CyberTelecom Federal Notices

In re Implementation of the NET 911 Improvement Act of 2008, REPORT and order WC Docket No. 08-171, (FCC October 21, 2008) [REDACTED]

2008-10-29T22:05:00.000-07:00

We thought we might try something new. Agency orders can be long dreary things filled with procedural discussions. Well, what if we redact out all the APA gobbly gook, and boil it down to what was actually decided. We gave it a go with the recent FCC Net 911 Improvement Act Order, and this is what it boiled down to:

In re Implementation of the NET 911 Improvement Act of 2008, REPORT and order WC Docket No. 08-171, (FCC October 21, 2008) [REDACTED]

[1] In this Order, we adopt rules implementing certain key provisions of the New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008 (NET 911 Act), which was enacted on July 23, 2008. Specifically, we issue rules that give interconnected VoIP providers rights of access to any and all capabilities necessary to provide 911 and E911 service from entities that own or control those capabilities. We also take steps to ensure that the nation’s E911 network remains secure as an expanded number of entities are granted rights to access this system.

[3] The NET 911 Act explicitly imposes on each interconnected VoIP provider the obligation to provide 911 and E911 service in accordance with Commission existing requirements[A1] . The NET 911 Act also grants each interconnected VoIP provider rights with respect to “capabilities” to provide 911 and E911 services. Specifically, section 101 of the NET 911 Act adds a new section 6 to the Wireless 911 Act that states in relevant part:

DUTIES. – It shall be the duty of each IP-enabled voice service provider to provide 9–1–1 service and enhanced 9–1–1 service to its subscribers in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Communications Commission, as in effect on the date of enactment of the New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008 and as such requirements may be modified by the Commission from time to time.

PARITY FOR IP-ENABLED VOICE SERVICE PROVIDERS.—An IP-enabled voice service provider that seeks capabilities to provide 9–1–1 and enhanced 9–1–1 service from an entity with ownership or control over such capabilities, to comply with its obligations under subsection (a), shall, for the exclusive purpose of complying with such obligations, have a right of access to such capabilities, including interconnection, to provide 9–1–1 and enhanced 9–1–1 service on the same rates, terms, and conditions that are provided to a provider of commercial mobile service . . . , subject to such regulations as the Commission prescribes under subsection (c).

[7] 911 service generally falls into two categories – basic and enhanced. Basic 911 service delivers 911 calls to an appropriate PSAP or public safety agency without the information regarding the caller’s location or, in some cases, a call back number. E911 service expands basic 911 service by not only delivering 911 calls to an appropriate PSAP, or public safety agency, but also providing the call taker with the caller’s call back number, referred to as Automatic Numbering Identification (ANI), and location information — a capability referred to as Automatic Location Identification (ALI).

[12] Interconnected VoIP E911 Network. Under the Commission’s rules, interconnected VoIP providers must provide E911 service to their customers. Interconnected VoIP service may enable customers to place calls from various geographic locations which may necessitate the use of p-ANI for routing 911 calls. Furthermore, given the state of current technology to determine automatically the location from which an interconnected VoIP call is made, the Commission required providers of interconnected VoIP services to obtain location information, called “Registered Location,” from their customers.

[13] Under the Commission’s rules, interconnected VoIP providers must forward all 911 calls made over their interconnected VoIP service, as well as a call back number and the caller’s Registered Location for each call, to the appropriate PSAP. These calls must be routed through the use of ANI and, if necessary, and similar to wireless carriers, p-ANI, via the dedicated Wireline E911 Network, and the caller’s Registered Location must be available from or through the ALI Database. Interconnected VoIP providers may comply with the Commission’s rules by interconnecting indirectly through a third party such as a competitive LEC, interconnecting directly with the Wireline E911 Network, or through any other solution that allows the provider to offer E911 service.

[24] we issue rules to grant interconnected VoIP providers a right of access to the capabilities CMRS providers use to provide E911 service equal to the access rights made available to CMRS providers.

[25] Second, with respect to any capabilities that are not provided to CMRS providers for their provision of E911 service, we interpret the NET 911 Act as granting interconnected VoIP providers a right of access if the capability is necessary for the interconnected VoIP provider to provide E911 service in compliance with the Commission’s rules.

[27] Typical Capabilities. . . Thus, in a typical local architecture, “capabilities” will include: the Selective Router; the trunk line(s) between the Selective Router and the PSAP(s); the ALI Database; the SR Database; the DBMS, the MSAG; p-ANIs; ESNs; mobile switching center capabilities; mobile positioning center capabilities; shell records; the data circuits connecting these elements; and the network elements, features, processes, and agreements necessary to enable the use of these elements.

[28] Entities with Ownership or Control of Capabilities. We conclude that interconnected VoIP providers are entitled to access to capabilities from any entity that owns or controls such capabilities. . . . We therefore interpret the NET 911 Act to impose obligations of access on each of the entities described in part II.D of this Order, including in typical E911 architectures: incumbent LECs, PSAPs and local authorities, VPCs, CMRS providers, competitive carriers, and the Interim RNA to the extent any of these entities has “ownership or control” over any capabilities to which interconnected VoIP providers have a right of access.

Rates, Terms, and Conditions

[32] We interpret the term “provided” as used in this provision as encompassing not only those capabilities that are actually provisioned to a CMRS provider as well as the rates, terms, and conditions under which they are provisioned, but also those capabilities that are currently offered to a CMRS provider as well as the rates, terms, and conditions under which they are offered. We interpret “provided” broadly to ensure that interconnected VoIP providers are able to access the same capabilities that CMRS providers may access on the same rates, terms, and conditions that are available to CMRS providers.

[33] In addition, if an owner or controller of a capability does not provide a capability to CMRS providers but is required under part III.A above to grant interconnected VoIP providers access to such capability, such access must be provided on the rates, terms, and conditions that would be offered to a CMRS provider.

[34] If an owner or controller of a capability required to be made available does not currently make that capability available to any other entities, the rates, terms and conditions under which that owner or controller must provide access to a requesting interconnected VoIP provider must be reasonable, and should be reached through commercial negotiation. . . . Finally, we emphasize that all rights to capabilities that the NET 911 Act grants to an interconnected VoIP provider are “for the exclusive purpose of complying with . . . its obligations under subsection (a) [i.e. the Commission’s existing E911 rules].”

Technical, Network Security, and Information Privacy Requirements

[37] NENA has developed national VoIP E911 requirements, referred to as NENA’s i2 standard, that are “designed to ensure that VoIP 9-1-1 calls are routed and presented in a wireline equivalent manner.” We believe that any interconnected VoIP provider that is in compliance with this standard already is coordinating its efforts with the other organizational entities responsible for providing E911 service.

[38] We require interconnected VoIP providers to comply with all applicable industry network security standards to the same extent as traditional telecommunications carriers when they access capabilities traditionally used by carriers.

[39] Finally, our rules contemplate that incumbent LECs and other owners or controllers of 911 or E911 infrastructure will acquire information regarding interconnected VoIP providers and their customers for use in the provision of emergency services. We fully expect that these entities will use this information only for the provision of E911 service. To be clear, no entity may use customer information obtained as a result of the provision of 911 or E911 services for marketing purposes. [NOTE: This is similar to the original CPNI rules]

Final Rules

Part 9 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended to read as follows:

PART 9 – INTERCONNECTED VOICE OVER INTERNET PROTOCOL SERVICES

1. The authority citation for Part 9 is amended to read as follows:

Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j), 251(e), 303(r), and 615a-1 unless otherwise noted.

2. § 9.1 is amended to read as follows.

§ 9.1 Purposes.

The purposes of this part are to set forth the 911 and E911 service requirements and conditions applicable to interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol service providers, and to ensure that those providers have access to any and all 911 and E911 capabilities they need to comply with those 911 and E911 service requirements and conditions.

3. § 9.3 is amended by adding in alphabetical order definitions of “ALI” and “CMRS” to read as follows.

§ 9.3 Definitions.

Automatic Location Information (ALI). Information transmitted while providing E911 service that permits emergency service providers to identify the geographic location of the calling party.

CMRS. Commercial Mobile Radio Service, as defined in § 20.9 of this chapter.

4. § 9.7 is added to read as follows.

§ 9.7  Access to 911 and E911 Service Capabilities.

(a)  Access.  Subject to the other requirements of this part, an owner or controller of a capability that can be used for 911 or E911 service shall make that capability available to a requesting interconnected VoIP provider as set forth in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.

(1)  If the owner or controller makes the requested capability available to a CMRS provider, the owner or controller must make that capability available to the interconnected VoIP provider.  An owner or controller makes a capability available to a CMRS provider if the owner or controller offers that capability to any CMRS provider.

(2)  If the owner of controller does not make the requested capability available to a CMRS provider within the meaning of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the owner or controller must make that capability available to a requesting interconnected VoIP provider only if that capability is necessary to enable the interconnected VoIP provider to provide 911 or E911 service in compliance with the Commission’s rules.

(b)  Rates, Terms, and Conditions.  The rates, terms, and conditions on which a capability is provided to an interconnected VoIP provider under paragraph (a) of this section shall be reasonable.  For purposes of this paragraph, it is evidence that rates, terms, and conditions are reasonable if they are:  (1) the same as the rates, terms, and conditions that are made available to CMRS providers, or (2) in the event such capability is not made available to CMRS providers, the same rates, terms, and conditions that are made available to any telecommunications carrier or other entity for the provision of 911 or E911 service.

(c)  Permissible Use.  An interconnected VoIP provider that obtains access to a capability pursuant to this section may use that capability only for the purpose of providing 911 or E911 service in accordance with the Commission’s rules.

FCC Announces Tentative Agenda for Nov 4th Open Meeting

2008-10-16T18:09:00.001-07:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: NEWS MEDIA CONTACT:

October 15, 2008 Robert Kenny 202-418-2668

Email: Robert.Kenny@fcc.gov

FCC ANNOUNCES TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR NOVEMBER 4^TH OPEN MEETING

Washington , D.C. – Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Kevin J. Martin has circulated the following items for consideration by his fellow FCC Commissioners as part of the tentative agenda for the next open meeting scheduled for Tuesday, November 4, 2008:

Intercarrier Compensation and Universal Service Program Reform

A Report and Order, Order on Remand, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking addressing the comprehensive reform of intercarrier compensation and universal service.

Spectrum Licensing

An Order addressing the Auction 73 applications of Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and Union Telephone Company.

Mergers

A Memorandum Opinion and Order addressing the applications filed by Atlantis Holdings and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless for approval of the transfer of control of licenses, authorizations and leasing arrangements through the transfer of control of subsidiaries and partnerships controlled by ALLTEL.

A Memorandum Opinion and Order addressing the applications filed by Sprint Nextel and Clearwire for approval of the transfer of control of licenses, authorizations and leasing arrangements held by Sprint Nextel and its subsidiaries to New Clearwire.

Television White Spaces

A Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order addressing unlicensed operation in the television broadcast bands.

Digital Television

An Order adopting rules for the use of distributed transmission system ("DTS") technologies in the digital television service.

Closed Captioning/Digital Programming

An Order addressing the closed captioning of digital programming and several other closed captioning issues.

Topics selected for open meeting agendas are made public and posted on the Commission's website approximately three weeks prior to the Commission's next monthly meeting. The Commission will continue to issue a public notice of the "Commission Meeting Agenda" one week before the meeting and announce at that time the items that are scheduled for the agenda.

-FCC-

News and information about the Federal Communications Commission is available at www.fcc.gov.

NTIA Seeks Public Comments for the Deployment of Security Technology Within the Internet Domain Name System

2008-10-09T09:12:00.001-07:00

Press Release: NTIA Seeks Public Comments for the Deployment of Security Technology Within the Internet Domain Name System

For Immediate Release: October 9, 2008

Media Contact: Todd Sedmak, (202) 482-7002 or press@ntia.doc.gov

WASHINGTON--Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) today issued a Notice of Inquiry seeking public comments regarding the deployment of Domain Name and Addressing System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) into the Internet's DNS infrastructure, including the authoritative root zone. Comments are due by November 24, 2008. The Notice of Inquiry is available online at www.ntia.doc.gov.

"NTIA is committed to preserving the security and stability of the DNS," Acting NTIA Administrator Meredith Attwell Baker said. "In light of existing and emerging threats to the Internet DNS, the time is ripe to consider solutions such as DNSSEC. As we consider deploying this technology in the root zone, it is critical that we get feedback from all the interested stakeholders."

Background

The DNS is a critical component of the Internet infrastructure, which is used by almost every application to associate domain names with the Web addresses required to deliver information on the Internet. The accuracy, integrity, and availability of the information supplied by the DNS are essential to the operation of any system or service that uses the Internet.

Over the years, a number of vulnerabilities have been identified in the DNS protocol that threaten the accuracy and integrity of the DNS data and undermine the trustworthiness of the system. In particular, due to technical advances, vulnerabilities in the existing DNS have recently become easier to exploit. Malicious parties may use these vulnerabilities to distribute false DNS information, and to improperly re-direct Internet users.

DNSSEC was developed to mitigate these vulnerabilities. Accordingly, the Department is exploring the deployment of DNSSEC at the top level of the DNS hierarchy, known as the root zone.

NTIA is responsible for the development of the domestic and international telecommunications policy of the Executive Branch.

LOC Fed Reg Notice RFC DMCA Circumvention

2008-10-08T07:16:00.001-07:00

http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2008/73fr58073.pdf

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office
37 CFR Part 201
[Docket No. RM 2008–8]
Exemption to Prohibition on
Circumvention of Copyright Protection
Systems for Access Control
Technologies
AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of
Congress.
ACTION: Notice of inquiry.
SUMMARY: The Copyright Office of the
Library of Congress is preparing to
conduct proceedings in accordance with
provisions added by the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act which
provide that the Librarian of Congress
may exempt certain classes of works
from the prohibition against
circumvention of technological
measures that control access to
copyrighted works. The purpose of this
rulemaking proceeding is to determine
whether there are particular classes of
works as to which users are, or are
likely to be, adversely affected in their
ability to make noninfringing uses due
to the prohibition on circumvention.
This notice requests written comments
from all interested parties, including
representatives of copyright owners,
educational institutions, libraries and
archives, scholars, researchers and
members of the public, in order to elicit
evidence on whether noninfringing uses
of certain classes of works are, or are
likely to be, adversely affected by this
prohibition on the circumvention of
measures that control access to
copyrighted works.
DATES: Written comments must be
received no later than December 2,
2008. A notice of proposed rulemaking
will be published in December 2008 that
will identify proposed classes of works
and solicit comments on those proposed
classes, which will be due no later than
February 2, 2009.
. . . . .

PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED FOR COMMENTS ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COMMISSION’S FIFTH 706 REPORT

2008-09-08T21:13:00.000-07:00

rd 12">On July 11, 2008, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, and Free Press (Petitioners) filed a petition for reconsideration of the Commission’s Fifth 706 Report, released on June 12, 2008.[1] The petition requests that the Commission reconsider its conclusion that advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.[2] Petitioners argue that the Commission failed to take certain facts and arguments into account in the Fifth 706 Report, including that “nearly all the commercially available broadband services in the U.S. are highly asymmetric one-way technologies.”[3]

This matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200, 1.1206. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented generally is required. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b). Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in Section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b).

Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before September 17, 2008, and reply comments on or before September 24, 2008. All pleadings should reference GN Docket No. 07-45.

