At the end of July, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (“NIST”) released draft cybersecurity guidance for IoT device manufacturers. The document, titled Core Cybersecurity Feature Baseline for Securable IoT Devices: A Starting Point for IoT Device Manufacturers, is intended, according to NIST, identify the cybersecurity features that IoT devices should have “to make them at least minimally securable by the individuals and organizations who acquire and use them.” The NIST document is not a rule or requirement for IoT devices, but rather is a continuation of NIST’s effort to foster the development and application of voluntary standards, guidelines, and related tools to improve the cybersecurity of connected devices.

NIST is seeking comment on the document through September 30 of this year and it held a workshop in August for interested parties to discuss the document. In a prior post, I blogged on takeaways from that workshop. Now, it’s time to take a closer look at the NIST document itself.


Continue Reading

Connected devices already are making headway into business and consumer markets. “Smart” speakers, video doorbells, remote programmable thermostats and other devices are increasing in popularity in homes across the United States. Major automakers and startups are pursuing self-driving cars and the “passenger economy.” Businesses are using IoT capabilities to enhance preventive maintenance, to track assets through the production cycle and to gain insights into consumer behavior.

Now, the federal government is trying to provide resources for businesses engaged in the Internet of Things (“IoT”) economy. Building on guidelines it established for cybersecurity generally and IoT cybersecurity specifically, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (“NIST”), a division of the U.S. Department of Commerce, held a workshop for manufacturers on securing IoT devices. I attended the workshop and these are my principal takeaways from the meeting.


Continue Reading

At its August Open Meeting, the FCC adopted a Report and Order (“Order”) implementing portions of two recent statutes—Kari’s Law and the RAY BAUM’s Act—that address ensuring greater access to 911 and emergency services for members of the public. Kari’s Law requires multi-line telephone systems (“MLTS”), like those in hotels and offices, to have the capability for a user to dial 911 directly without having to press “9” (or some other access code) first to call out.  Section 506 of the RAY BAUM’s Act requires the FCC to consider adopting rules to ensure a 911 caller’s dispatchable location is properly conveyed from an MLTS to the public safety answering point (“PSAP”). The Commission took the opportunity of implementing these two Acts to also expand 911 dialing requirements for certain VoIP, TRS and mobile text-to-911 services.

With these new requirements, the FCC continues its trend of expanding the availability of emergency services calling to newer technologies. As these new forms of communication become more mainstream – and as they grow as replacements for, rather than complements to, traditional telecommunications services – the FCC has been inclined to make emergency services a “must have” feature of the service. Providers of new communications technologies should carefully review their service offerings to determine how to handle customer attempts to reach emergency services.


Continue Reading

At its July Open Meeting, the FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) to propose a pilot program within the Universal Service Fund (“USF”) to support broadband connections for telemedicine, or “connected care” for low-income Americans and veterans. Healthcare-related items have received a great deal of attention at the FCC recently, as the agency also adopted an order, which has not yet been released, at its August Open Meeting last week to reform its Rural Health Care Program to focus on telehealth in rural areas. The Connected Care NPRM proposes a three-year pilot at a cost of $100 million to be collected from USF assessments separate from the other USF programs. The NPRM was championed by Commissioner Carr and supported by all five FCC commissioners, although Commissioner O’Rielly expressed some reservations with the fact that the pilot would assess another $100 million on USF ratepayers outside of the individual program caps or budgets. His concerns likely relate to the fact that, at the same time, he is trying to advance a proposal to place an overall cap on the USF, which has received significant opposition. Last week, the Connected Care NPRM was published in the Federal Register, triggering a comment deadline of August 29th and a reply deadline of September 30th.

