Multichannel video programming distributors began lobbying the FCC heavily on the broadcaster practice of trying to include stations to be named later in retransmission consent talks. The American Cable Association and American TV Alliance cited the issue at meetings with FCC staff, said ex parte filings (see here and here) Tuesday in docket 15-216. ACA said representatives of Atlantic Broadband, Cass Cable, Frankfort Plant Board, Liberty Puerto Rico and Shentel told Media Bureau staff that large broadcast station groups in particular "regularly engage" in bad-faith bargaining practices in retrans consent talks. ACA's meeting cited stations "allowing their affiliated networks to interfere with their right to grant out-of-market retransmission consent to cable operators" and broadcaster demands for carriage of prospective programming. ATVA also brought up prospective programming -- trying to require MVPDs to carry at set terms and rates networks to be named later -- in its meeting with Media Bureau and Office of General Counsel staff. At that meeting, according to ATVA, were representatives of ACA, AT&T, Dish Network, Time Warner Cable and USTelecom. ATVA said it discussed different types of forced bundling, ceding of negotiation rights and after-acquired station licenses. ATVA said it also repeated its arguments the FCC has legal authority to adopt its proposals. NAB didn't comment Wednesday.

T-Mobile's repacking study has “significant flaws,” NAB told staff from the offices of Commissioners Mike O'Rielly, Ajit Pai and Jessica Rosenworcel in meetings Monday, said an ex parte filing in docket 12-268. T-Mobile's “serious underestimation of the time required to repack stations” is partially based on a misunderstanding of the flexibility of broadcast antennas, NAB said. Even though the antennas can be adjusted to receive a range of frequencies, they generally can't replicate a station's coverage on a different channel, and would likely require adjustments and a new transmitter, NAB said: T-Mobile also misjudged the number of tower crews, including crews that don't currently perform broadcast work. “Many of NAB’s members have never even heard of a number of the tower crews T-Mobile claims are qualified to perform broadcast work,” NAB said. “These are not experienced, trusted partners, and broadcasters will not put their most valuable asset in the hands of unproven vendors.” T-Mobile's study (see 160304005) is “outcome-driven, oversimplified and misleading,” NAB said. “Disappointingly, Commission staff meanwhile appears to be focused only on auction expediency.”

FCC reform of the USF high-cost program for rate-of-return carriers was based on an unusual level of collaboration (see 1602190056), FCC Commissioner Mike O’Rielly said at a Faegre Baker lunch Tuesday. “At my request, a number of Commissioners worked extensively with the requisite trade associations in order to fully understand their concerns and the impact of any changes,” O’Rielly said, according to his written remarks posted by the agency Wednesday. The event was closed to the news media. “I also traveled to a number of places around the country to hear firsthand from carriers," said O'Rielly. "After almost a year of discussions, I believe we have a solid framework that provides regulatory certainty for rate-of-return carriers for years to come.” Compared with some of the other areas tackled by the agency, rate-of-return reform was “one of the more inclusive procedural efforts that I have been part of at the Commission,” he said. The order addresses “antiquated rules” to allow reimbursement for stand-alone broadband, he said. The order also imposes build-out requirements and other strictures to ensure money is “wisely and efficiently spent, while providing transitions where appropriate,” he said. O’Rielly had less good to say about two items expected to get a vote at the agency’s March 31 open meeting. Lifeline program changes (see 1603080024) must include controls on the size of the program, O’Rielly said. “I have made clear that I’m willing to support expanding the program to cover broadband but, in return, the Commission must adopt a reasonable overall budget at the same time,” he said. “That is non-negotiable.” O’Rielly also raised concerns about an expected NPRM on privacy rules for ISPs (see 1603080067). The net neutrality order is still pending before the courts, he said, so FCC authority to act is in question. “The Commission doesn’t understand how its new burdens will impose unnecessary and costly compliance on broadband providers,” he said. “Who does the Commission think is going to pay for this? Additionally, by all measures the Commission is ill-prepared to address the complexity of privacy matters, lacking the history and necessary expertise.”