All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Suite TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. Parties should also send a copy of their filings to the Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, or by e-mail to CPDcopies@fcc.gov. Parties shall also serve one copy with the Commission’s copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488-5300, or via e-mail to fcc@bcpiweb.com.

Comments may be filed using the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies.

Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments.

For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov and include the following words in the body of the message: get form . A sample form and directions will be sent in response.

Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Parties are strongly encouraged to file comments electronically using the Commission’s ECFS.

Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

The Commission’s contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.

Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12^th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554.

People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (tty).

Filings and comments are also available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. They may also be purchased from the Commission’s duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, telephone (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via e-mail at fcc@bcpiweb.com.

For further information, contact Melissa Kirkel, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau (202) 418-7958.

- FCC –

DA 08-2035 Released: September 3, 2008 GN DOCKET NO. 07-45

Comments Due: September 17, 2008

Reply Comments Due: September 24, 2008

Released: 09/03/2008. PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED FOR COMMENTS ON
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COMMISSION'S FIFTH 706 REPORT. (DA No. 08-2035). (Dkt No 07-45). Comments Due: 09/17/2008. Reply Comments Due: 09/24/2008. WCB. Contact: Melissa Kirkel at (202) 418-7958
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2035A1.doc>
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2035A1.pdf>
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2035A1.txt>

[1] See Consumers Union, Consumer Federal of America, and Free Press, Petition for Reconsideration, GN Docket No. 07-45 (filed July 11, 2008) (Petition); Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, GN Docket No. 07-45, Fifth Report, 23 FCC Rcd 9615 (2008) (Fifth 706 Report).

[2] See Petition at 2.

[3] See id.

DHS Seeks Comment on National Infrastructure Protection Plan

2008-06-25T06:47:00.000-07:00

[Federal Register: June 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 110)]
[Notices]             
[Page 32341-32343]
                   
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Docket No. DHS-2008-0054]

Review and Revision of the National Infrastructure Protection
Plan

AGENCY: National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice informs the public that the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) is currently reviewing the National Infrastructure
Protection Plan (NIPP) and, as part of a comprehensive national review
process, solicits public comment on issues or language in the NIPP that
need to be updated in this triennial review cycle.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before July 7, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be identified by docket number DHS-2008-0054
and may be submitted by one of the following methods:
   Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
   E-mail: Nipp@dhs.gov. Include the docket number in the
subject line of the message.
   Facsimile: 703-235-3057.
   Mail: Larry L. May, NPPD/IP/POD/NIPP Program Management
Office; Mail Stop 8530, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray
Lane, SW., Washington, DC 20528-8530.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry L. May, Deputy Director, NIPP
Program Management Office (PMO) Partnership and Outreach Division,
Office of Infrastructure Protection, National Protection and Programs
Directorate, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528,
703-235-3648 or NIPP@dhs.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

  DHS invites interested persons to contribute suggestions and
comments for the revision of the National Infrastructure Protection
Plan (NIPP) by submitting written data, views, or arguments. Comments
that will provide the most assistance to DHS in revising the NIPP will
explain the reason for any

[[Page 32342]]

recommended changes to the NIPP and include data, information, or
authority that supports such recommended change. Linking changes to
specific sections of the NIPP would also be helpful. There will be an
opportunity to review a revised NIPP reflecting the various changes
later this year.
  Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number for this action. All comments received will be posted
without change to http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. You may submit your comments and material by one
of the methods specified in the ADDRESSES section. Please submit your
comments and material by only one means to avoid the adjudication of
duplicate submissions. If you submit comments by mail, your submission
should be an unbound document and no larger than 8.5 by 11 inches to
enable copying and electronic document management. If you want DHS to
acknowledge receipt of comments by mail, include with your comments a
self-addressed, stamped postcard that includes the docket number for
this action. We will date your postcard and return it to you via
regular mail.
  Docket: Background documents and comments received can be viewed at
http://www.regulations.gov.

II. Background

  The NIPP sets forth a comprehensive risk management framework and
clearly defines critical infrastructure protection roles and
responsibilities for the DHS; Sector-Specific Agencies (SSAs); and
other Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, and private-sector
security partners. The NIPP provides a coordinated approach for
establishing national priorities, goals, and requirements for
infrastructure protection so that funding and resources are applied in
the most effective manner. The NIPP risk management framework responds
to an evolving risk landscape; as such, there will always be changes to
the NIPP--from relatively minor to more significant. The 2006 NIPP
established the requirement to fully review and reissue the plan every
three years to ensure that it is current and of maximum value to all
security partners. To assist the reviewer as we proceed with this
process, an internal review of the NIPP by DHS has occurred and an
initial list of potential changes to the NIPP is included in this
notice. The purpose of this notice is to invite interested parties to
suggest additional changes that would make the 2009 NIPP more relevant
and useful as a National level document and within the framework of
HSPD-7.
  Some of the known changes that will be addressed in this revision
of the NIPP are:
   Establishment of Critical Manufacturing as the 18th
critical infrastructure and key resources (CIKR) sector
   Release of the chemical security regulation
   Publishing of the Sector-Specific Plans (SSPs)
   Sector name changes
   Designation of the Education Subsector
   Removal of references to the National Asset Database
(NADB) and replacement with information on the Infrastructure
Information Collection System and the Infrastructure Data Warehouse
   Revision of the discussion of risk assessment
methodologies
   Update on the Protected Critical Infrastructure
Information (PCII) program
   Clarification of NIPP CIKR Protection Metrics
   Update on the State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial
Government Coordinating Council (SLTTGCC)
   Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN) update
   Further definition of the CIKR Information-Sharing
Environment (ISE)
   Critical Infrastructure Warning Information Network (CWIN)
   Evolution from the National Response Plan to the National
Response Framework
   Further information on the National Infrastructure
Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC)
   Update on the Protective Security Advisor Program
   Additional Homeland Security Presidential Directives
   Issues regarding cross-sector cyber security
   Overarching issues: Protection and resiliency
   Delineate role of Private Sector Office
   DHS organizational changes: National Protection and
Programs Directorate (NPPD).

Comments are welcome on other areas that should be updated, expanded,
changed, added, or deleted as appropriate.

III. Initial List of Issues To Be Updated in the NIPP

  Since the NIPP was released in June 2006, DHS and its security
partners have been working to implement the risk management framework
and the sector partnership model to protect the Nation's CIKR.
Throughout this implementation, DHS has engaged the NIPP feedback
mechanisms to capture lessons learned and issues that need to be
revised and updated in future versions of the NIPP. This section
presents a brief summary of some those issues as a guide to reviewers
and commenters on the types of changes being incorporated into the
NIPP. DHS is soliciting public comment on these and other issues. These
issues will be addressed through changes made in the appropriate
sections of the NIPP.

Establishment of Critical Manufacturing as the 18th CIKR Sector

  On March 3, 2008, DHS formally established the Critical
Manufacturing Sector as the 18th CIKR sector.

Release of Chemical Security Regulation

  On April 9, 2007, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
issued the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS), 6 CFR
part 27. Congress authorized this interim final rule (IFR) under
Section 550 of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act
of 2007, directing the Department to identify high-risk chemical
facilities, assess their security vulnerabilities, and require those
facilities to submit site security plans meeting risk-based performance
standards. DHS also issued a final Appendix A to the CFATS IFR on
November 20, 2007, listing chemicals of interest (COI) which, if
possessed in specified quantities, require chemical facilities to
submit certain information to DHS.

Publishing of the Sector-Specific Plans

  Section 5.3.1 of the NIPP will be updated to reflect the SSPs
official release on May 21, 2007.

Sector Name Changes

  To better reflect the scope of three sectors, DHS has recognized
the following name changes: ``Commercial Nuclear Reactors, Materials
and Waste'' to ``Nuclear Reactors, Materials and Waste;'' ``Drinking
Water and Water Treatment Systems'' to ``Water;'' and
``Telecommunications'' to ``Communications.''

Designation of the Education Facilities Subsector

  In keeping with section 2.2.2 of the NIPP, DHS has recognized the
Department of Education's Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS)
as the lead for Education Facilities (EF), a subsector of the
Government Facilities Sector.

[[Page 32343]]

Removal of References to the National Asset Database

  Throughout the NIPP, references to the NADB will be removed and
replaced with information on the Infrastructure Information Collection
System and the Infrastructure Data Warehouse.

Revision of the Discussion on Risk Assessment Methodologies

  The discussion of risk assessment methodologies will be revised to
indicate that there are multiple NIPP-compliant risk assessment
methodologies. Revisions will also provide information on the current
state of CIKR risk analysis capability and the Tier 1/Tier 2 Program.

Update on the Protected Critical Infrastructure Information Program

  DHS will clarify how vulnerability assessment information may be
submitted for protection under the PCII program and which DHS programs
may receive this information.

Clarification of NIPP CIKR Protection Metrics

  The NIPP CIKR protection metrics process includes four metrics
areas:
  1. Core metrics represent a common set of measures that are tracked
across all sectors.
  2. Sector-specific performance metrics are the set of measures
tailored to the unique characteristics of each sector.
  3. CIKR protection programmatic metrics are used to measure the
effectiveness of specific programs, initiatives, and investments that
are managed by Government agencies and sector partners.
  4. Sector partnership metrics are used to assess the status of
activities conducted under the sector partnership.

Update on the State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Government
Coordinating Council

  The SLTTGCC now has three working groups and also provides liaisons
to all the sectors: Policy and Planning Working Group, Communication
and Coordination Working Group, and Information-Sharing Working Group.
The roles of State and Regional groups in CIKR protection will be
described.

Homeland Security Information Network Update

  DHS IP is working closely with the DHS Chief Information Officer
(CIO) to determine feasible solutions to mitigate issues from CIKR
protection security partners related to HSIN.

Further Definition of the CIKR Information-Sharing Environment

  As follow-up to the original discussion of ISE in section 4.2.3 of
the NIPP, the Program Manager (PM)-ISE formally issued the CIKR ISE
paper in May 2007. The paper describes the core elements of robust
information sharing with the CIKR sectors.

Critical Infrastructure Warning Information Network

  An ISE addition since the 2006 release of the NIPP, CWIN is a
mechanism that facilitates the flow of information, mitigates obstacles
to voluntary information sharing by CIKR owners and operators, and
provides feedback and continuous improvement for structures and
processes.

Evolution From the National Response Plan to the National Response
Framework

  The National Response Framework replaces the former National
Response Plan.

National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center

  The Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007 specifies the
NISAC's current mission to provide ``modeling, simulation, and analysis
of the assets and systems comprising CIKR in order to enhance
preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and mitigation
activities.''

Protective Security Advisor Program

  The key elements of this program and the roles the Protective
Security Advisors play in information sharing and support to security
partners will be described.

Additional Homeland Security Presidential Directives

  HSPD-19 and others will be added in the appendixes and wherever
they are appropriate in the main body of the NIPP.

Issues Regarding Cross-Sector Cyber Security

  The National Cyber Security Division (NCSD) is working closely with
the SSAs and other security partners to integrate cyber security into
the CIKR sectors' protection and preparedness efforts.

Overarching Issues: Protection and Resiliency

  Questions have been raised about the focus of the NIPP on
protection rather than resiliency. The revised NIPP needs to better
describe the complementary relationship of these two concepts.

Role of Private Sector Office

  The role of this office in coordinating with private sector
security partners will be described in greater detail.

DHS Organizational Changes: National Protection and Programs
Directorate

  There have been numerous organizational changes within DHS related
to roles and responsibilities described throughout the NIPP. NPPD
(formerly the Preparedness Directorate) was formed in 2007 to advance
the Department's risk-reduction mission. The components of NPPD
include:
   Office of Cyber Security and Communications (CS&C) has the
mission to assure the security, resiliency, and reliability of the
Nation's cyber and communications infrastructure in collaboration with
the public and private sectors, including international partners.
   Office of Intergovernmental Programs (IGP) has the mission
to promote an integrated national approach to homeland security by
ensuring, coordinating, and advancing Federal interaction with State,
local, tribal, and territorial governments.
   Office of Risk Management and Analysis (RMA) will lead the
Department's efforts to establish a common framework to address the
overall management and analysis of homeland security risk.
   United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
Technology (US-VISIT) is part of a continuum of biometrically-enhanced
security measures that begins outside U.S. borders and continues
through a visitor's arrival in and departure from the United States.
   Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP) leads the
coordinated national effort to reduce risk to our CIKR posed by acts of
terrorism.
  For purposes of review, the NIPP can be found at http://
www.dhs.gov/nipp.

R. James Caverly,
Director, Partnership and Outreach Division, Department of Homeland
Security.
[FR Doc. E8-12671 Filed 6-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-10-P

FCC SEEKS COMMENT ON PROPOSED RULE CHANGES FOR ADVANCED WIRELESS SERVICES (AWS) SPECTRUM IN THE 1.9 AND 2.1 GHz BANDS

2008-06-21T13:12:00.000-07:00

Proposal Would Support Public Access to Free, High-Speed Broadband Internet Services

Washington, D.C. – Today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice) that proposes public access to free, nationwide, high-speed wireless broadband Internet services using a portion of the winning bidder’s network in the 2.1 GHz Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) spectrum. Today’s action builds on the FCC’s efforts to promote the deployment and ubiquitous availability of affordable broadband services for consumers.

The Further Notice specifically seeks comment on proposed rules for the AWS spectrum in the 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands. In 2004, the FCC sought comment on service rules for the 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2175-2180 MHz bands (“AWS-2”), and in 2007, the FCC sought comment on service rules for the 2155-2175 MHz band (“AWS-3”). To supplement the comments received in response to these earlier notices, today’s Further Notice requests comment on specific service rules for these spectrum bands.

Regarding the 2155-2180 MHz band, today’s Further Notice proposes combining the 2155-2175 MHz band with the 2175-2180 MHz band to create a 25 megahertz block of spectrum and a single nationwide license for the 2155-2180 MHz band. This larger block size may allow the AWS-3 licensee to make more robust use of the spectrum while operating at a stricter out-of-band emission limit. Alternatively, another proposed option would be to retain the 2155-2175 MHz AWS-3 block and allow the licensee to operate with a more traditional out-of-band emission limit.

The Further Notice also proposes requiring the licensee for the 2155-2180 MHz spectrum to provide – using up to 25 percent of its wireless network capacity – free, two-way broadband Internet service at engineered data rates of at least 768 kbps downstream. Additional obligations associated with the licensee’s free broadband service would include a requirement to provide a network-based filtering mechanism for the free Internet service in order to protect children and families, and a requirement that the network allow for the use of open devices.

The build-out requirements for the licensee, as proposed today, would be to provide signal coverage and offer service to at least 50 percent of the total U.S. within four years and to at least 95 percent of the U.S. population by the end of the 10-year license term. Today’s Notice also proposes permitting both downlink and uplink transmissions throughout the entire 2155-2180 MHz band.

The Further Notice also proposes service rules for the AWS spectrum in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz (H Block). These proposed rules include licensing the H Block on a Basic Trading Area (BTA) basis for 10-year license terms, and requiring licensees to provide signal coverage and offer service to at least 35 percent of the population in each licensed area within four years and at least 70 percent of the population in each licensed area by the end of the license term. Under the technical rules proposed today, base and fixed transmissions would be prohibited in the 1915-1920 MHz band, and mobile transmissions would be prohibited in the 1995-2000 MHz band.

Action by the Commission on June 20, 2008, by Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 08-158). Chairman Martin and Commissioners Copps, Adelstein, Tate, and McDowell.

