The Federal Communications Commission recently released a Public Notice requesting further comments related to its Broadcast Television Incentive Auction NPRM.  The Public Notice seeks further comment on two variations of the “Down from 51” 600 MHz band plan under consideration in the NPRM, which would potentially (1) reverse uplink/downlink allocations or (2) provide for time division duplexing.  The Public Notice seeks comments on whether these band plan variations may be able to mitigate interference and address market variation where available spectrum may be limited.

The Public Notice sets a due date of June 14, 2013 for comments and a due date of June 28, 2013 for reply comments on the alternatives.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration recently held another meeting as part of its multistakeholder process regarding mobile app transparency.  In the summer of 2012, the NTIA began an industry-wide effort to develop a voluntary code of conduct for how mobile apps notify users about their personal data collection practices.  Industry representatives and privacy groups have worked together over the past year to develop a draft code of conduct to improve the clarity of privacy disclosures while advancing self-regulation as a preferred option to privacy laws that may be handed down from Congress.

These issues and others with be examined in a live webcast carried on Broadband US TV from 11:30-12:30 pm (ET) on May 16, 2013, entitled “FirstNet: Understanding the $7 Billion Opportunity . . . and Challenges.” Co-hosts Marty Stern of K&L Gates and Jim Baller of the Baller Herbst Law Group will be joined by Jeff Cohen, Chief Counsel, Law and Policy, APCO International; Dan Draughn, Principal, Plexus Broadband, LLC; Mitch Herckis, Director of Government Relations, National Association of State Chief Information Officers; Kevin Krufky, Vice President, Public Affairs – Americas Region, Alcatel-Lucent; and Laura Waxman, Director of Public Safety, United States Conference of Mayors. The webcast will be carried live from the floor of the FOSE Government Technology IT Expo 2013 in Washington, D.C., and is the second in a series of conversations regarding FirstNet’s opportunities and challenges for state and local governments, carriers, infrastructure owners, and equipment manufacturers. The webcast will include an update on developments since BroadbandUS.TV's first program on FirstNet and provide insights on what lies ahead for FirstNet.

You can access the webcast here (free registration required).

The Federal Trade Commission recently released guidance on its December 2012 updates to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).  COPPA regulates the collection and use by website operators and application developers of personal information from children under the age of 13.  COPPA also requires website operators and application developers to obtain parental consent before collecting a child’s personal information.  The guidance touches upon several issues, including geolocation data; services directed towards children vs. mixed-audience services; parental access to children’s personal information; and disclosure of information to third parties.

In advance of the FTC’s guidance, industry groups voiced concerns that the complex changes could deter innovation and asked the FTC to delay implementation until 2014 to ensure compliance.  However, privacy groups advocated rejecting any delays, stating that the changes are necessary to protect children and companies have had plenty of lead time to revise their policies and products.

Updated (5/6/13): In a letter to representatives of the advertising, application, and e-business industries, the FTC confirmed that it will not delay implementation of the new COPPA rules scheduled to take effect this July. The FTC stated that all stakeholders were afforded a sufficient opportunity to raise their concerns with the new rules but did not present any facts to warrant delaying implementation.

The United States and the European Union are set to launch negotiations this summer on a comprehensive agreement covering cross-Atlantic trade and investment known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). In March, the Administration notified Congress that the President would initiate the TTIP negotiations, which will encompass a broad range of issues covering rules and disciplines related to cross-border trade in services, investment, telecommunications, electronic commerce, information and communication technology services, regulatory coherence, competition, technical barriers to trade, transparency, and intellectual property, among many others.

Companies competing globally in the telecom, media, and technology sectors face a host of issues as they conduct business cross-borders, seek to enter new markets, or manage their operations in existing markets abroad. The issues are varied.

For example, telecom companies have to grapple with issues related to the following, among others: cross-border data flows; Internet-enabled trade in services; privacy considerations; the independence and effectiveness of foreign regulators; limits on the types of legal entities that may be established, owned, or controlled; competition issues (including those related to state-owned enterprises); international termination rate issues; satellite services; submarine cable systems; as well as a broad range of issues affecting trade in telecommunications equipment.