Continue Reading

It’s once again full speed ahead on spectrum and 5G deployment at the FCC, as the agency plans to take action at its next open meeting scheduled for April 12, 2019 on a slew of measures aimed at making additional millimeter wave (“mmW”) frequencies available to support 5G wireless technologies, the Internet of Things, and other advanced services. Topping the agenda, the agency expects to propose procedures for the simultaneous auction of spectrum for commercial wireless services in three mmW bands encompassing 3400 megahertz. As we previously reported, the proposal would clear the way for the FCC’s second-ever incentive auction (the first being the March 2017 broadcast spectrum incentive auction) designed to clear out incumbent licensees by offering payments in exchange for relinquishing current spectrum holdings. The agency also anticipates reforming access to mmW bands to facilitate the auction and extending long-standing protections for over-the-air reception devices (“OTARD”) to hub and relay antennas essential to 5G network deployment. Rounding out the major actions on the April agenda, the FCC plans to forbear from certain legacy long-distance regulations in the face of increased competition and eliminate the controversial rural “rate floor” for high cost universal service support.

You will find more details on the significant April meeting items after the break:


Continue Reading

In a unanimous decision at its February open meeting, the FCC adopted a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“FNPRM”) further reforming its IP Captioned Telephone Service (“IP CTS”) program, which is part of the telecommunications relay service (“TRS”). After the IP CTS program grew to 80 percent of the costs covered by TRS, last June the FCC approved a package of reform measures to control costs by imposing interim compensation rates to bring compensation closer to FCC determined actual average provider costs. In the instant Order, the FCC takes steps (over the objections of the IP CTS providers) to address potential waste, fraud and abuse by requiring IP CTS providers to submit user registration information to the existing video relay service (“VRS”) Database to limit program access to only those determined to be eligible to use IP CTS. The Commission also granted waivers of its emergency call handling requirements to reduce the requirements on IP CTS providers to relay certain information to PSAPs and initiate reconnection of a disconnected 911 call. The FNPRM proposes additional changes, including making permanent the emergency call handling requirement changes granted by waiver. Comments will be due 30 days after publication of the item in the Federal Register and reply comments will be due 45 days after publication.

Continue Reading

Just before suspending most operations due to the ongoing partial federal government shutdown, the FCC announced its tentative agenda for its next open meeting, scheduled for January 30, 2019. While the January agenda is brief compared to the jam-packed meetings that typified 2018, the FCC plans to adopt items to advance new anti-spoofing measures combating manipulated caller ID information and take further action to address the management and handling of 911 calls for the IP Captioned Telephone Service (“IP CTS”) that aids communication by those with hearing loss. Rounding out the notable meeting items, the FCC would adopt a mechanism to phase down legacy high-cost support for price cap carriers as well as competitive carriers previously subject to the “identical support rule” and transition such support to the winners of the recent Connect America Fund (“CAF”) Phase II auction.

You will find more details on the significant January meeting items after the break:


Continue Reading

After more than twenty years, VoIP’s unclassified status may be coming to an end. Last month, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in Charter Advanced Services LLC v. Lange in which it considered whether an interconnected VoIP service offered by Charter can be regulated like a telecommunications service by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (“MPUC”). The court recognized that the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) has repeatedly failed to resolve the issue of VoIP service regulatory classification. However, the Eight Circuit upheld the district court’s finding that Charter’s VoIP service is an information service that is federally preempted from state regulation based on its interpretation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the “Act”) and FCC orders.

Continue Reading

In an event sure to garner significant attention from tech, consumer protection, and government stakeholders, oral argument on the consolidated appeals of the FCC’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order (“Order”) will take place on February 1, 2019, at the D.C. Circuit. As we previously discussed, the Order largely reversed the FCC’s own 2015 rulemaking to reclassify broadband internet access services (“BIAS”) as telecommunications services subject to a host of Title II common carrier obligations. The Order re-reclassified BIAS as information services subject to “light-touch” Title I regulations, while retaining pared-down transparency requirements on BIAS providers. The challengers allege that the FCC failed to adequately explain its changed regulatory approach, relied on faulty data, and ignored consumer complaints when issuing the Order. The oral argument will provide our first indication of which way the D.C. Circuit, which handled the last three appeals of FCC net neutrality rules with varied results, may go in this latest challenge.

Continue Reading