For additional information, contact Peter Daronco in the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at (202) 418-7235 or Peter.Daronco@fcc.gov.

WT Docket Nos. 07-195 and 04-356

6/20/08
FCC Seeks Comment on Proposed Rule Changes for Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) Spectrum in the 1.9 and 2.1 GHz Bands.
News Release: Word | Acrobat
FNPRM: Word | Acrobat

– FCC –

News and other information about the Federal Communications Commission
is available at www.fcc.gov.

Operator Who Crammed Unauthorized Charges For Web Site Services Onto Phone Bills Ordered to Pay $4.1 Million Over FTC Charges

2008-06-06T07:06:00.000-07:00

For Release: June 4, 2008

A U.S. district court has ordered a halt to the illegal operations of an defendant who crammed unauthorized charges for Web site services onto the phone bills of hundreds of thousands of small businesses and non-profit organizations. The Federal Trade Commission charged that the operation violated federal law and, following a trial, District Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt ordered the defendant to permanently halt the unlawful practices and give up more than $4.1 million in ill-gotten gains.

In June 2006, the FTC charged a group of interrelated businesses and individual defendants with cramming unauthorized charges onto the phone bills of small businesses and nonprofit organizations for Web site services that, in many cases, they had not requested and did not know they had. The agency alleged that the operators used telemarketers to make cold calls to small businesses and non-profits, and offered a “free”15-day trial of a Web site design. The consumers were told there was no charge or obligation and that the Web site would be cancelled automatically if it was not approved by the consumers. The defendants made “verification recordings” that implied that the consumer agreed to be billed for the offer after the free trial, when they did not. Whether the consumers agreed or not, their phone bills often were charged. When consumers called to dispute the charges, the operators told them they had “verification recordings” of an employee authorizing the charges.

The complaint alleged that the defendants violated federal law by charging consumers’ telephone bills without obtaining their authorization or consent. The FTC also alleged that the defendants violated federal law by deceptively claiming that if a consumer agreed to a free trial Web site, the site would be cancelled automatically unless the consumer agreed to continue it. The court agreed, and at the request of the FTC, a U.S. District Court judge in Houston, Texas, ordered a halt to the unlawful operations, appointed a receiver to oversee the business operations, and froze the defendants’ assets, pending trial. Defendants WebSource Media, L.L.C., WebSource Media, L.P., BizSitePro, L.L.C., Eversites, L.L.C., Telsource Solutions, Inc., Telsource International, Inc., Marc R. Smith, Kathleen A. Smalley, Keith Hendrick, Steven L Kennedy, John O. Ring, and James E. McCubbin, Jr. paid $1.2 million and settled the FTC charges. The decision ends the litigation with defendant Steven L. Kennedy.

The judge’s order bars Kennedy from engaging in the unlawful conduct he participated in to advance the illegal scheme and requires payment of $4.1 million. Specifically, the order bars him from misrepresenting that a free trial will be automatically cancelled if the purchaser does not agree to continue the service; that a verification recording is being made to document the purchaser’s authorization; and that an “authorized purchaser” is obligated to pay any charge, even if the purchaser did not authorize the charges. The order also bars him from billing or receiving money from any authorized purchaser without the “authorized purchaser’s” express, informed consent. Finally, the order prohibits all the defendants from selling, renting, or disclosing in any way the list of their customers.

The Commission vote to file the complaint was 5-0. It was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, click http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/complaint.shtm or call 1-877-382-4357. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,600 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For free information on a variety of consumer topics, click http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm.

MEDIA CONTACT:: Claudia Bourne Farrell,
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2181
STAFF CONTACT:: James E. Elliott,
Southwest Region
214-979-9373

(Civil Action No. H-06-1980)
(websource kennedy)

FTC Approves New Rule Provision Under The CAN-SPAM Act

2008-05-13T06:14:00.000-07:00

For Release: May 12, 2008 FTC Approves New Rule Provision Under The CAN-SPAM Act

The Federal Trade Commission has approved four new rule provisions under the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (CAN-SPAM or the Act). The provisions are intended to clarify the Act’s requirements. The provisions and the Commission’s Statement of Basis and Purpose (SBP) will be published in the Federal Register shortly.

The new rule provisions address four topics: (1) an e-mail recipient cannot be required to pay a fee, provide information other than his or her e-mail address and opt-out preferences, or take any steps other than sending a reply e-mail message or visiting a single Internet Web page to opt out of receiving future e-mail from a sender; (2) the definition of “sender” was modified to make it easier to determine which of multiple parties advertising in a single e-mail message is responsible for complying with the Act’s opt-out requirements; (3) a “sender” of commercial e-mail can include an accurately-registered post office box or private mailbox established under United States Postal Service regulations to satisfy the Act’s requirement that a commercial e-mail display a “valid physical postal address”; and (4) a definition of the term “person” was added to clarify that CAN-SPAM’s obligations are not limited to natural persons.

In addition, the SBP accompanying the final rule also addresses a number of topics that are not the subject of any new rule provisions. These include: CAN-SPAM’s definition of “transactional or relationship message”; the Commission’s decision not to alter the length of time a “sender” of commercial e-mail has to honor an opt-out request; the Commission’s determination not to designate additional “aggravated violations” under the Act; and the Commission’s views on how CAN-SPAM applies to forward-to-a-“friend” e-mail marketing campaigns, in which someone either receives a commercial e-mail message and forwards the e-mail to another person, or uses a Web-based mechanism to forward a link to or copy of a Web page to another person. The SBP explains that, as a general matter, if the seller offers something of value in exchange for forwarding a commercial message, the seller must comply with the Act’s requirements, such as honoring opt-out requests.

The new rule provisions and SBP are a follow-up to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on these and other CAN-SPAM topics that the Commission published on May 12, 2005 and March 11, 2004, respectively. The Commission received 152 comments and suggestions on the NPRM and 13,517 comments and suggestions on the ANPR from representatives of a broad spectrum of the online commerce industry, trade associations, individual consumers, and consumer and privacy advocates. The new rule provisions and SBP are based on these comments and suggestions as well as the Commission’s law enforcement experience.

The Commission vote to approve the Federal Register Notice was 4-0.

Copies of the Federal Register Notice are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints), or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form at http://www.ftc.gov. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.

MEDIA CONTACT:

Claudia Bourne Farrell,
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2181

STAFF CONTACT:

Janis Kestenbaum,
Bureau of Consumer Protection
202-326-2798

FTC Halts Illegal Spam Operation; Adult Site Violated CAN-SPAM Act

2008-05-09T09:19:00.000-07:00

The Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice have halted the illegal conduct of an adult Web site that sent spam with false or misleading header information, that failed to include an opt-out mechanism, and that failed to include a valid postal address, all in violation of federal law. A final court order will bar violations of the CAN-SPAM Act in the future, require the defendants to establish an effective monitoring program for their affiliates, and impose a $75,000 civil penalty.

According to the FTC, since at least January 2006 the defendants have used affiliates who sent spam intended to drive users to the defendants’ adult Web sites, including sexyfriendsearch.com, an Internet dating service where they collect payment for memberships. The affiliates, who are paid commissions for referrals who sign up as members, send spam with lurid subject lines that contains hyperlinks to the defendants’ Web sites.

The FTC alleges the e-mails contain false header information so it is difficult or impossible to determine the identity of the sender. In addition, the e-mails fail to provide clear and conspicuous notification that consumers can opt-out of receiving future e-mails. Finally, the e-mails fail to include a valid physical postal address of the sender. The CAN-SPAM Act requires that commercial e-mail contain accurate header information, an opt-out mechanism to allow consumers to stop receiving messages they are not interested in, and a valid physical postal address. The agency alleged the defendants violated the law.

The settlement bars future violations of the CAN-SPAM Act and requires the defendants to establish a monitoring program to assure that their affiliates comply with the law. Based on the defendants’ inability to pay, a judgment of $442,900 – the amount the defendants made from the illegal spam – will be suspended upon payment of a $75,000 civil penalty. Should the court find that the defendants misrepresented their financial status, the entire amount will be due. Finally, the settlement contains record keeping requirements to allow the FTC to monitor compliance.

The defendants named in the case are ATM Global Systems, Inc. and it principals, Mark Richman and Nathaniel Seidman.

The Commission vote to approve the settlements was 5-0.

The stipulated final judgment and order was filed on May 2, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by the DOJ at the request of the FTC.

Commerce Committee Announces Witnesses for Future of the Internet Hearing

2008-04-18T18:26:00.000-07:00

For Immediate Release
04/18/08

Contact:

Rob Blumenthal w/Inouye 202-224-8374
Jenilee Keefe w/Inouye 202-224-7824

Commerce Committee Announces Witnesses for Future of the Internet Hearing

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation today announced the witnesses for the upcoming Full Committee hearing on The Future of the Internet. The witnesses are listed below.

The hearing will focus on developing applications, consumer expectations, and network operation.

The Future of the Internet
Full Committee
Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Location: Room 253, Russell Senate Office Building

Witnesses:
Ms. Justine Bateman, Actress / Writer / Producer

Ms. Michele Combs, Vice-President of Communications, Christian Coalition of America

Professor Lawrence Lessig, Stanford Law School

Mr. Kyle McSlarrow, President & CEO, National Cable & Telecommunications Association

Mr. Patric Verrone, President, Writers Guild of America, West

Dr. Robert Hahn, Executive Director, Center for Regulatory and Market Studies, American Enterprise Institute

###

Learn and Serve America Higher Education College Student Social Media Initiative FY 2008

2008-04-10T17:19:00.000-07:00

Notices of Funds Availability / Notices of Funding Opportunities

Learn and Serve America Higher Education College Student Social Media Initiative FY 2008

End Date: 5/7/2008
CFDA # 94.005

Contact:

Learn and Serve America
lsahighered@cns.gov
202-606-7510

The Corporation for National and Community Service (the Corporation) announces the availability of approximately $2.3 million of grant funding to support the facilitation of better engagement of college students in service through social media.

Some examples of social media include: social networking (i.e. Facebook, MySpace, Ning, or integrating social networking capacity into existing sites), wikis, podcasts, blogs, RSS feeds, mashups, social bookmarking, widgets, etc. Successful applicants must demonstrate how their program can use these tools to engage increased numbers of college students, especially in partnership with other nonprofit or for-profit entities.

The Corporation will make one-time awards of approximately $100,000 to $750,000 to an estimated twelve eligible applicants for a project period of up to three years. While all applicants can build in funds for subgrants as part of their program model, the Corporation expects to fund at least one partnership dedicated primarily to disbursing small subgrants (under $10,000 each) to seed student-driven projects. This awardee must promote, review, and award subgrants using social media. Under this model, it is expected that the grantee will allocate at least 80% of funding for subgrants.

Eligible applicants include higher education partnerships, defined as one or more public or private nonprofit organizations, or public agencies, including States, and one or more institutions of higher education. Thus, all partnerships must include at least one institution of higher education. Examples of such partnerships include: a national service-focused organization and colleges and universities where it has affiliated chapters; a national non-profit partnering with a Business School to run a national subgranting competition; a regional group of non-profit student organizations working with an institution of higher education which would serve as the legal applicant. Applicants should have demonstrable experience in planning and implementing significant service, volunteering or technology programs.

FCC Announces Further Details of Second Public En Banc Hearing on Broadband Network Management Practices at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California

2008-04-07T17:25:00.000-07:00

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today announced further details on a public En Banc hearing to be hosted by Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society (CIS) at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California on Thursday, April 17, 2008.

The hearing information is as follows:

Date: April 17, 2008

Time: 12:00 Noon (Pacific)

Location: Dinkelspiel Auditorium

471 Lagunita Drive

Stanford University

Palo Alto, California

Maps/Directions: http://campus-map.stanford.edu/index.cfm?ID=02-200

http://music.stanford.edu/Events/directions.html

AGENDA

12:00 p.m. Welcome/Opening Remarks

12:45 p.m. Panel Discussion 1 – Network Management and Consumer Expectations

2:15 p.m. Break

3:00 p.m. Panel Discussion 2 – Consumer Access to Emerging Internet Technologies and Applications

4:30 p.m. Public Comment

6:30 p.m. Closing Remarks

7:00 p.m. Adjournment

The Commission will hear from expert panelists regarding broadband network management practices and Internet-related issues. The hearing scheduled at Stanford University is the second such hearing on broadband network management practices and Internet-related issues to be held by the FCC and follows a similar hearing held at Harvard Law School last month (for more information: http://www.fcc.gov/headlines.html - go to February 25, 2008 headline: ‘FCC En Banc Hearing on Broadband Network Management Practices, Cambridge, Massachusetts’). The hearing at Stanford University is open to the public, and seating will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. Additional details on this hearing will be forthcoming.

The public may file comments or other documents with the Commission and should reference docket numbers 07-52 and 08-7 when filing by paper or submit your filing electronically by going to http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi and enter proceeding numbers 07-52 and 08-7. Electronic filers need to complete cover forms separately for each docket because the system accepts only one docket number per filing. Filing instructions are provided at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.

Sign language interpreters and open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Include a description of the accommodation needed, and include a way we can contact you if we need more information. Please make your request as early as possible. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. You may send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (Voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

For additional information about the hearing, please visit the FCC’s website at http://www.fcc.gov. Press inquiries should be directed to Robert Kenny at 202-418-2668 or Clyde Ensslin at 202-418-0506.

-FCC-

News and other information about the Federal Communications Commission
is available at www.fcc.gov

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: NEWS MEDIA CONTACTS: April 3, 2008 Robert Kenny at 202-418-2668 Clyde Ensslin at 202-418-0506

Reported Dollar Loss From Internet Crime Reaches All Time High

2008-04-07T17:11:00.000-07:00

For Immediate Release April 3, 2008 Washington, D.C. — According to the 2007 Internet Crime Report, the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) received 206,884 complaints of crimes perpetrated over the Internet during 2007. Of the complaints received, more than 90,000 were referred to law enforcement around the nation, amounting to nearly $240 million in reported losses. This represents a $40 million increase in reported losses from complaints referred to law enforcement in 2006. All complaints received by IC3 are accessible to federal, state, and local law enforcement to support active investigations, trend analysis, and public outreach and awareness efforts.

“The Internet presents a wealth of opportunity for would be criminals to prey on unsuspecting victims, and this report shows how extensive these types of crime have become,” said FBI Cyber Division Assistant Director James E. Finch. “What this report does not show is how often this type of activity goes unreported. Filing a complaint through IC3 is the best way to alert law enforcement authorities of Internet crime.”

Although Internet auction fraud was the most widely reported complaint, others cited in the report include fraudulent activity such as non-delivery of purchases and credit/debit card fraud, and non-fraudulent activity such as computer intrusions, spam/unsolicited e-mail, and child pornography. In an effort to raise public awareness, the report also describes the characteristics of commonly reported scams such as those involving the purchase or sale of pets, check scams, e-mail spam, and online dating fraud.

IC3 is a joint operation between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National White Collar Crime Center to serve as a vehicle to receive cyber crime complaints from private citizens and industry, and to develop and refer complaints to law enforcement. The National White Collar Crime Center, a Bureau of Justice Assistance program, provides a nationwide support system for agencies involved in the prevention, investigation, and prosecution of economic and high-tech crimes, and supports and partners with other appropriate entities in addressing homeland security initiatives related to economic and high-tech crimes. More information about the National White Collar Crime Center is available at www.nw3c.org.

