|
|
|
|
IT'S NOT TOO LATE TO SIGN UP FOR THIS YEAR'S 2010 COMMUNICATIONS LAW FORUM!
Calling all communications lawyers! Earn CLE credits and attend courses relevant to your practice area. You'd have to travel to Washington D.C. to get this kind of update.! Here's what you'll miss if you don't attend:
- Our keynote speaker, from London, Adam Scott, will introduce you to the telecommunications regulatory structure in the United Kingdom and the EU. Mr. Scott will provide a comparative overview of communications regulatory practices and issues. Mr. Scott is a member of the United Kingdom Competition Appeals Tribunal, the equivalent of having a D.C. Circuit Judge and FTC Commissioner coming to address our conference!
- I will be serving on a panel reviewing the FCC's National Broadband Plan, including analysis of the D.C. Circuit's Comcast order, and FCC Chairman Genachowski's "Third Way" proposal.
- A discussion of "TV Everywhere" and regulatory issues related to "over-the-top" video, or delivery of video services over the internet.
- A technology update from local tech writer, Julia Ojeda-Zapata.
- Google Voice: A case study in the relationship between regulatory decisions and technological innovation.
- Ethics Credit! Multi-jurisdictional practice issues discussed by a local law firm ethics officer and the director of the Minnesota Office of Lawyers' Professional Responsibility.
- Reception follows!
Minnesota Regional Communications Law Forum
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Minnesota CLE Conference Center
7th St. and Nicolett Mall
Minneapolis, MN
Register by clicking here
Walk-in registrations welcome!
|
FCC OPENS SMART VIDEO DEVICE
AND CABLE CARD PROCEEDINGS
In its National Broadband
Plan (NBP) released March 16, 2010, the FCC made the following two
recommendations pertaining to smart video devices and Cable-CARDs:
-
The FCC should initiate a
proceeding to "ensure that all multichannel video programming distributors
(MVPDs) install a gateway device or equivalent functionality in all new
subscriber homes and in all homes requiring replacement set top boxes, starting
on or before December 31, 2012."
-
The FCC, on an expedited
basis, should adopt rules for cable operators to fix certain Cable-CARD issues
while development of the gateway device functionality progresses. Adoption of these rules should be completed
in the fall of 2010.
In late April, 2010 the FCC opened
both of the above-recommended proceedings.
Initial comments in the "Smart Video Device" docket are due
July 13, 2010, with reply comments due on August 12, 2010. Initial comments in the Cable-CARD docket
are due June 14, 2010, with reply comments due on June 28, 2010.
In the Smart Video Device
docket, the FCC seeks comment on "specific steps we can take to unleash
competition in the retail market for smart, set-top video devices . . . that are compatible with all
multichannel video programming distributor ("MVPD")
services." In its Notice of
Inquiry (NOI), the FCC introduced the concept of an "all video"
adapter that could act either as a small "set-back" device for
connection to a single smart video device or as a gateway allowing all consumer
electronic devices in the home to access multichannel video programming
services. The NOI seeks comment on
proposed technical standards, consumer economic behavior issues pertaining to
video navigational devices, and alternative proposals.
The FCC's Cable-CARD docket,
its fourth notice of proposed rulemaking on this issue, was issued in tandem
with the Smart Video Device docket. The
FCC believes is has not been fully successful in implementing "the command
of Section 629 of the Communications Act to ensure the commercial availability
of navigation devices . . . ." The
FCC seeks comment on the following:
-
Rules that would remove the
market pricing disparity between customers who purchase navigational devices at
retail, and those customers who lease set-top boxes from their cable company.
-
Rules that would require a
specific interface on leased set-top boxes to allow recording on digital
devices.
-
Proposed changes to existing
FCC rules intended to encourage cable operators to use their capacity more
efficiently by transitioning cable systems to all-digital.
There has been state activity on video
navigational device issues too. This
past Minnesota legislative session, State Representative Joe Atkins introduced
legislation that would require cable companies operating in the state to
provide free equipment to customers to the extent "necessary to continue
to receive and view the channels under the subscriber's existing contract with
the cable communications system with no diminution in quality." This legislation did not pass.
Relevant Documents:
FCC Notice of Inquiry ("Smart Device Docket")
FCC Fourth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Cable-CARD Docket")
Minnesota House File 3761 (Cable Equipment Fees)
|
MPUC ORDERS PHONE COMPANIES
TO EDUCATE CONSUMERS ON CALLER ID SPOOFING
The MPUC has ordered all
"providers of CLASS services that are subject to the jurisdiction of the
Commission" to submit plans demonstrating how their customers will be
educated about Caller ID spoofing at the time of purchase of CLASS services and
after purchasing CLASS services. The
plans are due July 27, 2010. The MPUC
also will convene a workshop where industry representatives can explain the
technical nature of Caller ID Spoofing and respond to questions from the public
and the Commission. The date of the
workshop has not yet been set.
The MPUC's order follows a
complaint filed by the Minnesota Department of Commerce requesting that the
MPUC investigate Caller ID spoofing practices. Caller ID spoofing is the practice altering Caller ID information to
mask the true identity of the caller, whether for fraudulent or lawful
purposes.
CLASS is the acronym for
Custom Local Area Signaling Services. Minnesota law defines CLASS as a custom calling telephone service that
is enabled through the installation or use of SS7 or similar signaling system
technology and that includes at least the following features: (1) automatic call back; (2) automatic
recall; (3) caller identification; (4) caller identification blocking; (5)
customer originated call tracing; (6) distinctive ringing/call waiting; (7)
selective call acceptance; (8) selective call forwarding; (9) selective call
rejection.
The MPUC declined to order phone companies to
take technological steps to prevent Caller ID spoofing, acknowledging that the
record before it did not show there to be a technological fix to the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