Likewise, media companies and others operating in the audio-visual sector must contend with issues such as piracy, enforcement of intellectual property rights, screen quotas, cultural exceptions, or other trade barriers that protect domestic movie producers and the local music industry.

More broadly, technology companies of all types and across all economic sectors face market barriers, increased costs, or logistical inefficiencies from government measures, including those in the form of technical regulations, licensing requirements, or standards. Reduced market access, burdensome costs, and needless inefficiencies come not only from regulatory protectionism, but also from well-intended regulatory measures that may be unnecessary, redundant, or inefficiently applied.

The TTIP negotiations present an opportunity for the United States and the European Union to reconcile their differences with respect to regulatory approaches, conformity assessment procedures, and standards-related development processes, including those related to interoperability. Achieving convergence in these areas would benefit telecommunications, media, and technology companies in terms of facilitating the services and products they provide on both sides of the Atlantic. The United States and the European Union will also look to foreign investment liberalization and investment protection provisions that are based on the highest standards that each side has negotiated.

The TTIP negotiations provide companies on both sides of the Atlantic with a unique opportunity to assess their current cross-border operations and market presence in the United States and the European Union. Among other things, the negotiations provide companies with an opportunity to determine where their interests would be enhanced by increased regulatory cooperation, the harmonization of standards, or the elimination of measures that distort competition, impede trade, or frustrate foreign investments.

Companies may use social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter to announce key corporate information so long as investors are alerted in advance about which platforms will be used, according to a recent report issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The SEC’s Regulation Fair Disclosure requires companies to distribute material corporate information in a manner reasonably designed to assure that it is broadly disseminated to the public. The regulation seeks to ensure that all investors have the ability to gain access to material information simultaneously, and to prevent some investors from “getting a jump” on others. The regulation does not require the use of any particular method to distribute company information, but does mandate that the means chosen be reasonably calculated to provide a broad and non-exclusive distribution. The SEC previously indicated that company websites may be used for these purposes if a company takes steps to alert the market that it intends to follow this practice.

The SEC’s report criticized the conduct of Netflix, warning that investors would not ordinarily assume that the personal social media pages of company executives would be used to disclose material corporate information. The SEC, however, declined to take enforcement action against Netflix or its CEO, recognizing that there had been uncertainty about how Regulation FD would apply to social media. The SEC investigation report said that social media may be used for such purposes, but that companies doing so must provide sufficient advance notice to investors of this practice. The SEC noted that its announcement was not aimed at inhibiting corporate use of “evolving social media channels,” but rather at ensuring a level playing field for investors in a world of multiple outlets for corporate communications.

With Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski and Commissioner Robert McDowell announcing their departures, we have received many questions on the terms and tenures of the FCC Commissioners. Here, we provide in one place, a “TMT Cheat Sheet” that will help you fill your own brackets for the FCC Commissioners.

Commissioners are appointed for five-year terms, except when an appointee fills out the unexpired term of a predecessor. In that case, the Commissioner only gets appointed for the balance of the predecessor’s term. This is why one cannot just go to the FCC website’s Commissioner page, look at the date of appointment, and know when a Commissioner’s term expires.

For the current Commission, for example, Chairman Genachowski was appointed to complete the term of former Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein when he joined the Rural Utilities Service, and the Chairman’s term expires on June 30, 2013. Here are the terms of the remaining Commissioners:

• McDowell (R):  Exp. June 30, 2014
• Clyburn (D):  Exp. June 30, 2017
• Rosenworcel (D):  Exp. June 30, 2015
• Pai (R):  Exp. June 30, 2016 

Upon resignation of the Chairman and Commissioner McDowell, the Commission will have three sitting members, but will retain a Democratic majority. According to reports, this was one reason the Chairman waited for Commissioner McDowell, a Republican, to announce his resignation before the Chairman, a Democrat, announced his own.

An FCC Commissioner’s term does not really expire when it expires. Rather, the Communications Act allows a Commissioner to serve past the end of his or her term until a replacement is appointed and confirmed. So a holdover Commissioner, unless reappointed, can serve until the end of the Congress following the one in which his or her term expired.