The 2007 Internet Crime Complaint Report is available at www.ic3.gov/media/annualreports.aspx. To receive the latest information about the FBI, visit www.fbi.gov to sign up for e-mail alerts.

Contact: Cathy Milhoan
FBI National Press Office
(202)324-3691
catherine.milhoan@ic.fbi.gov
www.fbi.gov

Contact: Craig Butterworth
National White Collar Crime Center
(804)273-6932 ext. 355
cbutterworth@nw3c.org
www.nw3c.org

FCC Releases Data On High-Speed Services For Internet Access: High-Speed Connections to the Internet Increased by 22% in the First Half of 2007

2008-03-21T15:10:00.001-07:00

Press Release Washington, D.C. – The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today released new data on high-speed connections to the Internet in the

United States

. Twice a year, all facilities-based broadband providers are required to report to the Commission basic information about their service offerings and types of customers pursuant to the FCC’s local telephone competition and broadband data gathering program (FCC Form 477). Statistics released today reflect data as of June 30, 2007.

For reporting purposes, high-speed lines are connections that deliver services at speeds exceeding 200 kilobits per second (kbps) in at least one direction, while advanced services lines are connections that deliver services at speeds exceeding 200 kbps in both directions.[1] High-speed lines encompass advanced services lines. Commencing with the June 2005 data, we collect and report more detailed information about the speeds of in-service lines, provide finer distinctions among technologies, and collect and analyze information about the availability of high-speed Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) connections from incumbent local exchange carriers (incumbent LECs) and high-speed cable modem service from cable TV system operators. Also commencing with the June 2005 data, providers with fewer than 250 high-speed connections in service to end users in a particular state are no longer excused from reporting data for that state.

1) High-Speed Lines

· High-speed lines increased by 22% during the first half of 2007, from 82.8 million to 100.9 million lines in service, following a 27% increase, from 65.3 million to 82.8 million lines, during the second half of 2006. For the full twelve-month period ending June 30, 2007, high-speed lines increased by 55% from 65.3 million to 100.9 million (or 35.7 million lines) compared to a 54% increase, from 42.5 million to 65.3 million lines (or 22.8 million lines), in the twelve-month period ending June 30, 2006.

· Of the 100.9 million total high-speed lines reported as of June 30, 2007, 65.9 million served primarily residential end users. Cable modem service represented 50.6% of these lines while 37.5% were asymmetric DSL (ADSL) connections, 0.2% were symmetric DSL (SDSL) or traditional wireline connections, 1.7% were fiber connections to the end user premises, and 10.0% used other types of technology including satellite, terrestrial fixed or mobile wireless (on a licensed or unlicensed basis), and electric power line.

· High-speed ADSL increased by 2.1 million lines during the first half of 2007, fiber connections increased by 0.4 million lines, and cable modem service increased by 2.4 million lines. For the full twelve-month period ending June 30, 2007, ADSL increased by 4.9 million lines, fiber connections increased by 0.7 million lines, and cable modem service increased by 5.2 million lines.

2) Advanced Services Lines

· Advanced services lines, which deliver services at speeds exceeding 200 kbps in both directions, increased by 16% during the first half of 2007, from 59.8 million to 69.6 million lines, compared to a 17% increase, from 51.1 million to 59.8 million lines, during the second half of 2006. For the full twelve-month period ending June 30, 2007, advanced services lines increased 36% from 51.1 million to 69.6 million (or 18.5 million lines).

· Of the 69.6 million advanced services lines reported as of June 30, 2007, 59.8% were at least 2.5 mbps in the faster direction and 40.2% were slower than 2.5 mbps in the faster direction.

· Of the 69.6 million advanced services lines, 61.1 million served primarily residential end users. Cable modem service represented 53.9% of these lines while 34.1% were ADSL connections, 0.2% were SDSL or traditional wireline connections, 1.9% were fiber connections to the end user premises, and 10.0% used other types of technology including satellite, terrestrial fixed or mobile wireless (on a licensed or unlicensed basis), and electric power line.

3) Geographic Coverage

· As a nationwide average, we estimate that high-speed DSL connections were available to 82% of the households to whom incumbent LECs could provide local telephone service as of June 30, 2007, and that high-speed cable modem service was available to 96% of the households to whom cable system operators could provide cable TV service.

· Providers list the Zip Codes in which they have at least one high-speed connection in service to an end user, and over 99% of Zip Codes were listed by at least one provider. Our analysis indicates that more than 99% of the nation’s population lives in those Zip Codes. The most widely reported technologies by this measure were high-speed mobile wireless (with at least some presence reported in 96% of Zip Codes), satellite (in 92% of Zip Codes), ADSL (in 85% of Zip Codes), and cable modem service (in 66% of Zip Codes). ADSL and/or cable modem connections were reported to be present in 90% of Zip Codes.

The summary statistics released today also include state-by-state information, and population density and household income information ranked by Zip Codes. As additional information becomes available, it will be posted on the Commission’s Internet site.

The report is available for reference in the FCC’s Reference Information Center, Courtyard Level, 445 12^th Street, SW, Washington, DC. Copies may be purchased by calling Best Copy and Printing, Inc. at (800) 378-3160. The report can also be downloaded from the Wireline Competition Bureau Statistical Reports Internet site at www.fcc.gov/wcb/stats.

- FCC -

Wireline Competition Bureau contacts: James Eisner and Suzanne Mendez at (202) 418-0940, TTY (202) 418-0484.

[1] The Commission is considering in its ongoing inquiries on broadband data and deployment whether to maintain the 200 kbps standard. See, e.g., Federal Communications Commission, FCC Begins Inquiries on Broadband Data and Deployment, News Release (Apr. 16, 2007), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272365A1.pdf.

FCC Announces Second Public En Banc Hearing On Broadband Network Management Practices At Stanford University, Palo Alto, California

2008-03-21T15:08:00.000-07:00

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today announced a public En Banc hearing to be held at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California on Thursday, April 17, 2008. The hearing location is as follows:

Location:

Stanford University Campus

Palo Alto, California

Maps/Directions:

http://www.stanford.edu/home/visitors/maps/index.html

The public may file comments or other documents with the Commission and should reference docket numbers 07-52 and 08-7 when filing by paper or submit your filing electronically by going to http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi and enter proceeding numbers 07-52 and 08-7. Filing instructions are provided at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.

FCC Announces Change of Date and Time for Public En Banc Hearing in Cambridge, Massachusetts on Broadband Network Management Practices

2008-02-15T19:16:00.000-08:00

The Federal Communications Commission today announced further details regarding a public en banc hearing to be held in Cambridge, Massachusetts on Monday, February 25, 2008. Please note that the date and time have been modified from the previous announcement.

The hearing time and location are as follows:

Date: Monday, February 25, 2008

Time: 11:00 a.m. (Eastern Standard Time)

Location: Harvard Law School

Ames Courtroom, Austin Hall

1515 Massachusetts Avenue

Cambridge, MA 02138

Directions: http://www.law.harvard.edu/about/contact/directions.php

The Commission will hear from expert panelists regarding broadband network management practices. The hearing is open to the public, and seating will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.

The public may file comments or other documents with the Commission and should reference docket numbers 07-52 and 08-7 when filing by paper or submit your filing electronically by going to http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi and enter proceeding numbers 07-52 and 08-7. Filing instructions are provided at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.

. . . . .

For additional information about the hearing, please visit the FCC’s website at http://www.fcc.gov. Press inquiries should be directed to Clyde Ensslin at 202-418-0506 or Robert Kenny at 202-418-2668.

-FCC-

2/15/08
FCC Changes Date to February 25, 2008 for Public En Banc Hearing in Cambridge, Mass. on Broadband Network Management Practices.
Public Notice: Word | Acrobat

FCC Announces Public En Banc Hearing in Cambridge, Massachusetts on Broadband Network Management Practices

2008-02-12T16:40:00.000-08:00

For Immediate Release: News Media Contacts: February 12, 2008 Clyde Ensslin at 202-418-0506 Robert Kenny at 202-418-2668

The Federal Communications Commission today announced a public en banc hearing to be held in Cambridge, Massachusetts on Tuesday, February 26, 2008.

The hearing time and location are as follows:

Time:

Location:

10:00 a.m. (Eastern Standard Time)

Harvard Law School Ames Courtroom, Austin Hall 1515 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138

Directions:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/about/contact/directions.php

The Commission will hear from expert panelists regarding broadband network management practices. The hearing is open to the public, and seating will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.

The public may file comments or other documents with the Commission and should reference docket numbers 07-52 and 08-7 when filing by paper or submit your filing electronically by going to http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi and enter proceeding numbers 07-52 and 08-7. Filing instructions are provided at http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/comments.html.

. . . . .

-FCC-

Public Meeting to Discuss the USG IPv6 Testing Program

2008-02-05T19:13:00.000-08:00

Notice: DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Announcement of a Public Meeting to Discuss the USG IPv6 Testing Program

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) invites interested parties, including accreditors, testing laboratories and test equipment suppliers, to attend a meeting regarding the conformity assessment scheme proposed for the evaluation of Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) products to be purchased by federal agencies. The purpose of the meeting is to announce details of the proposed testing program for IPv6 devices, and specifically, to identify potential accreditation bodies to participate in the program.

In June 2005 the Office of Management and Budget initiated a policy to expedite adoption and deployment of IPv6 within the Federal Government (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2005/m05-22.pdf). As part of this policy, NIST was directed to develop a standard to address IPv6 compliance for the Federal Government. In response, NIST has developed NIST SP 500-267 "A Profile for IPv6 in the U.S. Government" that provides such a standard and outlines the basic parameters for a compliance testing program. (see: http://www.antd.nist.gov/usgv6/)

The USG IPv6 Testing Program will require that products document claims of compliance to the profile through a Supplier's Declaration of Conformity (SDOC) in accordance with ISO/IEC 17050. Such declarations will be traceable to specific test results from laboratories accredited to the specific requirements of the IPv6 Test Program, including full compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. Laboratory accreditation will be provided by bodies operating in accordance with ISO/IEC 17011 - General requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies. The scope of laboratory accreditation includes test methods for computer network protocol conformance and interoperability testing based on open public test suites. The detailed set of test methods and validation procedures are still under development. One purpose of this meeting is to discuss the general plans for the development and execution of the test program and to identify parties interested in collaborating in the further development of its details.

PROVISIONAL AGENDA:

1. The USG IPv6 profile, its components and timing constraints.
2. Accreditor qualification.
3. Test method validation.
4. Suppliers Declaration of Conformity.
5. Discussion.

DATES: The workshop will be held on February 19, 2008, from 9am till 5pm.

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, Building 101, Lecture Room B.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: usgv6-project@antd.nist.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All intending participants must register in advance, to gain access to the campus. Due to space limitations, there is a limit of 60 participants in this workshop. Precedence will be given to the first two representatives of each accreditation body and IPv6 testing laboratory. Please register early and designate your primary representative, in case there is a further need, due to a high response rate, to limit participation to one representative per organization to ensure that all interested parties can participate. Access to the NIST campus and the room cannot be guaranteed for unregistered participants.

Revised NIST IPv6 Profile Released for Comment

2008-02-05T19:07:00.000-08:00

Notice: The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released a second draft of a proposed standards profile to support the implementation of Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) by government agencies. IPv6 is the next-generation communication standard that defines how text, voice and video will move across the future Internet. IPv6 allows for substantially more “addresses” to identify each Internet-connected device in order to handle the ballooning number of computer devices in use.

NIST developed the “profile” to help ensure that IPv6-enabled federal information systems are interoperable, secure and able to co-exist with the current IPv4 systems. An initial draft of the NIST profile was released for comment one year ago (see “NIST Issues Draft IPv6 Technical Profile”).

The second draft of A Profile for IPv6 in the U.S. Government – Version 1.0 develops a long-term strategy for 2010 and beyond. It incorporates the feedback from meetings with industry and government groups and input including more than 500 comments. The profile recommends technical standards for common network devices, such as hosts, routers, firewalls and intrusion detection systems. It also outlines the compliance and testing programs that NIST will be establishing to ensure that IPv6-enabled federal information systems are interoperable and secure, and that they work with existing IPv4 systems.

NIST is calling for comments on the draft report by Feb. 29. For more information on the profile and to contribute comments, go to www.antd.nist.gov/usgv6.

On Feb. 19, NIST will hold a meeting at its Gaithersburg campus to discuss a program that it is developing that will test compliance with its IPv6 profile. For more information on the meeting, or to register, go to www.antd.nist.gov/usgv6/call_for_accreditors.html.

FTC to Host Town Hall Meeting to Explore the Mobile Marketplace

2008-02-05T19:02:00.000-08:00

For Release: February 4, 2008 The Federal Trade Commission will host a two-day Town Hall meeting to explore the evolving mobile commerce (M-commerce) marketplace and its implications for consumer protection policy. The Town Hall, titled “Beyond Voice: Mapping the Mobile Marketplace,” follows up on the FTC’s November 2006 forum, “Protecting Consumers in the Next Tech-Ade,” which examined the key technological and business developments that will shape consumers’ core experiences in the coming decade. The Town Hall, which is free and open to the public, will be held May 6-7, 2008, at the FTC Conference Center, 601 New Jersey Avenue N.W., Washington, DC, 20001.

Wireless devices, once associated only with voice telephone service, have become the launching pads for new technologies and services. People use their wireless devices to “chat” through text messaging, take pictures, browse the Web, listen to music, view shows, play games across cyberspace, and keep track of friends and relatives. Wireless devices also connect consumers with advertisers and marketers in myriad ways.

The Town Hall will explore consumer protection issues arising in the rapidly expanding world of M-commerce. Topics will include:

The use of mobile-messaging services as instruments of M-commerce;
Consumers’ ability to control mobile applications;
The adaptation of advertising to mobile devices, including the challenges presented by small screen disclosures;
M-commerce practices targeting children and teens;
Industry best practices in preventing fraud, disclosing costs, and resolving billing disputes;
Evolving security threats and solutions; and
Next-generation products and services.

The Commission invites interested parties to submit requests to be panelists and to recommend other topics for discussion. The requests should be submitted electronically to beyondvoice@ftc.gov by February 27, 2008. The Commission asks interested parties to include a statement detailing their expertise on the issues to be addressed at the Town Hall and complete contact information. The Commission will select panelists based on expertise and the need to represent a range of views. Panelists selected to participate will be notified by March 26, 2008.

Interested parties may submit written comments or original research until March 17, 2008. Comments should refer to “Beyond Voice – Comment, Project No. P074403.” To file electronically, follow the instructions and fill out the form at https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-beyondvoice. Paper comments should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex A), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Comments containing confidential material, however, must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c). The FTC is requesting that any paper comments be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because postal mail in the Washington area and the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions.

There is no pre-registration, but a government-issued photo ID is needed for admittance to the Town Hall. Members of the public and press who wish to participate but who cannot attend can view a live Webcast on the FTC’s Web site.

Reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via e-mail to cmcglothlin@ftc.gov or by calling Carrie McGlothlin at 202-326-3388. Requests should be made in advance, include a detailed description of the accommodation needed and provide contact information.

More information about the Town Hall and the topic can be found at the URL: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/mobilemarket/index.shtml.

