — is prohibited under a provision of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DCMA) that covers digital locks. The Library of Congress had previously issued exceptions to the provision in 2006 and 2010, but denied an renewal of the exception in fall of 2012.

While the White House cannot reverse the decision due a jurisdictional dispute outlined in the Library of Congress’ response to the White House statement, the White House endorsed a range of options to change the status quo, including “narrow legislative fixes” and examination of the issue by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski also issued a statement today confirming they are looking into the issue because “it doesn’t pass the common sense test” among other reasons.

()

Security

Government Audit Says The FCC Failed To Fix Network Security Holes

By Andrea Peterson on Feb 11, 2013 at 7:00 pm

Last week the Government Accountability Office (GAO) releasedan audit on the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Enhanced Secured Network (ESN) project that questions the network security of the very agency that regulates online communications. Things are going so poorly with the project, the GAO couldn’t even release full findings to the public — instead, a separate report with limited distribution was prepared “making 26 recommendations associated with 21 findings to resolve technical information security weaknesses related to access controls and configuration management of the ESN.”

Sean Gallagher at Ars Technica explains the back story:

“In August of 2011, while in the middle of upgrading its network security monitoring, the Federal Communications Commission discovered it had already been hacked. Over the next month, the commission’s IT staff and outside contractors worked to identify the source of the breach, finding an unspecified number of PCs infected with backdoor malware.

After pulling the infected systems from the network, the FCC determined it needed to do something dramatic to fix the significant security holes in its internal networks that allowed the malware in. The organization began pulling together a $10 million “Enhanced Secured Network” project to accomplish that.”

But according to Gallagher, that $10 million plan was largely put together by Octo Consulting, and the GAO findings make it clear almost nothing went well:

“FCC’s efforts to effectively manage the ESN project were hindered by its inconsistent implementation of procedures for estimating costs, developing and maintaining an integrated schedule, managing project risks, and conducting oversight.”

The report concludes that as the result of this mismanagement, the FCC did not implement appropriate security controls in the initial phase of the project, nor has it consistently implemented key security procedures for managing the program to the point that the “FCC’s information remained at unnecessary risk of inadvertent or deliberate misuse, improper disclosure, or destruction” — essentially leaving the system, and thus sensitive internal FCC communications and information about the people and companies doing business with the FCC, vulnerable to the same sort of breach found in 2011 that prompted the Enhanced Secured Network project in the first place.

While the shortage of cybersecurity expertise in government is nothing new, that the very agency responsible for regulating online communications was forced to resort to outside assistance to secure its networks — and just how spectacularly that outside assistance failed — is yet another wake up call to the severity of the shortage and the real impacts it has on our government’s ability to do its job.

Update

In a later update to Ars Technica, Octo Consulting President Mehul Sanghani clarified that they were “responsible for providing ‘acquisition support to the FCC’ for the ESN contract” and “[o]nce the contract was awarded, Octo was also tasked with providing project management support to supplement the FCC IT staff that was tasked with overseeing the work” while the actual execution was done by MicroTech and subcontractor Booz Allen Hamilton.

()

Economy

Four Major Benefits Of The FCC’s Public Wifi Proposal

By Andrea Peterson on Feb 4, 2013 at 1:15 pm

The Washington Post reports that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering a proposal to provide free internet access in major metropolitan and many rural areas. The plan, largely opposed by wireless telecom companies and supported by tech companies including Microsoft and Google, would open up publicly owned spectrum as super strength WiFi and take several years to implement. Some of the possible key benefits include:

1. Helping the U.S. close the broadband infrastructure gap. Despite being the birthplace of many internet innovations, the U.S. ranks 16th in terms of broadband penetration, speed, and price. A staggering 96 percent of U.S. residents live in areas with two or fewer wireline internet providers, and 5 percent live in areas without any providers. A massive public work Wifi program would help deliver high speed internet access to areas currently lacking and provide competition in areas with limited choice.

