Jimm Phillips

Capitol Hill reaction may be limited, despite criticism AT&T is facing from net neutrality advocates over the introduction Monday of the carrier’s “sponsored data” plan, said industry experts in interviews. Other national carriers are likely monitoring the criticism from advocacy groups and the Hill and may use that to determine when -- and if -- they will introduce similar plans, the experts said. Net neutrality advocates said the plan violates the spirit of net neutrality but question the extent to which the FCC’s Open Internet rules would apply (CD Jan 7 p2). House Communications Subcommittee ranking member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., raised some concerns Monday about the AT&T plan, which she said in a statement “puts it in the business of picking winners and losers on the Internet, threatening the open Internet, competition and consumer choice."

The FCC should let network operators decide the best way to mitigate interference on the 3.5 GHz band, said a carrier, high-technology firms and other companies commenting on spectrum access systems for use on the 3550-3650 MHz band. SAS shouldn’t “directly control different aspects of the network,” T-Mobile said Monday (http://bit.ly/1ddo1fJ). Google and Microsoft also filed papers with the FCC on the technical aspects of the SAS in advance of a Jan. 14 workshop being hosted by the Wireless Bureau and the Office of Engineering and Technology. The FCC has targeted the band for shared commercial use.

The yet-to-be-introduced Cybersecurity Recruitment and Retention Act “aims to give [the Department of Homeland Security] hiring and retention authorities for cybersecurity professionals that are comparable to the ones allowed to the Department of Defense so that DHS can strengthen its workforce and more effectively carry out its cybersecurity mission,” a Senate Homeland Security Committee aide told us. The committee postponed a planned Dec. 18 markup of the bill and has not set a new timeline for action on the measure (CD Jan 6 p2). Committee Chairman Tom Carper, D-Del., and ranking member Tom Coburn, R-Okla., “hope to move a bipartisan measure, including legislation to enhance the ability of DHS to recruit and retain the cyber workforce it needs to protect the department and our nation, in the new year,” the committee aide said.

After Congress ended 2013 without enacting any major legislation to bolster cybersecurity, industry observers told us in interviews they see limited prospects for progress on such bills in 2014. Congress passed two spending bills that included some cybersecurity language, but did not complete consideration of marquee legislation addressing the issue, including the House-passed Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (HR-624) and the Cybersecurity Act of 2013 (S-1353).

U.S. civil society groups are in the early stages of deciding how they will participate in important ITU-led communications forums set to occur in 2014, industry experts told us. Federal agencies responsible for formulating the U.S. government’s position on ITU issues are continuing to prepare for the 2014 forums, which will culminate in the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference Oct. 20-Nov. 7 (CD Dec 23 p9).

U.S. officials are continuing to plan for the upcoming World Telecommunication Development Conference, although the ITU hasn’t announced a new locale for the conference. The WTDC, held every four years, sets the agenda and guidelines for the ITU’s Development Sector for the following four years. The WTDC had been set for March 31-April 11 in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, but the ITU decided to move the conference because of continuing political instability in the country, an industry observer told us.

The scope of the FTC’s proposed study of patent assertion entities is “far broader than necessary to serve the proper performance of the functions of the FTC,” said InterDigital in a filing to the FTC released Wednesday (http://1.usa.gov/1ho7tkd). The FTC voted in September to begin exploring a proposed PAE study, which it would launch using its authority under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act (CD Sept 30 p15). InterDigital said it doesn’t believe it’s a PAE as the FTC defined it in its study proposal, though many of the company’s critics have defined it as one. The FTC defined PAEs as “firms with a business model based primarily on purchasing patents and then attempting to generate revenue” by asserting their intellectual property rights “against persons who are already practicing the patented technologies.” Intellectual property groups and other companies often defined as PAEs also expressed significant concerns with the proposed study.

A fatal Metro-North Railroad crash in New York City this month renewed public awareness about implementation of the positive train control safety system, but PTC stakeholders told us they don’t believe the crash will ultimately change the dynamics of the technology’s implementation at the FCC and other agencies. The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, which required railroads to implement PTC communications systems, gives nearly all responsibility for implementing PTC to the Department of Transportation and the Federal Railroad Administration, said an FCC official. But the FCC has been facilitating the deployment of some PTC technologies because they involve spectrum, said an official there.

The debate over legislation targeting so-called abusive patent litigation officially shifted to the Senate Tuesday, as patent stakeholders testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Patent Transparency and Improvements Act (S-1720) and other bills that would address aspects of the issue. Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said S-1720 takes “significant steps to address the problem of patent trolls and misuse of the patent system,” but is also “balanced and targeted to preserve the rights of legitimate patent holders whose inventions help drive our economy.” Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said it’s important the Senate address patent litigation because it’s a threat to the U.S. patent system, in particular noting the effects of “deceptively evasive demand letters.”

The Senate must “push the envelope even further” on curbing abusive patent litigation than the House did when it passed the Innovation Act (HR-3309) earlier this month, said Application Developers Alliance President Jon Potter Monday during a CEA-sponsored Google Hangout session. The Senate Judiciary Committee is to begin considering the Patent Transparency and Improvements Act (S-1720) at a hearing Tuesday. The bill, introduced by committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, mirrors some portions of HR-3309 but draws more heavily from legislative recommendations from the White House. The bill does not include provisions on fee-shifting or changes to discovery rules for patent cases -- two items that drew criticism from some opponents during the debate in the House (CD Dec 6 p11). The Senate bill would also give the FTC the authority to take action against patent assertion entities that send deceptive demand letters. The Senate should particularly focus on stays on patent lawsuits against end-users and provisions that would improve patent quality during the review process at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Potter said Monday. Tuesday’s hearing will shape the Senate debate, but so will the opinions of constituents who will speak with their senators over the holidays, Potter said. Opponents of HR-3309 argued that the bill would hurt small businesses -- something Engine Advocacy co-founder Mike McGeary called “false.” The debate over possible legislation has brought together advocates “from all walks of life,” with a majority of them coming from small businesses, he said. Despite the criticism, the House passed HR-3309 with a bipartisan majority, which itself was a “clear signal to the Senate that the time for action is now,” McGeary said. “This is something that can’t wait for another election cycle.”