MEDIA CONTACT:

Claudia Bourne Farrell
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2181

STAFF CONTACT:

Ruth Yodaiken
Bureau of Consumer Protection
202-326-2127

Request For Clarification That Internet Protocol Speech To Speech Service Is A Form Of Telecommunications Relay Service Compensable From The Interstat

2008-02-05T18:56:00.000-08:00

DA 08-292 Released: February 4, 2008 On December 21, 2007, Hawk Relay, LLC (Hawk Relay) filed a request for clarification that Internet Protocol Speech-to-Speech Relay Service (IP STS) is a form of Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS)[1] eligible for compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund.[2] In its Request, Hawk Relay describes IP STS as a type of Speech-to-Speech service (STS) that uses the Internet, rather than a traditional telephone line, to connect the consumer to the relay provider. STS enables persons with a speech disability to make telephone calls using their own voice through relay centers with specially trained communications assistants who re-voice to the calling party what the STS user says.[3]

The Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau hereby seeks comment on the Request. In addition, assuming that IP STS qualifies as a TRS under section 225(a)(3) of the Communications Act of 1934,[4] we seek comment on the jurisdictional separation of costs,[5] the applicability of the TRS mandatory minimum standards,[6] and on any other issues relevant to the provision of IP STS.

Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments in this proceeding 30 days after publication in Federal Register and reply comments may be filed 45 days after publication in Federal Register. When filing comments, please reference CG Docket No. 08-15.[7] Comments may be filed using: (1) the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24,121 (1998). Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comment to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message, "get form." A sample form and directions will be sent in reply.

. . . . .

For further information, please contact Gregory Hlibok, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, at (800) 311-4381 (voice), (202) 418-0431 (TTY), or e-mail at Gregory.Hlibok@fcc.gov.

CG DOCKET NO. 08-15 PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED

Comments Due: 30 days after publication in the Federal Register

Reply Comments Due: 45 days after publication in the Federal Register

-FCC-

Released: 02/04/2008. CONSUMER & GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS BUREAU SEEKS

COMMENT ON REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION THAT INTERNET PROTOCOL SPEECH TO

SPEECH SERVICE IS A FORM OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS RELAY SERVICE

 COMPENSABLE

FROM THE INTERSTATE TRS FUND. (DA No.  08-292). (Dkt No 08-15).  CGB.

Contact:  Gregory Hlibok at (800) 311-4381 (voice), email:

Gregory.Hlibok@fcc.gov, TTY: (202) 418-0431

<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-292A1.doc>

<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-292A1.pdf>

<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-292A1.txt>

[1] See generally 47 U.S.C. § 225; 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.601 et seq.

[2] See Hawk Relay, Request for Expedited Clarification for the Provision and Cost Recovery of Internet Protocol Speech to Speech Relay Service, CG Docket No. 03-123, filed December 19, 2007 (Request).

[3] See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.601(12) (defining STS).

[4] 47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3).

[5] See 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(3) (setting forth jurisdictional separation of costs requirement); see also Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Speech and Hearing Disabilities, CC Docket 98–67, Declaratory Ruling, 18 FCC Rcd 16121 at 16128–30, paras. 18–23 (August 1, 2003) (discussing jurisdictional separation of costs issues for interstate and intrastate TRS).

[6] See 47 C.F.R. § 64.604.

[7] This Public Notice is being released under a new docket number, CG Docket No. 08-15, which shall include all STS matters (including IP STS). CG Docket No. 03-123 will remain open for the ongoing filing of documents in proceedings under that docket number. This new docket number is established to further administrative efficiency.

DOC Gutierrez Hails Dramatic U.S. Broadband Growth

2008-01-31T18:03:00.000-08:00

For Immediate Release: January 31, 2008 Contact: Richard Mills 202-482-4883, Todd Sedmak 202-482-7002

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) today released the report, “Networked Nation: Broadband in America, 2007,” that highlights the dramatic growth of broadband in the United States. The report shows that the Administration’s technology, regulatory and fiscal policies have stimulated innovation and competition, and encouraged investment in the U.S. broadband market contributing to significantly increased accessibility of broadband services.

“Today’s report shows the nation’s broadband success story. The President’s policies have made a significant impact on the availability and affordability of broadband in the United States,” said U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez. “The broadband policies put in place by the President have created a competitive environment to foster innovation and provide effective technologies, services and cost-effective solutions to revolutionize health care delivery, education, society and the economy. We look forward to continuing our progress on this issue.”

Four years ago, President Bush established a national goal of universal, affordable broadband access for all Americans. Since then, the United States has witnessed remarkable results in the growth of the broadband marketplace and the proliferation of broadband platforms and service options. The existing data indicate that broadband is available to the vast majority of U.S. households:

According to the FCC’s 2006 data, broadband service was available in 99 percent of the nation’s zip codes, encompassing 99 percent of the nation’s population;
Since President Bush took office, the total number of broadband lines in the United States has grown by more than 1,100 percent from almost 6.8 million lines in December 2000, to 82.5 million in December 2006, according to the most recent FCC data.
By December 2006, 91.5 percent of ZIP codes had three or more competing service providers and more than 50 percent of the nation’s ZIP codes had six or more competitors.

The report examines the comprehensive package of technology, regulatory, and fiscal polices implemented by the Administration to lower barriers to investment and create an environment in which broadband innovation and competition can flourish.

For example:

In the technology area, significant amounts of new radio spectrum are now available for advanced wireless services, creating opportunities for new licensed and unlicensed broadband services. Also, new technologies such as Wi-Fi hotspots and broadband over power lines (BPL) have been fostered.
In the regulatory arena, new broadband infrastructure was freed from unnecessary legacy rules to level the playing field among competitive platforms and promote investment.
In the fiscal area, the Administration led the preservation of the Internet tax moratorium and reforms for the depreciation of assets in order to reduce tax burdens and increase the flow of capital into the broadband sector.

Collectively, these actions have produced real, measurable benefits in the marketplace in the form of robust, multi-modal competition that did not previously exist. Providers across a range of platforms (cable, fiber optic, satellite, fixed and mobile wireless, etc.) are introducing new and innovative service offerings on a regular basis. Competition in the broadband marketplace is intense and growing, and this competition is helping to drive down prices and increase the quality and variety of services for consumers. With the dramatic increase in broadband availability over the past few years, consumers now have a myriad of choices.

For a copy of the report, go to www.ntia.doc.gov.

NTIA is responsible for the development of the domestic and international telecommunications policy of the Executive Branch.

###

NTIA ICANN Meeting

2008-01-28T19:25:00.001-08:00

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

The Continued Transition of the Technical Coordination and Management of the Internet Domain Name and Addressing System: Midterm Review of the Joint Project Agreement

AGENCY: National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Department of Commerce (DOC)

ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting

SUMMARY: The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), U.S.Department of Commerce (Department), will hold a public meeting on February 28, 2008, to discuss the mid-term review of the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) between the Department and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

DATES: The meeting will be held on February 28, 2008, from 9:00 a.m. to
12:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time. Registration will start at 8:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Auditorium at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. (Please enter at the main entrance on 14th Street). The handicapped accessible entrance is located at the 14th Street Aquarium Entrance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding the meeting, contact Ashley Heineman, Telecommunications Policy Specialist, at (202) 482–0298 or aheineman@ntia.doc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NTIA and ICANN entered into the JPA on September 29, 2006. (The text of the agreement is available on NTIA’s website at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ ntiahome/domainname/agreements/jpa/
ICANNJPA_09292006.doc.) The JPA provides for the Department to conduct a midterm review of progress achieved on each ICANN activity and responsibility contained in the JPA and envisions consultation with interested stakeholders. To that end, on November 2, 2007, NTIA published a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) seeking comments on ICANN’s progress towards achieving the responsibilities identified in the JPA. 72 Fed. Reg. 62220 (Nov. 2, 2007). (The text of the NOI is available on NTIA’s website at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/jpamidtermreview.html.)

On February 28, 2008, NTIA will hold a public meeting to discuss comments received in response to the NOI and other stakeholder views and to facilitate further public discussion on the progress ICANN has made in fulfilling its responsibilities contained in the JPA. The agenda for the public meeting will be posted on NTIA’s website at least one week prior to the meeting. This meeting will be webcast. The agenda and webcast information will be available on NTIA’s website at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/jpamidtermreview.html.

The meeting will be open to members of the public on a first-come, first-served basis. The meeting will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring special services, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, should communicate their needs to Ashley Heineman at least two (2) days prior to the meeting.

Due to security requirements and to facilitate entry to the Department of Commerce building, anyone wishing to attend must contact Ashley Heineman at (202) 482–0298 or aheineman@ntia.doc.gov at least five (5) days prior to the meeting in order to provide the necessary clearance information. Attendees should arrive at least one-half hour prior to the start of the meeting and must present a valid passport or other photo identification up their arrival. Members of the public will have an opportunity to ask questions at the meeting.

Dated: January 18, 2008.

Kathy D. Smith, Chief Counsel, National Telecommunications and Information Administration.

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment On Petition For Declaratory Ruling That Text Messages And Short Codes Are Title Ii Services Or Are Ti

2008-01-15T15:36:00.000-08:00

WT Docket No. 08-7 DA 08-78 January 14, 2008
Comments Due: February 13, 2008 Reply Comments Due: March 14, 2008

On December 11, 2007, Public Knowledge, Free Press, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, EDUCAUSE, Media Access Project, New America Foundation, and U.S. PIRG (Petitioners) filed a joint petition for declaratory ruling (Petition).[1] The Petitioners ask the Commission to clarify the regulatory status of text messaging services, including short-code based services sent from and received by mobile phones, and declare that these services are governed by the anti-discrimination provisions of Title II of the Communications Act.[2] The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau seeks comment on the Petition.

The Petitioners assert that text messaging is “rapidly becoming a major mode of speech, as a replacement for and a complement to traditional voice communications,” and that “short codes are developing into an important tool for political and social outreach.”[3] The Petitioners allege that mobile carriers “arbitrarily decide what customers to serve and which speech to allow in text messages, refusing to serve those that they find controversial or that compete with the mobile carriers’ services.”[4] In their Petition, the Petitioners request that the Commission declare that text messaging services are “commercial mobile services” governed by Title II, and thus are subject to the non-discrimination provisions of Section 202. Alternatively, the Petitioners request that, if the Commission declares that these services are “information services” subject to its Title I authority, the Commission should exercise ancillary jurisdiction to apply the non-discrimination provisions of Title II to text messaging services. Petitioners also request that, in either case, the Commission should declare that refusing to provision a short code or otherwise blocking text messages because of the type of speech, or because the party seeking such service is a competitor, is “unjust and unreasonable discrimination” in violation of law.[5]

This Public Notice establishes certain procedural requirements relating to consideration of the Petition. This matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200, 1.1206. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b). Other requirements pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b).

Interested parties may file comments on or before February 13, 2008, and reply comments on or before March 14, 2008. All filings should refer to WT Docket No. 08-7. Comments may be filed using: (1) the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

§ Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments.

§ For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response.

. . . . .

For further information regarding this proceeding, contact Jennifer Salhus, Spectrum and Competition Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 202-418-1310.

- FCC –

Released: 01/14/2008. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU SEEKS COMMENT ON PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING THAT TEXT MESSAGES AND SHORT CODES ARE TITLE II SERVICES OR ARE TITLE I SERVICES SUBJECT TO SECTION 202 NON-DISCRIMINATION RULES. (DA No. 08-78). (Dkt No 08-7). Comments Due: 02/13/2008. Reply Comments Due: 03/14/2008. WTB. Contact: Jennifer Salhus at (202) 418-1310

<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-78A1.doc>

<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-78A1.pdf>

<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-78A1.txt>

[1] In the Matter of Petition of Public Knowledge et. al for Declaratory Ruling Stating Text Messaging and Short Codes are Title II Services or are Title I Services Subject to Section 202 Nondiscrimination Rules, filed Dec. 11, 2007 (Petition).

[2] See generally Petition.

[3] Id. at i.

[4] Id.

[5] Id. at 1-2.

Pleading Cycle Established For Petition Of The Embarq Local Operating Companies For Forbearance From Enforcement Of Section 69.5(A) Of The Commission’

2008-01-15T15:16:00.001-08:00

WC Docket No. 08-08 DA 08-94 Released: January 14, 2008

COMMENTS DUE: February 19, 2008 REPLY COMMENTS DUE: March 14, 2008

By this Public Notice, we seek comment on a petition filed January 11, 2008 by the Embarq Local Operating Companies (Embarq) asking the Commission to forbear pursuant to section 160(c) of the Communications Act (Act), as amended, from “enforcing the ESP exemption, as adopted by Commission orders” and from “applying section 69.5(a) of its rules to IP-originated voice traffic that terminates on the PSTN.”[1] In addition, Embarq requests that the Commission “forbear from enforcing 47 U.S.C. section 251(b)(5) of the Act” on “non-local traffic terminated as voice traffic on the PSTN.”[2]

Interested parties may file comments on the Embarq petition for forbearance on or before February 19, 2008 and reply comments on or before March 14, 2008 pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules.[3] Filings in this proceeding should be captioned “In the Matter of Petition of Embarq for Forbearance from Section 69.5 of the Commission’s Rules, Section 251(b) of the Communications Act and Commission Orders on the ESP Exemption” and filed in WC Docket No. 08-08.

All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Suite TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. Two courtesy copies must be delivered to Lynne Hewitt Engledow, Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division, 445 12th Street, SW, Room 5-A361, Washington, DC 20554 or via e-mail at lynne.engledow@fcc.gov. One copy must also be sent to Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Suite CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-488-5300, facsimile 202-488-5563, or via e-mail at fcc@bcpiweb.com.

Comments may be filed using the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies.

Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments.

§ For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov and include the following words in the body of the message: get form . A sample form and directions will be sent in response.

. . . . .

For further information regarding this proceeding, contact Lynne Hewitt Engledow, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 202-418-1520, or via e-mail at lynne.engledow@fcc.gov.

-FCC-

Released: 01/14/2008. PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED FOR PETITION OF THE EMBARQ LOCAL OPERATING COMPANIES FOR FORBEARANCE FROM ENFORCEMENT OF SECTION 69.5(A) OF THE COMMISION'S RULES, SECTION 251(B) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND COMMISSION ORDERS ON THE ESP EXEMPTION. (DA No. 08-94). (Dkt No 08-08). Comments Due: 02/19/2008. Reply Comments Due: 03/14/2008. WCB. Contact: Lynne Hewitt Engledow at (202) 418-1520, email: Lynne.Engledow@fcc.gov

<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-94A1.doc>

<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-94A1.pdf>

<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-94A1.txt>

[1] Petition of the Embarq Local Operating Companies for Limited Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) from Enforcement of Rule 69.5(a), 47 U.S.C. § 251(b), and Commission Orders on the ESP Exemption at 17 (filed Jan. 11, 2008) (Embarq Forbearance Petition); see also 47 U.S.C. § 160(c).

[2] Id.

[3] 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419.

Comment Sought On Petition For Rulemaking To Establish Rules Governing Network Management Practices By Broadband Network Operators

2008-01-15T15:05:00.000-08:00

DA 08-92 Released: January 14, 2008 WC Docket No. 07-52

Comments Due: February 13, 2008 Reply Comments Due: February 28, 2008

On November 14, 2007, Vuze, Inc. filed a Petition for Rulemaking requesting that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to clarify what constitutes “‘reasonable network management,’ by broadband network operators and to establish that such network management does not permit network operators to block, degrade or unreasonably discriminate against lawful Internet applications, content or technologies”[1] as used in the Commission’s Internet Policy Statement.[2]

This Public Notice establishes certain procedural requirements relating to consideration of the Vuze, Inc. Petition for Rulemaking. This matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200, 1.1206. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented generally is required. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b). Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b).