Information on FCC nominations and Commissioner terms are available on Thomas, the online database of Congressional documents, through a site that tracks presidential nominations. The site can be searched both by nominee name and by nomination number. The entry includes information on when the Commissioner was nominated and confirmed, the expiration of his or term, and whether the Commissioner was appointed to fill the unexpired term of a former Commissioner and who that was. The entry also includes other interesting information, such as how long between receipt of the nomination by the Senate and confirmation.

The Federal Trade Commission has updated its primary business guidance for online advertising, “.com Disclosures: How to Make Effective Disclosures in Digital Advertising.” The update to the guidance, which had not been revised since 2000, addresses the emergence of new electronic media and communications protocols over the last 13 years and compliance with the FTC Act’s requirement that ads be truthful and not misleading, adequately substantiated, and not unfair. Each of these mandates can require the disclosure of qualifying information in a manner that the FTC intends to be “clear and conspicuous” – i.e., easily accessed and understood by the consumer.

The updated guidance reflects the FTC’s recent focus on social media and consumers’ growing reliance on wireless devices to access Internet services. Although FTC guidelines do not have the legally binding effect of regulations, they are intended and considered to be highly reliable statements of the FTC’s enforcement intent; once issued, companies ignore them at their own, potentially significant, peril.

The ban on unlocking cell phones to enable their use on different wireless networks announced late last year may be reconsidered following recent criticism of the rule by the White House and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. As we discussed here previously, the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress announced the ban as part of its triennial review of the copyright exemptions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which eliminated an exemption for unlocking devices in place since 2006. Under the new rule, devices purchased before January 26, 2013 can still be unlocked by users, but devices bought after that date can be unlocked only with the carrier’s permission, even after the service contract expired.

FCC Chairman Genachowski echoed the White House’s response, stating that the ban “raises serious competition and innovation concerns.” As the Copyright Office is within the Library of Congress, an agency of the legislative branch, the White House and the FCC Chairman agreed to work together with Congress to develop “legislative fixes,” clarifying that copyright law does not prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement. The Copyright Office subsequently responded to the criticism, stating that the unlocking ban “would benefit from review” by Congress and was not meant to foreclose broader public policy discussions on the issue. 

Consumer groups praised the White House and FCC’s actions and argued that the unlocking ban should be reconsidered as part of a comprehensive review of current copyright laws. In contrast, wireless industry groups argued that reconsideration of the ban would be unfair to carriers because they often offer consumers significantly discounted prices for devices in exchange for long-term service agreements. 

While the support of the President and FCC places pressure on Congress to act on the unlocking ban, industry observers note that a legislative solution regarding unlocking may be hard to reach in the currently divided Congress. The current political climate has not stopped members of Congress from announcing efforts to craft such legislation, but it remains to be seen whether efforts to overturn the unlocking ban will be successful.

The D.C. Circuit recently upheld a 2011 Federal Communications Commission report and order amending its pole attachment rules, unanimously rejecting a challenge to the new rules by a number of electric utilities.

That all changed with the FCC’s 2011 report and order. As we previously explained, the amended rules determined for the first time that ILEC pole attachments would now be subject to Section 224 and authorized ILECs to bring complaints challenging pole attachment rates and conditions as unjust and unreasonable. In addition, among other changes, the order changed the telecom rate formula and revised the FCC’s rule on refunds for overcharges, finding that refunds could accrue consistent with the applicable statute of limitations, rather than from the date complaint is filed, which had previously been the rule.

The D.C. Circuit rejected the challenge to the FCC’s amended rules, despite the fact that in terms of ILEC coverage and accrual periods for damages, the amended rules reversed the FCC’s decades-old policy on these issues. Specifically, the court looked at several definitional idiosyncrasies in Section 224 and agreed with the FCC that the pole attachments of ILECs, as providers of telecommunications services, were covered by the FCC’s rules requiring just and reasonable pole attachment rates, terms, and conditions and associated complaint procedures. ILECs, however, still do not have the benefit of the FCC’s telecom rate, which extends only to “telecommunications carriers,” a term that is defined in Section 224 to exclude ILECs, as noted above. In addition, the court agreed with changes the FCC made to its telecom rate formula, which effectively lowered the rate pole owners can charge telecommunications carriers for pole attachments and brought that rate in line with the historically lower rate for cable systems.