A proposal by ISPs on privacy rules included groups representing nearly all ISPs (see 1603010069) except wireless ISPs, said Robert Quinn, AT&T senior vice president-federal, in a blog post Wednesday. FTC oversight has worked well, Quinn said. “All major ISPs have enacted privacy policies which explain to consumers the information that ISPs collect and how that data is used,” he said. “At AT&T, we’ve continued to simplify our policy, including several years ago when we went to a single comprehensive privacy policy that describes plainly and simply the information we collect, how we collect it and how we use it.” Quinn said he was AT&T chief privacy officer for several years and can say firsthand “we take customer privacy and how we communicate our polices to our customers seriously.” But some groups are pushing for much stricter rules than ISPs have faced in the past (see 1603070049), Quinn said. “To get there, those groups have characterized ISPs as ‘gatekeepers,’ asserted that ISPs (as opposed to companies like Google) are the real leaders of targeted advertising and, finally, argued that the Federal Trade Commission is, in essence, incompetent at policing privacy given the tools they have available.” Those arguments aren't supported by the facts, he said, though he warned the FCC may be listening. “Time and time again, the FCC appears to want to place its thumb on the scale in favor of Internet companies and against the companies that invest in broadband infrastructure in this country,” he wrote. “Last year, it was the Title II proceeding. Last month, we were talking about set-top boxes, this month it’s privacy, next month it could be special access.” The FCC did not comment. "I’ve characterized ISPs as ‘gatekeepers’ because that is what they are,” said John Simpson, Consumer Watchdog privacy project director, responding to Quinn. “Edge providers like Google and Facebook do pose serious privacy concerns, but that is no justification for not dealing with the privacy issues raised by ISPs and their unique position. That is what the FCC is legally bound to do now that broadband providers are classified as common carriers.” The FTC has tried to protect consumers' privacy, “but because it doesn’t have rulemaking authority in this area and can only move against ‘unfair and deceptive’ acts, its powers are limited,” Simpson said. “The phone and cable ISP industry is totally disingenuous claiming that the use of privacy policies is an effective way to protect consumers,” said Center for Digital Democracy Executive Director Jeffrey Chester. “These companies are engaged in significant cross device tracking and targeting using their advantage over subscriber information. They are expanding their work with data brokers, acquiring powerful consumer data assets, and are engaged in practices that threaten the privacy of their customers. The FCC has to step in before these broadband giants further invade our privacy.”

AT&T said it and Univision reached a brief cease-fire of their retransmission consent dispute, which had resulted in the blackout of the broadcaster on the telco's U-Verse pay-TV service and led to a war of words (see 1603070061 and 1603040063). "We appreciate Univision agreeing to our request earlier today to unblock their channels temporarily during the upcoming Democratic Presidential Debate," AT&T said Tuesday. "We continue working toward an agreement with Univision.” With the debate to be co-hosted by Univision Wednesday, National Hispanic Media Coalition CEO Alex Nogales said last week that the blackout was "a grave injustice to voters looking to be informed." The debate, also sponsored by The Washington Post, "will be available to U-verse customers as part of our commitment to inform and empower our community, especially in this crucial election year," a Univision spokeswoman emailed us Tuesday. Meanwhile, Rep. Tony Cardenas, D-Calif., said he worries about the ongoing effects of the AT&T/Univision dispute. “I strongly urge both parties of the negotiation to quickly and responsibly resolve this situation and come to an agreement in order to ensure the Latino community can continue accessing the content they choose at this pivotal time for our country,” said Cardenas, a Commerce Committee member, in a statement Tuesday. “This situation highlights how important it is for the individuals and companies that control our media landscape to maintain a commitment to civic responsibility, particularly to the Latino community. … The timely resolution of this dispute is an issue of public interest.”