2. Using wireless spectrum as a public good. There is a debate raging over the best use of publicly owned wireless spectrum, with some business interests advocating for the space to be auctioned to private companies — creating the potential for monopolies. Using the spectrum for provide free internet access to the public is a way to to make sure average users benefit, rather than big corporations.

3. Expanding freedom of expression online. The United Nations calls freedom of expression online a human right, but not everyone has internet access in the U.S. and private attempts to build out access haven’t been able to bridge the gap. Eliminating the cost barrier by providing access for free will undoubtedly expand the number of total U.S. internet users, thus giving more people a voice online.

4. Bolstering innovation. Expanding the number of internet users means expanding the market for internet devices — that’s one of the reasons tech giants including Microsoft and Google are supporting the plan — and opening the way for more experimentation and innovation in that marketplace. The original Washington Post story notes that the last time the FCC opened up a spectrum for public use, creativity in the form of “[b]aby monitors, garage door openers and wireless stage microphone” directly followed.

()

Justice

Facing Rates Of $17 For 15 Minutes, FCC Takes Up Regulation Of Prison Phone Industry

By Nicole Flatow on Nov 19, 2012 at 10:30 am

Phone calls between prisoners and their families can cost as much as $17 for a 15-minute call, reaping generous profits in many states for both the phone companies that provide the service and the states, which receive what amount to legalized kickbacks. Recognizing the drastic obstacle these costs impose on children staying in touch with their parents, a bipartisan coalition launched a campaign this past Mother’s Day calling for regulation of this industry. On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission entertained these calls, announcing at a rally that it would seek public comment on prison phone rules and rates. In a scathing September report, the Prison Policy Initiative’s Drew Kukorowski explains why the industry needs regulating:

Exorbitant calling rates make the prison telephone industry one of the most lucrative businesses in the United States today. This industry is so profitable because prison phone companies have state-sanctioned monopolistic control over the state prison markets, and the government agency with authority to rein in these rates across the nation has been reluctant to offer meaningful relief.

Prison phone companies are awarded these monopolies through bidding processes in which they submit contract proposals to the state prison systems; in all but eight states, these contracts include promises to pay “commissions” — in effect, kickbacks — to states, in either the form of a percentage of revenue, a fixed up-front payment, or a combination of the two. Thus, state prison systems have no incentive to select the telephone company that offers the lowest rates; rather, correctional departments have an incentive to reap the most profit by selecting the telephone company that provides the highest commission.

The prison telephone market is structured to be exploitative because it grants monopolies to producers, and because the consumers — the incarcerated persons and their families who are actually footing the bills — have no comparable alternative ways of communicating.

As the report and other advocates have explained, these exorbitant rates that prevent regular communication not only hurt the more than 2.7 million children who have at least one parent in prison and countless other families that been torn apart by mass incarceration; they may contribute to recidivism. Repeated studies have shown that regular family contact lowers the chances of a prisoner committing a later offense.

()

Alyssa

Baltimore Ravens Fans Curse Out Replacement NFL Referees

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Sep 24, 2012 at 2:02 pm

I skipped out on watching the Emmys ceremony last night to watch the Ravens-Patriots game, which I think was the right decision for both the football and the spectacle. The game was a high-scoring brawl between teams who are developing a fantastic and eminently watchable East Coast rivalry. And towards the end of it, enraged by a series of decisions by the replacement referees, the game’s attendees provided some theater of their own, loudly and repeatedly calling out the officials.

Maybe the most striking thing about the game wasn’t that the fans booed the replacement referees over a series of blown calls, but that NBC aired their repeated chants of “bullshit,” without obscuring the sound. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ducked how to handle fleeting expletives on television, including this summer, when the Court refused to consider the First Amendment questions in Fox and ABC’s disputes with the FCC, though it said the agency had to give networks fair warning of what make them vulnerable to fines. The chants in the game happened after the end of primetime at 11 PM, so NBC may have considered itself less vulnerable to censure. But they also weren’t exactly fleeting: they went on for an extended period of time and served as a sonic backdrop to the announcers’ criticism of the replacement referees performance. In a sense, the decision not to obscure the chants or to turn the volume down on them was one of the gutsier editorial decisions NBC could have made, illustrating a clear consensus between the fans and the experts on the damage the replacements had done to the game.