Pursuant to sections 1.405 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.405, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the petitions on or before February 13, 2008 and reply comments on or before February 28, 2008. All pleadings are to reference WC Docket No. 07-52. All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Suite TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. Two (2) courtesy copies must be delivered to Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, or via e-mail CPDcopies@fcc.gov; and one (1) copy must be sent to Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, Suite CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-488-5300, facsimile 202-488-5563, or via e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.COM.

Comments may be filed: (1) using the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS); (2) using the Federal Government’s eRulemaking Portal; or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments.

. . . . .

- FCC –

Released: 01/14/2008. COMMENT SOUGHT ON PETITION FOR RULEMAKING TO

ESTABLISH RULES GOVERNING NETWORK MANAGEMENT PRACTICES BY BROADBAND

NETWORK OPERATORS. (DA No. 08-92). (Dkt No 07-52). Comments Due:

02/13/2008. Reply Comments Due: 02/28/2008. WCB. Contact: Jon Reel

(202) 418-1580

<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-92A1.doc>

<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-92A1.pdf>

<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-92A1.txt>

[1] Vuze, Inc. Petition for Rulemaking to Establish Rules Governing Network Management Practices By Broadband Network Operators, WC Docket No. 07-52 (filed Nov. 14, 2007) (Petition).

[2] See Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireline Facilities, CC Docket Nos. 02-33, 01-337, 95-20, 98-10; GN Docket No. 00-185; CS Docket No. 02-52; WC Docket No. 07-52, Policy Statement, 20 FCC Rcd 14986, 14988 n.15 (2005).

Comment Sought On Petition For Declaratory Ruling Regarding Internet Management Policies

2008-01-15T14:49:00.000-08:00

DA 08-91 Released: January 14, 2008 WC Docket No. 07-52
Comment Date: February 13, 2008. Reply Comment Date: February 28, 2008

The Wireline Competition Bureau seeks comment on a petition [1] filed by Free Press et al. (Petitioners), seeking a declaratory ruling “that the practice by broadband service providers of degrading peer-to-peer traffic violates the FCC’s Internet Policy Statement” and that such practices do not meet the Commission’s exception for reasonable network management.[2]

This Public Notice establishes certain procedural requirements relating to consideration of the Free Press et al. Petition for Declaratory Ruling. This matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200, 1.1206. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented generally is required. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b). Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b).

. . . . .

For further information regarding this proceeding, contact Jon Reel, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-1580.

- FCC -

[1] Free Press, Public Knowledge, Media Access Project, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Information Society Project at Yale Law School, Professor Charles Nesson, Co-Director of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard Law School, Professor Barbara van Schewick, Center for Internet & Society, Stanford Law School, Petition for Declaratory Ruling, CC Docket Nos. 02-33, 01-337, 95-20, 98-10, GN Docket No. 00-185, CS Docket No. 02-52, WC Docket No. 07-52 (filed Nov. 1, 2007).

[2] Id. at 3 (citing Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities, Policy Statement, 20 FCC Rcd 14986 (2005) (Policy Statement)).

FTC Staff Proposes Online Behavioral Advertising Privacy Principles

2008-01-01T18:39:00.000-08:00

For Release: December 20, 2007 To address important consumer privacy concerns associated with online behavioral advertising, the staff of the Federal Trade Commission today released a set of proposed principles to guide the development of self-regulation in this evolving area. Behavioral advertising is the tracking of a consumer’s activities online – including the searches the consumer has conducted, the Web pages visited, and the content viewed – in order to deliver advertising targeted to the individual consumer’s interests.

For more than a decade, the FTC has engaged in investigation, law enforcement, studies, and other privacy developments to protect consumers’ privacy online. Concepts used to develop the principles emerged from the agency’s longstanding privacy program and, more recently, from two conferences hosted by the FTC. In the fall of 2006, a three-day public hearing, “Protecting Consumers in the Next Tech-ade,” examined technology developments that could raise consumer protection policy issues, including privacy, over the next decade. This past November, building on the Tech-ade hearings, the FTC hosted a Town Hall entitled “Ehavioral Advertising: Tracking, Targeting, and Technology,” to focus in on privacy issues raised by behavioral advertising.

“The purpose of this proposal is to encourage more meaningful and enforceable self-regulation to address the privacy concerns raised with respect to behavioral advertising. In developing the principles, FTC staff was mindful of the need to maintain vigorous competition in online advertising as well as the importance of accommodating the wide variety of business models that exist in this area,” according to its proposal “Behavioral Advertising: Moving the Discussion Forward to Possible Self-Regulatory Principles.” The proposal states that behavioral advertising provides benefits to consumers in the form of free content and personalized advertising but notes that this practice is largely invisible and unknown to consumers.

To address the need for greater transparency and consumer control regarding privacy issues raised by behavioral advertising, the FTC staff proposes:

Every Web site where data is collected for behavioral advertising should provide a clear, consumer-friendly, and prominent statement that data is being collected to provide ads targeted to the consumer and give consumers the ability to choose whether or not to have their information collected for such purpose.

To address the concern that data collected for behavioral advertising may find its way into the hands of criminals or other wrongdoers, and concerns about the length of time companies are retaining consumer data, the FTC staff proposes:

Any company that collects or stores consumer data for behavioral advertising should provide reasonable security for that data and should retain data only as long as is necessary to fulfill a legitimate business or law enforcement need.

To address the concern that companies may not keep their privacy promises when they change their privacy policies, FTC staff proposes:

Companies should obtain affirmative express consent from affected consumers before using data in a manner materially different from promises the company made when it collected the data.

To address the concern that sensitive data – medical information or children’s activities online, for example – may be used in behavioral advertising, FTC staff proposes:

Companies should only collect sensitive data for behavioral advertising if they obtain affirmative express consent from the consumer to receive such advertising.
FTC staff also seeks comment on what constitutes “sensitive data” and whether the use of sensitive data should be prohibited, rather than subject to consumer choice.

The staff is seeking additional information about whether tracking data is being used for purposes other than behavioral advertising and whether such secondary uses, if they occur, merit some form of heightened protection.

Because online advertising supports free Web content and other benefits, the choice by consumers not to participate in behavioral advertising could reduce the availability of these benefits. The FTC is seeking comments from all interested parties on the proposed principles, including the costs and benefits of offering choice for behavioral advertising. Comments can be sent to BehavioralMarketingPrinciples@ftc.gov.

The Commission vote approving issuance of the principles was 5-0.

Copies of “Behavioral Advertising, Moving the Discussion Forward to Possible Self-Regulatory Principles,” can be found URL. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, click http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/complaint.shtm or call 1-877-382-4357. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,600 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For free information on a variety of consumer topics, click http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm.

MEDIA CONTACT:: Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2180
STAFF CONTACT:: Jessica L. Rich,
Bureau of Consumer Protection
202-326-2148

Feature Group Ip Petition For Forbearance From Section 251(G) Of The Communications Act And Sections 51.701(B)(1) And 69.5(B) Of The Commission’s Rule

2007-12-19T18:48:00.000-08:00

WC Docket No. 07-256 DA 07-5029 Released: December 18, 2007

COMMENTS DUE: January 17, 2008 REPLY COMMENTS DUE: February 6, 2008

By this Public Notice, we seek comment on a petition filed October 23, 2007 by Feature Group IP West LLC, Feature Group IP Southwest LLC, UTEX Communications Corp., Feature Group IP North LLC, and Feature Group IP Southeast LLC (Feature Group IP) asking the Commission to forbear pursuant to section 160(c) of the Communications Act (Act), as amended, from applying access charges to voice-embedded Internet communications pursuant to section 251(g) of the Act.[1] Specifically, Feature Group IP requests that the Commission forbear from section 251(g) “insofar as it applies to the receipt of compensation for switched ‘exchange access, information access, and exchange services for such access to interexchange carriers and information service providers’ pursuant to state and federal access charge rules.”[2] In addition, Feature Group IP seeks forbearance from “the clause of rule 51.701(b)(1) that excludes from the definition of telecommunications traffic subject to subpart H of Part 51 of the Commission’s rules ‘telecommunications traffic that is interstate or intrastate exchange access, information access, or exchange services for such access . . .’ .”[3] Feature Group IP also seeks forbearance from rule 69.5(b) “to the extent applicable” and from any numbering representation rule or signaling standard as applicable.[4]

Interested parties may file comments on the Feature Group IP petition for forbearance on or before January 17, 2008 and reply comments on or before February 6, 2008 pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules.[5] Filings in this proceeding should be captioned “In the Matter of Petition of Feature Group IP for Forbearance from Section 251(g) of the Communications Act and Sections 51.701(b)(1) and 69.5(b) of the Commission’s Rules” and filed in WC Docket No. 07-256.

All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Suite TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. Two courtesy copies must be delivered to Lynne Hewitt Engledow, Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division, 445 12th Street, SW, Room 5-A361, Washington, DC 20554. One copy must also be sent to Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Suite CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-488-5300, facsimile 202-488-5563, or via e-mail at fcc@bcpiweb.com.

Comments may be filed using the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies.

Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments.

. . . . .

For further information regarding this proceeding, contact Lynne Hewitt Engledow, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 202-418-1520, or via e-mail at lynne.engledow@fcc.gov.

-FCC-

Released: 12/18/2007. PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED FOR FEATURE GROUP IP PETITION FOR FORBEARANCE FROM SECTION 251(G) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND SECTIONS 51.701(B)(1) AND 69.5(B) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES. (DA No. 07-5029). (Dkt No 07-256). Comments Due: 01/17/2008. Reply Comments Due: 02/06/2008. WCB. Contact: Lynne Hewitt Engledow at (202) 418-1520, email: Lynne.Engledow@fcc.gov DA-07-5029A1.doc DA-07-5029A1.pdf DA-07-5029A1.txt

[1] Feature Group IP Petition for Forbearance Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) from Enforcement of 47 U.S.C. § 251(g), Rule 51.701(b)(1), and Rule 69.5(b), WC Docket No. 07-256 (filed Oct. 23, 2007) (Feature Group IP Forbearance Petition); see also 47 U.S.C. § 160(c).

[2] Feature Group IP Forbearance Petition at 24.

[3] Id. at 24-25.

[4] Id. at 25.

[5] 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419.

RFC :: FCC :: FCC Examining Forbearance Petition Review Process

2007-12-03T18:30:00.001-08:00

Washington, D.C. – The Federal Communications Commission is examining whether there is a need for new procedures governing its review of petitions requesting forbearance from regulation.

Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Commission is required to forbear from any statutory provision or regulation if it determines that the regulation is not needed to protect consumers or to ensure just and reasonable rates and practices by carriers. In addition, the Commission must determine whether forbearance will promote competitive markets and is in the public interest. Unless the Commission responds to petitions for forbearance within one year – a deadline which can be extended by 90 days – the relief sought is deemed granted by operation of law.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or NPRM, adopted by the Commission today, addresses a petition filed by a group of competitive wireline carriers who argue for adoption of certain procedural rules. The NPRM seeks comment on a number of proposed rules that the petitioners claim would help the Commission evaluate forbearance petitions, including:

· Whether new rules should govern the format and content of forbearance petitions

· Whether new notice and comment rules, such as default comment periods and time limits on ex parte filings, should be adopted

· Whether other rules would facilitate the participation of state commissions, as well as other parties, in forbearance proceedings

The NPRM also seeks comment on whether forbearance is an effective means for the Commission to make changes to its regulations.

Action by the Commission, November 27, 2007, by Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 07-202). Chairman Martin, Commissioners Copps, Adelstein, Tate, and McDowell. Separate statements issued by Commissioners Copps, Adelstein, Tate, and McDowell.

Docket No.: 07-267

Wireline Competition Bureau Staff Contact: Jonathan Reel at 202-418-0637

News about the Federal Communications Commission can also be found

on the Commission’s web site www.fcc.gov.

FCC EXAMINING FORBEARANCE PETITION REVIEW PROCESS.  News Release. (Dkt

No 07-267). News Media Contact: Mark  Wigfield at (202) 418-0253,

 email:

Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov  WCB. Contact Jonathan Reel at (202) 418-0637

<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278395A1.doc>

<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278395A1.pdf>

<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278395A1.txt>

PETITION TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS TO GOVERN PROCEEDINGS

FOR

FORBEARANCE UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT TO 1934, AS

AMENDED.   FCC Examining Forbearance Petition Review Process. (Dkt No.

07-267). Action by:  the Commission. Adopted:  11/27/2007 by NPRM. (FCC

No. 07-202).  WCB

FCC Launches Initiative To Increase Access To Health Care In Rural America Through Broadband Telehealth Services

2007-11-27T04:45:00.000-08:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Robert Kenny

November 19, 2007 Work: 202-418-2668

Cell: 202-355-2524

E-mail: robert.kenny@fcc.gov

FCC LAUNCHES INITIATIVE TO INCREASE ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE IN RURAL AMERICA THROUGH BROADBAND TELEHEALTH SERVICES

Washington, D.C. – To significantly increase access to acute, primary and preventive health care in rural America, the Federal Communications Commission today dedicated over $417 million for the construction of 69 statewide or regional broadband telehealth networks in 42 states and three U.S. territories under the Rural Health Care Pilot Program (RHCPP).

Broadband deployment is one of the Commission’s top priorities – particularly in rural America. And nowhere is the need for broadband greater than in rural healthcare, where isolated clinics can save lives by using advanced communications technology to tap the expertise of modern urban medical centers.

The Commission’s RHCPP will support the connection of more than 6,000 public and non-profit health care providers nationwide to broadband telehealth networks. The health care facilities participating in the Pilot Program include: hospitals, clinics, universities and research centers, behavioral health sites, correctional facility clinics, and community health centers.

Telehealth and telemedicine services provide patients in rural areas with access to critically needed medical specialists in a variety of practices, including cardiology, pediatrics, and radiology, in some instances without leaving their homes or communities. Intensive care doctors and nurses can monitor critically-ill patients around the clock and video conferencing allows specialists and mental health professionals to care for patients in different rural locations, often hundreds of miles away.

The networks will deliver services efficiently, reduce costs and travel time for consumers, decrease medical errors, and enable health care providers to share critical information. Rapid and coordinated responses to public health emergencies, such as bioterrorism attacks, pandemics or disease-related outbreaks, will be expedited through coordination with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other public health officials during public health emergencies.

-more-

In addition, participants are required to implement, where feasible, health information technology standards as set forth by HHS. This will help advance the President’s goal of creating a national system to support patients’ electronic health records.

Participants are eligible for universal service funding to support up to 85 percent of the costs associated with the design, engineering and construction of their broadband health care networks. The Pilot Program’s requirements complement HHS’ nationwide information technology initiatives that support the creation of a nationwide interoperable health information technology infrastructure to improve the quality of health care. These networks may connect to the public Internet or to one of the nation’s dedicated Internet backbones: Internet2 or National LambdaRail.

In order to ensure quality and efficiency, all projects must be competitively bid, and are subject to quarterly reviews, and stringent oversight and audits.

Attached is the full list of organizations qualifying for support in the pilot program. Health care providers were selected for participation in the pilot as set forth in the 2006 Pilot Program Order pursuant to section 254(h)(2)(A) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Action by the Commission, November 16, 2007, by Order (FCC 07-198). Chairman Martin, Commissioners Copps, Adelstein, Tate and McDowell, with Chairman Martin, Commissioners Copps, Adelstein, Tate and McDowell issuing statements.