Google met with all five FCC commissioners, urging them to act on rules “to empower innovative uses in the high-frequency bands above 24 GHz” as part of its spectrum frontiers rulemaking. Google is particularly concerned about unlicensed use of the 57-71 GHz band, the company said. “We reiterated our arguments that, given present characteristics of useful field disturbance sensors, heavy constraints on their use at 57-64 GHz are no longer appropriate.” Google made the filing in docket 14-177 on the meetings that included Chairman Tom Wheeler.

The FCC rejected inmate calling service providers' objections to allowing the outside counsel of competitor Pay Tel Communications to view their commercially sensitive information pursuant a protective order in the ICS rulemaking. In an order Monday in docket 12-375, the commission denied a Securus application for review of an October 2014 Wireline Bureau order that sided with Pay Tel's request. The company's outside counsel didn't get access to the Securus data during the review, the agency said. The FCC also denied similar objections filed by Global Tel*Link and Telmate. The ICS providers said Pay Tel's outside counsel was too close to the rival company. But the FCC ordered the ICS providers to give Pay Tel's outside counsel access to the data within 10 business days. "Consistent with the general restrictions of a protective order, Pay Tel is entitled to have the representation it desires, and its outside counsel is entitled to have access to all the information it needs to zealously represent its client. Having found that Pay Tel’s outside counsel are not engaged in competitive decision-making and are eligible to review information under the Protective Order, we reject the Objectors’ arguments to prevent them from doing so," the commission said. The ICS rulemaking resulted in a November order restricting ICS rates and fees along with a Further NPRM seeking comment on more possible changes. The FCC said access to the confidential information was still at issue because of the new proceeding and legal challenges to the November order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which Monday stayed agency rate caps and one set of ancillary fee limits (see 1603070055). Commissioner Mike O'Rielly dissented from Monday's order, saying in a statement the FCC hadn't adequately considered the objections of Global Tel*Link, Securus and Telmate. Commissioner Ajit Pai didn't dissent but issued a statement criticizing the FCC comments about Pay Tel's rights to zealous representation and other things. "It's a little late for such high-minded rhetoric," he said. "How was Pay Tel’s outside counsel supposed to 'zealously represent its client' or 'meaningfully participate' in this rulemaking with 'one hand [tied] behind counsels’ backs'? The Order offers no answer. Nor does it offer any reason for the long delay in adjudicating this dispute. Although I support today’s order -- the proverb 'better late than never' comes to mind -- I am disturbed that we may have deprived a party of its administrative rights through inaction. That’s unacceptable and yet another troubling sign that the FCC’s processes are in desperate need of reform."

The FCC is observing National Consumer Protection Week, said Alison Kutler, acting chief of the FCC Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau. The week is a “coordinated effort to encourage consumers to take full advantage of their rights and make better-informed decisions,” she said in a Monday blog post. “This is our bureau’s daily mission on behalf of the Commission.” The FCC knows “changes resulting from technology innovation occur rapidly in the marketplace, presenting new opportunities, but also new challenges for consumers,” she wrote.

Correction: The Disability Advisory Committee is the FCC committee that had membership changes (see 1603040029).

Nine auditing and security firms, including FireEye's Mandiant, PwC and Verizon Enterprise Solutions, were ordered by the FTC to provide information "on how they conduct assessments of companies to measure their compliance with" payment card industry data security standards (PCI DSS), the commission said in a Monday news release. Commissioners, who voted 4-0 to issue the orders, are seeking a better understanding of data security compliance auditing and how it protects consumer privacy. The FTC said it's compiling a study of the auditors and their policies, practices and procedures such as interactions with companies, sample PCI DSS assessments and additional services provided such as forensic audits. The commission said major payment card-issuing companies require PCI DSS audits of businesses that process more than 1 million card transactions annually to ensure companies are adequately protecting personal consumer data. The other companies receiving the FTC orders are Freed Maxick CPAs, Foresite MSP, GuidePoint Security, NDB, SecurityMetrics, and Sword and Shield Enterprise Security.