At halftime, word came down that, after a Sunday devoted to negotiations between the referees’ union and the National Football League, there were still “substantial differences” between the parties and that no more negotiations were scheduled. It’ll be intriguing to see if this game changes the NFL’s sense of how long it can maintain its position in this particular standoff. I think NBC’s presentation of the game—and its announcers willing to criticize the replacement referees—are more likely to shake loose this particular standoff than to move the Supreme Court. But I’m glad to see them air a newsworthy reaction by fans, especially after the Justice Department dropped its pursuit of Fox, which had refused to pay an FCC fine over an episode of television that depicted strippers. If the Supreme Court isn’t going to make itself clear, the networks should push for as much latitude as they can get.

()

NEWS FLASH

Supreme Court: TV Indecency Rules Were Too Vague | The Supreme Court today, without dissent, ruled that that Federal Communications Commission (FCC) cannot fine Fox and ABC for two isolated utterances of “obscene” words and one instance of brief nudity, respectively. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that because the Federal Communications Commission “failed to give Fox or ABC fair notice prior to the broadcasts in question that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity could be found actionably indecent, the Commission’s standards as applied to these broadcasts were vague.” The FCC had sought to fine ABC for a seven-second nude shot of Charlotte Ross in a 2003 episode of NYPD Blue and to fine FOX for “f-bombs” delivered by Cher and Bono in award show acceptance speeches. The Court did not address whether the FCC regulation, going forward, is constitutional.

Election

Republicans Block Online Disclosure Of Campaign Television Ad Spending

By Adam Peck on Jun 9, 2012 at 11:12 am

The Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision has created a flood of television ad spending — hundreds of millions of dollars — from outside groups, corporations, and individuals. The Justices who voted for the decision and its supporters argue that disclosure is all voters need to make informed decisions. But yesterday, a panel of House Republicans moved to keep much of this spending in the dark.

A new FCC guideline that would have forced the nation’s top television stations to list the funders behind political advertisements online.

But the House Appropriations financial services subcommittee voted along party lines to prohibit the FCC from implementing their proposal to add another layer of transparency to the political ad process. Committee Chair Hal Rogers (R-KY) argued that fiscal matters are private and should remain that way, according to the LA Times:

The proposal, which had cleared the Federal Communications Commission in April, would require TV stations affiliated with the four top networks in the 50 largest markets to post political ad sales records online. Stations are already required to make the records available to the public upon request, but most stations keep them in paper files, making it difficult to compile and track the information.

Democrats on the subcommittee tried, unsuccessfully, to strip the rider which blocked the FCC from the funding bill. Despite several groups and media organizations calling for the records to be posted online, the TV stations themselves have bristled at the idea of making those records publicly available. A widely circulated video made by journalism students at Kent State shows the difficulty they faced in attempting to get hard copies of those records. Political operatives and other insiders will get access to much of the information through high-priced subscription services.

()

NEWS FLASH

FCC Votes For Online Transparency Of Political Advertisement Purchases | By a two-to-one vote, the Federal Communications Commission voted today to require broadcasters to make previously hard-to-find public records available online. Within two years, they will have to post in an FCC online database their “public file” including who purchased or attempted to purchase air time for political advertisements and how much they paid for it. This information is currently only available by showing up, in person, at each television or radio station, and there are often bureaucratic barriers to actually accessing the information. While this additional transparency will not allow citizens to know who is funding shady independent ads, it will at least allow them to track where the spending is going and how much is being spent for each airtime purchase. The two Democrats on the Commission voted for the rules, the lone Republican voted against.