Finally, the court rejected the utilities’ challenge to the change in the accrual period for overcharges. The court found that the challenge had “no serious statutory basis,” and given Section 224’s broad authorization to the FCC, the court could not “see any legal objection” to the selection of a reasonable period for the accrual of compensation for overcharges, including one consistent with the applicable statute of limitations, as opposed to the date a complaint is filed.

Earlier this week, Apple agreed to settle a class action lawsuit regarding so-called “bait apps”—mobile apps directed towards children, which are free to download but then charge for in-app purchases. Under the terms of the settlement, Apple agreed to issue $5 in iTunes credit to affected customers. If customers racked up more than $5 in in-app charges, Apple will issue up to $30 in iTunes credit. Apple will issue cash refunds for accounts that spent more than $30.

The lawsuit was filed in 2011 by a group of parents who claimed their children made purchases within apps without their consent. The parents alleged that Apple failed to adequately disclose that these apps contained the ability to make in-app purchases. At that time, Apple’s policy required account holders to enter their passwords when downloading a mobile app, but would not require passwords to be re-entered for the next 15 minutes. During that 15 minute window, children could make in-app purchases without entering an account password. Apple has since changed its policy to require a password for every purchase.

The settlement is one piece in the larger puzzle regarding mobile app disclosures and privacy protections. Earlier this year, the FTC released a mobile privacy report and entered into a settlement with Path—a mobile-only social network that was allegedly mining information without users’ consent, including, according to the FTC, the information of minors in violation of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. Late last year, the FTC released another report, highlighting the widespread practice of mobile apps collecting and sharing minors’ information with third parties without disclosing such practices. Also last year, the California Attorney General entered into an agreement with six mobile app platforms to increase consumer privacy protections. It issued a follow-up report earlier this year, Privacy on the Go, which includes recommendations for app developers, platform providers, and mobile carriers.

You can access the webcast here (free registration required).

Yesterday, the Federal Communications Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to free up spectrum in the 5MHz band for unlicensed Wi-Fi use. With this step, the FCC hopes to accelerate the growth and expansion of new high-speed Wi-Fi services, while reducing Wi-Fi congestion in the home and in public locations.

Comments are due 45 days after the NPRM’s publication in the Federal Register, which based on publication trends, may be early May. 

The Federal Communications Commission unanimously approved a new set of rules intended to facilitate deployment of wireless signal boosters by consumers and businesses, while avoiding potentially disruptive interference to mobile networks. Signal boosters are used to amplify signal strength between wireless devices and wireless networks. Their increased use raised interference concerns for wireless networks, which are addressed through new interference safeguards that manufacturers will be required to incorporate into boosters. Nationwide carriers, along with regional and rural carriers, support the new rules—provided that the boosters comply with the technical specifications designed to prevent interference.

The new rules recognize the importance of boosters in underserved and rural areas, in indoor environments such as buildings and hospitals, as well in conjunction with public safety first responders. According to the FCC, the new rules will remove uncertainty surrounding the manufacturing and use of signal boosters and promote investment and use of the technology.

In the wake of recent cyber attacks on US banks, newspapers, and government agencies, President Obama signed an executive order to strengthen the nation’s cyber defenses and protect its critical infrastructure. The President announced the executive order during Tuesday’s State of the Union address, noting the order aims to increase “information sharing” between government and industry and to develop “standards to protect our national security, our jobs, and our privacy.”

The order also directs the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to work with companies that operate critical infrastructure components in developing a set of cybersecurity best practices within 240 days of the order. The order requires that NIST’s framework be “technology neutral” and focused on “cross-sector security standards and guidelines applicable to critical infrastructure.” As part of this process, federal agencies will need to review their existing cybersecurity regulations, in consultation with the industries they regulate, to determine if existing measures are consistent with NIST’s new standards.

Notably, the order further directs agencies to implement privacy and civil liberties protections as part of their cyber activities, in accordance with existing laws and privacy principles. Federal agencies will need to assess the privacy impacts of their work under the order, and findings will be available in an annual report compiled by the Department of Homeland Security.