Docket No.: 02-60

Wireline Competition Bureau Staff Contact(s): Thomas Buckley, 202-418-0725; Jennifer Prime, (202) 418-2403.

-FCC-

News and other information about the Federal Communications Commission
are available at www.fcc.gov.

Joint Statement by Assistant Secretary John M. R. Kneuer and Ambassador David A. Gross on the Second Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, Rio de

2007-11-09T07:55:00.001-08:00

Press Release: Joint Statement by Assistant Secretary John M. R. Kneuer and Ambassador David A. Gross on the Second Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, November 12-15, 2007

For Immediate Release: November 8, 2007
Contact: Todd Sedmak, 482-7002 or tsedmak@ntia.doc.gov

WASHINGTON – Assistant Secretary John M. R. Kneuer and Ambassador David A. Gross today released the following statement on the upcoming Internet Governance Forum:

“We welcome the convening of the second meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, next week. The IGF offers an opportunity for leading Internet experts from around the world to share experiences and visions that support the continued evolution and expansion of the Internet. The IGF also provides an opportunity to underscore the critical role that freedom of expression and free flow of information play in maximizing the benefits of the Internet. We also hope that issues regarding the security, stability, and reliability of the Internet are at the heart of issues addressed. We also look forward to constructive discussions about access to and use of information and communication technologies to advance economic and social development.

“In order for the IGF to realize its full potential, it is important to ensure that all stakeholders from the Internet community continue to participate in this important event on an equal footing, as was the case for the successful inaugural meeting in Athens, Greece last year. The multi-stakeholder processes that underpin the IGF at every level make it a globally unique environment for an honest and frank exchange of ideas without the pressure of negotiating output discussions or conclusions. We remain committed to the terms of reference for the IGF as agreed by world leaders at the UN World Summit on the Information Society.

“The promise of the IGF – open and inclusive dialogue among all stakeholders of the international Internet community to discuss critical issues concerning the future of the Internet – is viewed by the United States as a positive development and we look forward to participating in the meeting in Rio de Janeiro.”

Release :: FCC :: FCC EXPANDS LOCAL NUMBER PORTABILITY TO VoIP

2007-10-31T21:21:00.000-07:00

Washington, D.C. – The right of consumers to keep the same, familiar phone number when switching to a new telephone company was expanded today by the Federal Communications Commission, in an Order that will further ensure consumers’ opportunity to choose a telephone service provider based on quality, price and service.

The FCC made clear that the obligation to provide local number portability extends to interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol providers and the telecommunications carriers that obtain numbers for them. This action was, in part, a response to numerous complaints by consumers about their inability to port numbers to or from interconnected VoIP providers. The FCC also initiated a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on additional VoIP numbering issues.

The FCC also clarified in its Order that telephone companies may not obstruct or delay number porting by demanding excess information from the customer’s new provider, and specifically concluded that LNP validation for a simple number port should be based on no more than four fields: (1) 10-digit telephone number; (2) customer account number; (3) 5-digit zip code; and (4) pass code, if applicable. In its Notice, the FCC also tentatively concluded that it should require the industry to complete simple ports in 48 hours.

The FCC’s Order also ensures that customers of small wireline carriers can port their telephone numbers to wireless carriers. The decision responds to a stay of the Commission’s Intermodal Number Portability Order by the D.C. Circuit, which required the FCC to analyze the impact of its requirements on small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Action by the Commission, October 31, 2007, by Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, Order on Remand, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 07-188). Chairman Martin, Commissioners Copps, Tate and McDowell with Commissioner Adelstein approving in part and concurring in part. Separate statements issued by Chairman Martin, Commissioners Copps, Adelstein, Tate and McDowell.

Docket Nos.: 07-243, 07-244, 04-36, 95-116, 99-200

Wireline Competition Bureau Staff Contact: Melissa Kirkel at 202-418-7958.

-FCC-

News about the Federal Communications Commission can also be found on the Commission’s web site www.fcc.gov.

Order :: FCC :: Release Of Funding Year 2008 Eligible Services List For Schools And Libraries Universal Service Mechanism

2007-10-30T23:23:00.000-07:00

FCC 07-182 Released: October 19, 2007 CC Docket No. 02-6 Via this Public Notice, the Commission releases the Funding Year 2008 Eligible Services List (ESL) for the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism pursuant to section 54.522 of the Commission’s rules.[1] On July 27, 2007, the Commission released a Public Notice (FCC 07-130) seeking comment on the ESL proposed by the universal service fund’s administrator, the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), for Funding Year 2008, as required by section 54.522.[2] Those comments, where applicable, are noted in this Public Notice.

Some of the changes that have been made to the Funding Year 2008 ESL are:

· Centrex: In the 2008 ESL, Centrex service is treated as basic telephone service for purposes of the schools and libraries program with the intention of eliminating the requirement that applicants file a technology plan for Centrex service.[3]

· Internet Access for Distance Learning: We clarify that basic conduit access to the Internet for the purpose of accessing distance learning and video conferencing is eligible for funding in the Internet access category but distance learning and video conferencing tools are not eligible for funding.

· Broadband over Power Lines (BPL): We add BPL under the entry for Digital Transmission Services to allow applicants to seek funding for the transmission component of BPL as a telecommunications service.[4]

· BPL-enabled Internet access service: We add BPL-enabled Internet access service under the entry for Internet access to allow applicants to seek funding for BPL-enabled Internet access service under the Internet access category if the service is bundled with Internet access.[5]

· Ancillary Calendaring Functions: We clarify that program participants are not required to provide cost allocation for calendaring functions ancillary to E-mail service.

· Web Hosting: We clarify the eligible components of a web hosting service.[6]

· Failover Products or Services: “Failover” products or services have been added to the list of miscellaneous ineligible components.[7]

As we stated in the July 27^th Public Notice, this proceeding is limited to determining what services are eligible under the Commission’s current rules and is not intended to be a vehicle for changing any eligibility rules. Therefore, those comments not addressed in the Funding Year 2008 ESL may be more appropriately filed for the Commission’s consideration in the general proceeding for the Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism in CC Docket No. 02-6. Those comments not addressed may include comments that requested eligibility for new services or products, comments that requested that services or products currently deemed ineligible be made eligible, comments that requested that the Commission take action outside of the scope of this proceeding, or comments that requested that the Commission take action that was not permitted by the short time frame allotted for this proceeding by section 54.522 of the Commission’s rules.

In addition, section 54.522 requires the Commission to issue a public notice attaching the final eligible services list for the upcoming funding year at least 60 days prior to the opening of the funding window for the schools and libraries program.[8] We authorize USAC to open the annual application filing window on November 7, 2007. Because the filing window would open less than 60 days after the release of this Public Notice, we therefore waive on our own motion section 54.522 of the Commission's rules requiring publication of the ESL at least 60 days prior to the commencement of the filing window.[9] We conclude that this action will facilitate the application process for E-rate beneficiaries applying for monies for funding year 2008.

For further information, contact Gina Spade, James Bachtell or Regina Brown in the Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-7400, TTY (202) 418-0484.

Action taken by the Commission on October 18, 2007: Chairman Kevin J. Martin and Commissioners Michael J. Copps, Jonathan S. Adelstein, Deborah Taylor Tate and Robert M. McDowell

RFC :: NTIA :: Seeks Public Comments Regarding Joint Project Agreement with ICANN

2007-10-30T23:17:00.000-07:00

For Immediate Release: October 29, 2007: Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) today announced that it will consult with interested stakeholders regarding the mid-term review of the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) between the Department and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). NTIA will soon release a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) requesting comments to be due February 15, 2008.

“It is important that all interested stakeholders have an opportunity to directly share their views on ICANN during the JPA mid-term review,” said NTIA Administrator John M. R. Kneuer at ICANN’s 30th meeting. “We feel strongly that our review must be informed by your experiences with ICANN and perspectives regarding its evolution.”

Kneuer also congratulated outgoing ICANN Chairman Vint Cerf on his tenure. “Vint’s technical expertise, business experience, and global stature have been exceptionally well suited to the unique enterprise that ICANN represents,” said Kneuer. “Over the course of the past eight years, ICANN’s model of full participation by all interested stakeholders in decisions and policy making has progressively evolved and strengthened.”

NTIA and ICANN signed the JPA on September 29, 2006. The JPA has a three-year term and provides for the Department to conduct a mid-term review of the agreement. The Department will consult with interested stakeholders to assist in conducting this mid-term review of ICANN’s progress in meeting the responsibilities outlined in the JPA and by ICANN’s Board. When published, the full text of the NOI will be available online at www.ntia.doc.gov.

NTIA is responsible for the development of domestic and international telecommunications policy for the Executive Branch.
Media Contact: Todd Sedmak, (202) 482-7002 or tsedmak@ntia.doc.gov

RFC :: FCC :: In the Matter of Email Address Portability

2007-10-23T18:49:00.000-07:00

Report No. 2832 September 26, 2007

Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Reference Information Center Petition For Rulemakings Filed PRIVATE

Interested persons may file statements opposing or supporting the Petition for Rulemakings listed herein within 30 days of this notice, and reply comments 30 days thereafter. See Sections 1.4 and 1.405 of the Commission's rules for further information.

1 "RULEMAKING PROCEEDING"

Rm No. 11391 [Docket Number], Rules Sec. 52.1, Petitioner Gail M. Mortenson, Date Received 07/20/2007, Name of Petition In the Matter of E-mail Address Portability

===================

[Transcribed – forgive errors please – See Original Copy]

In the Matter of Email Address Portability

Petition for Rulemaking

Gail M Mortenson [a Washington-based freelance editor], hereby petitions the Commission to initiate a rulemaking at the earliest possible date to require ISPs to provide their customers with email address portability for at least six months after a customer terminates service with an ISP.

The genesis for this petition arose from an experience where I had recently with AOL, one the largest national ISPs. I had been a customer of AOL for many years. My son had originally opened the account when he got a new computer as a young teen, but the monthly charges had been paid from my personal credit card, as AOL well knew. (I had a number of occasions to talk to them over the years about charges to, or questions about, the account). Several months ago, I contacted AOL to direct them to stop charging me for monthly service since AOL had adopted a new policy several months earlier of not charging its customers for service. Although I had numerous discussions with them over the years and my name appeared on the credit card which had paid the monthly charges, AOL suddenly declared that they could not take any instructions from me (because the account was not in my name). Moreover, because the account had been opened by a minor, they announced that they were closing the account immediately. This despite the fact that my son was no longer a minor, so the pretext for closing the account was no longer even valid. The account was closed on the following business day, and I could no longer access any of the materials (emails, saved documents, stored websites, etc). which had been associated with my AOL screen name.

This was a disaster. Over the years, my children and I had all come to rely on the AOL account, which permitted up to seven screen names. Of particular concern here was my business account. I am a free lance copy editor, and I relied heavily on email as a means of communicating with existing and potential clients. My AOL email address had been distributed widely to prospective users of my services. No prospective clients could reach me since the account was suddenly non functional, nor did I have any time to transition my promotional materials to reference a new email address. Have since discovered that several prospective clients did in fact try to reach me but were unable to do so since they only had my AOL email address and were unable to reach me. At the same time, I lost access to my folder of historical emails which had been saved online, so I lost the email addresses of professional and personal contacts.

It is unclear why AOL felt it had to terminate this account so abruptly with no notice whatsoever. Yet that is what they did, regardless of the very predictable adverse consequences to a long time customer. While I am contemplating legal action against AOL in civil courts, the fact remains that millions of similarly situated ISP customers are subject to termination at any time by their service providers with (i) no right to retain their email address [See DNS] and (ii) no right to adequate notice that would permit them to download and preserve material which has been saved on the ISPs website. AOL is not unique in this policy. Yahoo, for example, permits itself to terminate customers' accounts without notice for a wide variety of causes, some of which are not specified. See Yahoo Terms of Service. AOL allows itself to terminate service at anytime with or without any cause. AOL Terms of Use. The bottom line is that ISP customers are entirely at the mercy of their providers for preservation of their entire online identity.

LOCAL NUMBER PORTABILITY

In a series of orders starting in 1996, the Commission has established very strict requirements for telecommunications carriers to enable and implement portability of local numbers. These orders recognized that a person or a company's telephone number is a critical component of the person or business's public identity; so valuable an asset should not be held hostage by the phone company who happens to initially issue it, but should be portable at the customer's request to other carriers. Indeed, a Gallup Survey referenced by the FCC found that 83% of business customers and 80% of residential customers would be reluctant to change service provider [sic] if a change in their phone number was required. The FCC recognized that LNP would significantly enhance competition because it would make it considerably easier for customers to change carriers based on a comparison of rates and service offerings without suffering the lost of the considerable good will embodied in their phone numbers. The LNP program has been a success story. Customers have been freed from the chain which bound them to their original carrier (whether LEC or wireless) and have thus been able to choose their carrier based on quality and price. This has had a dampening effect on rates and also incentivizes carriers to improve service in order to keep their customers. All of the benefits of free competition are realized.

EMAIL ADDRESS PORTABILITY

Most of the same consumer considerations described above apply equally to email address portability. In today's word, many individuals and businesses depend just as heavily on their email addresses as on their phone numbers as public points of contact with the larger world. One's email address is a key component of the small matrix of characteristics which forms our public identity: one's name, one's address, one's phone number, and one's email address. This is how the world knows who are and how to contact us. Email addresses are now customarily included on letterheads, resumes, and websites. The loss of an email address is therefore a crushing blow to any business since not only does all the collateral material have to be discarded, but all the good will that has been generated over the years with that address can be lost in a second if the address is terminated.

It is for these reasons that the Post Office forwards mail for six months after one changes address. This gives the addressee time to alert customers, friends and family to the new address and generally permits a smooth transition to the new address. Similarly, when one changes phone numbers, the phone company forwards calls from the old number to the new one for some weeks. Of course, local number portability now permits one to take his phone number with him permanently. By contrast, ISPs have the power to simply cut off one's service without any cause whatsoever, without any prior notice whatsoever, and without any obligation to forward email to a new email address. This situation not only puts Americans at serious risk of loss of good will, but also impairs their ability to change service providers. As in the pre-LNP days, consumers and business are effectively held hostage by their ISPs.

THE SOLUTION

The solution to this problem is clear: require ISPs to port e-mail traffic to new e-mail addresses designated by customers. There is no technical reason at all why an e-mail sent to "customer@aol.com" could not be automatically forwarded by AOL to "customer'snewaddress@yahoo.com." This would require none of the technical re-tooling which LNP entailed and could be implemented almost immediately. This simple measure would provide the American public--both consumers and the business community--with the basic confidence that their personal or business identity cannot be destroyed at the whim of their ISP.

To be sure, the Commission's authority to regulate "information service providers" is less clear than its authority to regulate telecommunications carriers. The 1996 Act specifically directed the Commission to impose number portability obligations on telecommunications service providers. However, the Commission has recognized that when information service providers provide critical telecommunications-like services such as VoIP, it must exercise its broad ancillary authority over communications to ensure that the public interest does not fall through the regulatory gap. To that end, it has ruled that its ancillary authority over communications in this country is ample to permit the imposition on ISPs of carrier-like obligations with respect to CALEA, E911, Access to persons with disabilities, certain USF contributions, and other key elements of the nationwide communications regime. Indeed, the FCC has no express statutory authority to impose local number portability on wireless carriers, yet it did so based on its general Title I authority. There is no reason to treat email address portability any differently.