Response to the executive order has been mixed. The American Civil Liberties Union responded favorably in a release, noting its support for the order’s emphasis on privacy and civil liberty protections. A group of Republican Senators, however, issued a statement noting that the order could not achieve the “balanced approached” accomplished by legislation, and called for the crafting of legislation through “regular order” without “adding or prompting regulations that could discourage innovation and negatively impact our struggling economy.” 

Since the executive order was signed, there has been considerable movement and attention in the cybersecurity arena. On Wednesday, House Republicans reintroduced the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). CISPA, the controversial legislation that passed the House and failed in the Senate last year, would allow companies to share information with the government for national security purposes without requiring the implementation of measures to reduce exposure of sensitive information. Representative Mike McCaul (R-TX), Chairman of the House's Homeland Security Committee, issued a statement criticizing the executive order for "open[ing] the door to increased regulations” and pledged to introduce legislation of his own that would compliment CISPA and “enhance coordination between the private sector and government.” Finally, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its annual report today on “high-risk areas” within the federal government. Cybersecurity made the GAO’s list, and the report notes a steep increase in cyber incidents and highlights widespread information security weaknesses across the federal government.

In a trio of recent data privacy developments, the FTC published mobile data policy recommendations, Path settled an FTC action regarding allegedly unlawful data collection, and Facebook will now tell users which ads are tracking their online activity.

Noting the expansive growth of services offered on mobile platforms, the report recognizes unique privacy concerns rooted in the “unprecedented amounts of data collection” possible from a single mobile device. The report also notes consumers are increasingly concerned about their privacy on mobile devices, stating “less than one-third of Americans feel they are in control” of their mobile personal data. 

With those concerns in mind, the report offers recommendations to improve mobile privacy disclosures. These recommendations are consistent with the broad principles previously articulated in the FTC’s prior March 2012 Privacy Report, which generally called upon companies handling consumer data to adhere to the core principles of “privacy by design,” simplified consumer choice, and greater transparency. The staff report elaborates on these general principles by providing guidance to address the unique challenges presented in the mobile environment (e.g., limited screen space, the centrality of platform and operating system providers, etc.) Among other recommendations, the report suggests: 

• Developing privacy best practices and uniform, short-form disclosures;
• Providing just-in-time disclosures to consumers requiring affirmative consent before allowing apps to access sensitive content like geolocation, contacts, or photos;
• Developing a one-stop “dashboard” to review content accessed by apps; and
• Offering a “Do Not Track” mechanism on smartphones to prevent third-parting tracking at the operating system level.

On the heels of the staff report, the FTC also announced a law enforcement action against Path, a mobile-only social network accused of collecting user data without consent. Through its social networking service, Path’s app allows users to upload and share content, including photos, comments, location data, and even the names of songs that the user plays. Among other allegations, the FTC claimed that the Path application automatically collected and stored personal information from users’ mobile device address books without the users’ consent (including names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, Facebook and Twitter usernames, and dates of birth). The agency also alleged that Path violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act by collecting personal information from approximately 3,000 children under the age of 13 without parental consent. Path settled with the FTC on the same day that the agency filed its action. Path agreed to pay $800,000 in fines, delete all information for users under 13, and submit a comprehensive privacy plan with updates/assessments every other year for the next 20 years. 

Finally, Facebook recently announced it will alert users to advertisements that are based on or track browsing history. When users are logged in to their Facebook account and hover over ads with their mouse, a new pop-up icon will alert users if they are being tracked. The feature is the product of an agreement between Facebook and the Council of Better Business Bureaus, and users are still able to opt out of brand-specific ads, as well as ad tracking altogether.

These developments highlight the continuing regulatory focus on online privacy issues, particularly in connection with social media and mobile applications.

In a move likely to further disrupt the voice services market, Facebook recently announced that it will offer free calls via Wi-Fi for users of its Messenger app on Apple devices in the United States. The Messenger calling feature, tested in Canadian markets earlier this month, allows users to “call” their Facebook friends who have installed the Messenger app and linked their mobile number with Facebook by clicking their contact information. While data charges will still apply for Messenger calls made over a wireless carrier’s 4G or 3G network, there will be no separate charge for calls made over a device connected to the Internet via a Wi-Fi connection. Facebook’s announcement marks another example of the growing trend of using mobile apps to end-run traditional public switched telephone network (“PSTN”)-based voice services.

Industry observers praised the new Messenger features as critical for consumers with poor wireless network coverage or who want to conserve cell phone minutes and costs. However, Facebook may face opposition from the wireless industry, which may view the Messenger app as an unfair competitive threat. If the wireless industry attempts to block the Messenger app, it could result in an interesting test of the “no blocking” provisions of the FCC’s Open Internet Order (i.e., net neutrality), which generally prohibit mobile wireless providers from blocking lawful applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services. In addition, if the Messenger app begins to offer the capability to make calls to and receive calls from the PSTN, it would be subject to the same regulatory requirements applicable to PSTN-interconnected VoIP service. 

Depending on the traction Facebook Messenger gets, the service has the potential to further disrupt markets for traditional landline voice services, which are already facing pressure from the wireless industry and interconnected VoIP providers.

Providers of online services, websites, and applications directed at children will need to reexamine their policies regarding the collection of information from children in light of new privacy rules issued by the Federal Trade Commission and recently published in the Federal Register. The rules impose new obligations under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”), which generally requires online services and websites to notify parents and obtain parental consent before collecting, using, or disclosing personal information from children under 13 years of age. The revised regulations were announced late last month and represent the result of more than a year-long examination of COPPA by the FTC that produced hundreds of comments from stakeholders. The COPPA revisions are just the latest step for the FTC regarding children’s privacy, which has been the focus of increased enforcement action and staff reports over recent years.

The new regulations revise the COPPA rules in five key areas:

(2) Permitted Operations: The new rules permit the collection of a child’s personal information through the use of “persistent identifiers,” which recognize users over time and across different websites, for the sole purpose of supporting the online service’s internal operations (e.g., contextual advertising, frequency capping, legal compliance, site analysis, and network communications). Such information, however, cannot be used to contact a specific user, amass a profile on that person, or for any other purpose. Operators also may allow children to participate in interactive communities without parental consent, so long as they take reasonable measures to delete a child’s personal information before it is made public.

(3) “Age Screens”: The new rules distinguish between online services and websites whose primary target audience is children and those directed to a broader audience. While online services and websites whose primary target audience is children must continue to presume that all of their users are children subject to COPPA, the online services and websites directed to a broader audience may implement procedures to “age screen” users and obtain consent only for users who self-identify as under 13 years of age.

(4) Parental Notice and Consent: The new rules amend the parental notice provisions to require concise and timely notices to parents and access to operators’ privacy policies. Specifically, the notice to parents should clearly explain: (i) the types of personal information to be collected; (ii) that the parent’s consent is required for the collection of such information; and (iii) how to provide consent. The parental notice must also include a hyperlink to the operator’s privacy policy. The revised rules add several new methods for operators to obtain parental consent, including: (i) electronic scans of signed parental consent forms; (ii) videoconferencing; (iii) government-issued identification; and (iv) alternative payment systems (such as credit or debit cards), if they meet certain criteria. The FTC also established a voluntary 120-day notice and comment process so parties can seek approval of particular parental consent methods.

(5) Increased Security Measures: The new rules require websites and services to take reasonable steps to ensure that children’s personal information is released only to service providers and third parties capable of maintaining the confidentiality, security, and integrity of such information. The new rules allow the retention of children’s personal information only for as long as reasonably necessary to provide the service and also require operators to securely dispose of the information.

The revised COPPA regulations have drawn a mixed reaction. Some stakeholders have praised the FTC for striking an appropriate balance between privacy and innovation, while others have suggested that increased compliance costs will lead to a decline in online service and mobile application development. Either way, the new rules reaffirm the importance of COPPA compliance and children’s privacy issues to online services.

The revised COPPA rules will take effect on July 1, 2013.