Moreover, the Commission recognized an ongoing obligation to consumers in this regard in Consumer Protection in the Broadband Era, Report and Order and NPRM, 20 FCC Rcd 14853 at Para 146 (2005):

We have a duty to ensure that consumer protection objectives in the Act are met as the industry shifts from narrowband to broadband services. Through this Notice, we thus seek to develop a framework for consumer protection in the broadband age – a framework that ensure s that consumer protection needs are met by all providers of broadband Internet access service, regardless of the underlying technology. This framework necessarily will be built on our ancillary jurisdiction under Title I; as we explain in the Order, this jurisdiction is ample to accomplish the consumer protection goals we identify below, and we will not hesitate to exercise it.

The time is ripe for the FCC to step forward and impose a regulatory obligation on ISPs which is sorely needed and long overdue. I therefore petition the FCC to initiate a rulemaking immediately in order to prevent other Americans from experiencing the cavalier and crushing loss which I suffered at the hands of AOL.

Respectfully submitted

Gail M Mortenson

4300 Lowell Street, NW

Washington, DC 20008

202-686-1375

File Comments at the FCC using the FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing System. You will need the proceeding number.

Commerce’s NTIA Renews .us Domain Contract With Neustar

2007-10-23T04:51:00.000-07:00

Press Release: Commerce’s NTIA Renews .us Domain Contract With Neustar

For Immediate Release: October 19, 2007
Contact: Todd Sedmak, 482-7002 or tsedmak@ntia.doc.gov

WASHINGTON--The Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) today announced the renewal of a contract to Neustar to manage the .us domain space. NTIA just completed a three-month long competitive procurement process. The domain is the country code top-level domain for the United States (usTLD).

“Neustar’s bid met our selection criteria and we are confident of its abilities to manage the .us domain space. NTIA takes seriously its responsibility to ensure the stability and security of the .us domain for the benefit of the nation’s Internet community,” said NTIA Assistant Secretary John Kneuer. “Therefore, we will continue supervising administration of the usTLD to achieve those goals, and will work closely with Neustar to support the domain’s growth, particularly in the second-level kids.us space.”

Neustar and the Department of Commerce entered into a three-year agreement with two, one-year options, on Friday, Oct. 19, 2007. The company also will continue efforts to improve the customer service and technical management as well as introduce new services. NTIA is responsible for the development of domestic and international telecommunications policy for the Executive Branch.

Order :: FCC Grants AT&T Forbearance

2007-10-12T17:44:00.000-07:00

> In this Order, we address petitions filed by AT&T and Legacy BellSouth (jointly AT&T), requesting that the Commission forbear, pursuant to section 10 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act), from applying Title II of the Act and the Computer Inquiry rules to certain broadband services. Verizon’s forbearance petition was “deemed granted” on March 19, 2006. AT&T seeks relief comparable to the relief granted Verizon through that deemed grant. For the reasons set forth below, we grant substantial forbearance relief to AT&T with regard to its existing packet-switched broadband telecommunications services and its existing optical transmission services. We also relieve AT&T of its obligations under the Computer Inquiry rules in connection with these services, conditioned on its compliance with the Computer Inquiry obligations that apply to all non-incumbent local exchange carrier (LEC), facilities-based wireline carriers.

In all other respects, AT&T’s requests for forbearance are denied. In particular, we do not forbear from any statutory or regulatory requirement that applies to common carriers or LECs generally regardless of whether they are incumbents or competing carriers. Nor do we forbear, except as stated above with regard to the Computer Inquiry rules, from any statutory or regulatory requirements that apply to AT&T in its capacities as an incumbent LEC or a Bell Operating Company (BOC), or to AT&T’s affiliate, Southern New England Telephone Company (SNET), in its capacity as an independent incumbent LEC. In addition, AT&T must continue to meet its public policy obligations under Title II and the Commission’s implementing rules with respect to the services at issue. This preserves important public policies related to 911, emergency preparedness, customer privacy, and universal service in connection with the broadband services for which we grant relief. The limited forbearance relief granted herein does not affect in any way the full force and effect of the merger conditions adopted in the AT&T/BellSouth Order.

RFC :: IP Enabled Services, Petition for Waiver Relating to FCC VoIP TRS Order :: Comments Due 30 Days after Fed Reg

2007-10-11T16:32:00.000-07:00

Ø Released: Oct 9, 2007: In this Order, we grant in part and deny in part several petitions for waive relating to the Commission’s recent VoIP TRS Order. In that order, the Commission extended the telecommunications relay service (TRS) requirements contained in Part 64 of the Commission’s rules to providers of interconnected voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services. Among the requirements extended to interconnected VoIP providers is the obligation to offer 711 abbreviated dialing access to traditional relay services via a voice telephone or a text telephone (TTY). The petitions for waiver raise issues concerning (1) the ability of an interconnected VoIP provider to route the inbound leg of a 711 call to an appropriate TRS provider, particularly when the caller’s telephone number does not correspond to the caller’s actual location, and (2) the ability of a TRS provider that receives, via an interconnected VoIP service, a 711 call concerning an emergency to determine an appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) to call.

As set forth below, we recognize that in certain circumstances there are technical challenges to the ability of interconnected VoIP providers to route 711 calls to an appropriate relay center. Similarly, we recognize that in certain circumstances TRS providers receiving 711 emergency calls via an interconnected VoIP service may not be able to determine an appropriate PSAP to call in compliance with the TRS emergency call handling requirements. As a result, as set forth below, we waive for six months the requirement set forth in the VoIP TRS Order that interconnected VoIP providers must transmit 711 calls to an appropriate relay provider, as defined below. We also waive for six months traditional TRS providers’ obligation to call to an appropriate PSAP when receiving, via interconnected VoIP service, a 711 call concerning an emergency. Further, in the Public Notice we seek comment on the petitions for stay and/or waiver.

. . . . .

14. As set forth above, we grant in part and deny in part the petitions for a stay or waiver filed by the VON Coalition, USTelecom, and Hamilton. We now seek comment on these petitions. In particular, we seek comment on technical solutions to the ability of interconnected VoIP providers to route all 711 calls to an appropriate relay center, as defined above, and to the ability of a relay center to identify the appropriate PSAP to call when receiving an emergency call via 711 and an interconnected VoIP service.

15. We also expect that interconnected VoIP providers, relay service providers, and members of the industry and community work closely together to achieve a solution as expeditiously as possible that will enable emergency 711 calls placed through interconnected VoIP to be handled in accordance with our emergency call handling procedures. In comments supporting a limited extension of time to comply with our rules, Wireless Communications Association International, Inc., states that “a meaningful solution requires cooperation and dialogue among a variety of interested parties, including service providers, vendors, the disabled community, TRS providers and . . . the public safety community.” We agree, and to this end, we seek comment on the waiver requests submitted by the VON Coalition, USTelecom, and Hamilton Relay, and the technological issues raised therein.

16. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments in this proceeding 30 days after publication in Federal Register and reply comments may be filed 45 days after publication in Federal Register. . . . . .

RFC :: Agencies Propose Joint Rule to Implement Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act :: Comments Due Dec. 12

2007-10-08T19:54:00.000-07:00

> Oct 1 The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) on Monday announced the release of a joint proposed rule to implement the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (the Act). The Act prohibits gambling businesses from accepting payments in connection with unlawful Internet gambling, including payments made through credit cards, electronic funds transfers, and checks.

The proposed rule would require U.S. financial firms that participate in designated payment systems to have policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to prevent payments being made to gambling businesses in connection with unlawful Internet gambling. The proposed rule would provide examples of such policies and procedures. For purposes of the proposed rule, unlawful Internet gambling generally would cover the making of a bet or wager that involves use of the Internet and that is unlawful under any applicable federal or state law in the jurisdiction where the bet or wager is made.

The Board and Treasury are required by the Act to develop jointly the proposed rule in consultation with the Department of Justice. Comments on the proposed rule are requested by December 12, 2007. The agencies request comment on all aspects of the proposed rule. The Federal Register notice is attached.

Media Contacts:

Treasury Jennifer Zuccarelli 202-622-8657
Federal Reserve Susan Stawick 202-452-2955

REPORTS

Federal Register Notice of Proposed Joint Rule

RFC :: ICANN :: GNSO Consideration of Proposed Changes to WHOIS :: Comments Due Oct. 30

2007-09-26T08:25:00.000-07:00

ICANN Notice: In March, 2007, a WHOIS Task Force convened by the GNSO Council in June, 2005 completed its final report. The Task Force was asked to address important questions related to WHOIS. Key questions included the purpose of WHOIS service, which information should be available to the public, how to improve WHOIS accuracy and how to deal with conflicts between WHOIS requirements and relevant privacy laws. In the final report, a simple majority of members of the WHOIS Task Force endorsed a proposal called the "Operational Point of Contact" (OPOC).

Under OPOC, every registrant would identify a new operational point of contact and the registrant's postal address, city, and postal code would no longer be displayed. The operational point of contact's name and contact information would be displayed instead, and it would replace the administrative and technical contacts. The final WHOIS Task Force Report of 12 March, 2007 is posted at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-services-final-tf-report-12mar07.htm.

Following completion of the Task Force Report and public comment period, on 28 March the GNSO Council issued a resolution creating a WHOIS Working Group to examine three issues and to make recommendations concerning how current policies may be improved to address these issues:

to examine the roles, responsibilities and requirements of the OPOC, and what happens if they are not fulfilled;
to examine how legitimate interests will access unpublished registration data; and
to examine whether publication of registration contact information should be based on the type of registered name holder (legal vs. natural persons) or the registrant's use of a domain name.

The Whois Outcomes Working Group Report was finalized on 20 August, 2007. It is posted at http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-whois-wg-report-final-1-9.pdf [PDF, 213K]. On 6 September 2007, the GNSO Council approved a resolution which, among other things, establishes a schedule for consideration of the WHOIS Task Force Report and the WHOIS Working Group Report. This schedule includes solicitation of further public comments and culminates in a public Council discussion and vote on 31 October 2007 during the Los Angeles ICANN.

In addition, the resolution calls for ICANN staff to prepare a type of "draft final report" that references the Task Force Report, the Working Group Charter and the Working Group Report and which includes an overall description of the process. The following document, entitled, Staff Overview of Recent GNSO WHOIS Activity [PDF, 77K], has been prepared in response to the Council Resolution. It contains the full text of the GNSO resolution and the schedule for GNSO Council consideration of the reports.

Again, further public comments are invited via email until 00:00 UTC (17:00 PDT) on 30 October 2007 on the GNSO Council's WHOIS reports and recommendations referenced above and summarized in the Staff Overview of Recent GNSO WHOIS Activity [PDF, 77K]. Submit comments to: whois-comments-2007@icann.org. View comments at http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2007/.

CyberTelecom Federal Notices

In re Implementation of the NET 911 Improvement Act of 2008, REPORT and order WC Docket No. 08-171, (FCC October 21, 2008) [REDACTED]

Rates, Terms, and Conditions

Technical, Network Security, and Information Privacy Requirements

FCC Announces Tentative Agenda for Nov 4th Open Meeting

NTIA Seeks Public Comments for the Deployment of Security Technology Within the Internet Domain Name System

LOC Fed Reg Notice RFC DMCA Circumvention

PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED FOR COMMENTS ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COMMISSION’S FIFTH 706 REPORT

DHS Seeks Comment on National Infrastructure Protection Plan

FCC SEEKS COMMENT ON PROPOSED RULE CHANGES FOR ADVANCED WIRELESS SERVICES (AWS) SPECTRUM IN THE 1.9 AND 2.1 GHz BANDS

Operator Who Crammed Unauthorized Charges For Web Site Services Onto Phone Bills Ordered to Pay $4.1 Million Over FTC Charges

FTC Approves New Rule Provision Under The CAN-SPAM Act

FTC Halts Illegal Spam Operation; Adult Site Violated CAN-SPAM Act

Commerce Committee Announces Witnesses for Future of the Internet Hearing

Learn and Serve America Higher Education College Student Social Media Initiative FY 2008

Learn and Serve America Higher Education College Student Social Media Initiative FY 2008

FCC Announces Further Details of Second Public En Banc Hearing on Broadband Network Management Practices at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California

Reported Dollar Loss From Internet Crime Reaches All Time High

Contact: Cathy MilhoanFBI National Press Office(202)324-3691catherine.milhoan@ic.fbi.govwww.fbi.gov

Contact: Craig ButterworthNational White Collar Crime Center(804)273-6932 ext. 355cbutterworth@nw3c.orgwww.nw3c.org

FCC Releases Data On High-Speed Services For Internet Access: High-Speed Connections to the Internet Increased by 22% in the First Half of 2007

FCC Announces Second Public En Banc Hearing On Broadband Network Management Practices At Stanford University, Palo Alto, California

FCC Announces Change of Date and Time for Public En Banc Hearing in Cambridge, Massachusetts on Broadband Network Management Practices

FCC Announces Public En Banc Hearing in Cambridge, Massachusetts on Broadband Network Management Practices

Public Meeting to Discuss the USG IPv6 Testing Program

Revised NIST IPv6 Profile Released for Comment

FTC to Host Town Hall Meeting to Explore the Mobile Marketplace

Request For Clarification That Internet Protocol Speech To Speech Service Is A Form Of Telecommunications Relay Service Compensable From The Interstat

DOC Gutierrez Hails Dramatic U.S. Broadband Growth

NTIA ICANN Meeting

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment On Petition For Declaratory Ruling That Text Messages And Short Codes Are Title Ii Services Or Are Ti

Pleading Cycle Established For Petition Of The Embarq Local Operating Companies For Forbearance From Enforcement Of Section 69.5(A) Of The Commission’

Comment Sought On Petition For Rulemaking To Establish Rules Governing Network Management Practices By Broadband Network Operators

Comment Sought On Petition For Declaratory Ruling Regarding Internet Management Policies

FTC Staff Proposes Online Behavioral Advertising Privacy Principles

Feature Group Ip Petition For Forbearance From Section 251(G) Of The Communications Act And Sections 51.701(B)(1) And 69.5(B) Of The Commission’s Rule

RFC :: FCC :: FCC Examining Forbearance Petition Review Process

FCC Launches Initiative To Increase Access To Health Care In Rural America Through Broadband Telehealth Services

Joint Statement by Assistant Secretary John M. R. Kneuer and Ambassador David A. Gross on the Second Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, Rio de

Release :: FCC :: FCC EXPANDS LOCAL NUMBER PORTABILITY TO VoIP

Order :: FCC :: Release Of Funding Year 2008 Eligible Services List For Schools And Libraries Universal Service Mechanism

RFC :: NTIA :: Seeks Public Comments Regarding Joint Project Agreement with ICANN

RFC :: FCC :: In the Matter of Email Address Portability

Commerce’s NTIA Renews .us Domain Contract With Neustar

Order :: FCC Grants AT&T Forbearance

RFC :: IP Enabled Services, Petition for Waiver Relating to FCC VoIP TRS Order :: Comments Due 30 Days after Fed Reg

RFC :: Agencies Propose Joint Rule to Implement Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act :: Comments Due Dec. 12

RFC :: ICANN :: GNSO Consideration of Proposed Changes to WHOIS :: Comments Due Oct. 30

Contact: Cathy Milhoan
FBI National Press Office
(202)324-3691
catherine.milhoan@ic.fbi.gov
www.fbi.gov

Contact: Craig Butterworth
National White Collar Crime Center
(804)273-6932 ext. 355
cbutterworth@nw3c.org
www.nw3c.org