Internet access on commercial and private aircraft will likely become more widespread under a recent Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released by the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC’s action creates new technical and licensing rules for what it terms “Earth Stations Aboard Aircraft” (“ESAA”), small aircraft-mounted antennas that communicate with satellites tied to ground-based Internet access networks allowing for the provision of broadband Internet access on-board aircraft. The new ESAA licensing procedures, which include detailed technical requirements for ESAA systems intended to prevent radio interference among ESAA systems and existing satellite systems, will replace an ad hoc approval process for in-flight satellite-based Internet services in place since 2001. The FCC expects that the new rules will allow it to process ESAA apllications up to 50 percent faster and meet growing consumer demand for Internet access while traveling.

The new rules allocate ESAA on a primary basis in certain sections of the space-to-Earth spectrum band and on an unprotected basis in other space-to-Earth spectrum sections. The new rules also allocate ESAA on a secondary basis in the Earth-to-space spectrum band, although the FCC seeks comment on whether this allocation should be elevated to primary to place ESAA on equal footing with other mobile broadband Internet services. ESAA licensees will be required to coordinate their operations with satellite and other incumbent services in order to avoid interference. 

The new rules come on the heels of the Federal Aviation Administration’s announcement earlier this year that it will reexamine the current rules governing passenger in-flight use of personal electronic devices such as e-readers and tablets. The FCC previously indicated that it also supports relaxing the rules governing in-flight use of personal electronic devices. While the FCC’s action is expected to facilitate rapid broadband deployment on airlines, some note that technical limitations may limit the ability to use ESAA for streaming and other high-bandwidth services for the near future.

With 2012 coming to a close, Internet TV channel Broadband US TV recently featured a live, year-end review of key developments in the sector over the last year, with guests making various predictions on what 2013 will bring. The webcast archive is available here (free registration required).

In addition to Broadband US TV co-hosts Marty Stern of K&L Gates and Jim Baller of the Baller Herbst Law Group, the webcast featured special guests Gigi Sohn, President and CEO of Public Knowledge, Scott Cleland, President of The Precursor Group and Chairman of advocacy group NetCompetition, Jeffrey Silva, Senior Policy Director at Medley Global Advisors, and Paul Gallant, Telecom Policy Analyst at Guggenheim Securities, LLC.

Spectrum —­ Numerous developments on the spectrum front, including conflicting predictions on the likely outcome of the broadcast spectrum auctions, the FCC’s recent decision on AWS-4 spectrum held by Dish Network, and thoughts on the deployment by Dish of a new, commercial wireless service.

Net Neutrality — The state of net neutrality, predictions on the likely outcome of the pending DC Circuit challenge to the FCC’s Open Internet Order, and the range of potential responses from the FCC.

Network Transitions — The IP transition from a circuit-switched voice network to an IP-based network, the recent petition filed at the FCC by AT&T, and a discussion of the key issues that need to be resolved.

ITU Internet Governance — The recently-concluded International Telecommunications Union (ITU) World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) and ITU Internet governance efforts, which according to panelists, will continue to play out over the next couple of years.

Copyright Reform — Copyright reform, including panelists’ discussions of the continued importance of the retransmission consent regime between broadcasters and cable/satellite providers, with updates and predictions on the pending court challenge to the Aereo service, which retransmits broadcast signals to subscribers using individual subscriber antennas at a headend location.

Gigabit Fiber Initiatives — Updates on new community broadband gigabit networks, with differing views on claimed subsidies provided by local governments for new networks and impacts vis-à-vis competition from commercial providers.

Telecom Legislation — Potential for telecom and broadband legislation in 2013 and key topics to be addressed, including potential rebalancing of rules governing relationships between broadcasters and cable/satellite providers.

FCC Leadership — Speculation on the potential departure of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, his potential replacement, and impacts on various pending broadband issues.

The show concluded with the guests’ boldest predictions for 2013, including the prospects for a Telecom Act rewrite, key issues to be faced by a new FCC Chair, likely court action on the FCC’s Open Internet rules, and the predicted outcome of a pending Supreme Court case (City of Arlington v. FCC), involving the “shot clock” adopted by the FCC for local wireless siting decisions and a unique twist on the deference owed to the FCC in matters of statutory interpretation under the Chevron doctrine.

You can access the webcast archive here (free registration required).