The Federal Communication Commission’s efforts at regulating network neutrality suffered a set back at the hands of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which vacated the FCC’s Comcast Order for lack of jurisdiction. Comcast Corp. v. FCC, No. 08-1291, 2010 WL 1286658, at *1, 19 (D.C. Cir. April 6, 2010).
|
On January 12, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected a challenge by Core Communications, Inc., the Public Service Commission of the State of New York, and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners to a November 2008 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order setting forth the basis for its authority to institute rate caps on intercarrier compensation for telecommunications traffic bound for internet service providers (ISPs). Core Communications, Inc. v. FCC, Nos. 08-1365, 09-1046, 08-1393 & 09-1044, 2010 WL 86672, at *1, *7 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 12, 2010).
|
On October 21st the Federal Communications Commission amended Part 9 of its regulations in order to implement the requirements of the New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008 ("NET 911 Act"), which was enacted on July 23, 2008. In re Implementation of the NET 911 Improvement Act of 2008, Report and Order, FCC 08-249, WC Docket No. 08-171 (Oct. 21, 2008). In sum, the NET 911 Act and the FCC's implementing regulations require that providers of interconnected voice over Internet Protocol service have access to any and all capabilities they need in order to provide 911 and enhanced 911 service in full compliance with FCC rules.
|
On October 22, 2008 the FTC announced that it would suspend enforcement of its new "Red Flag Rules" for combating identity theft for six months, which gives entities subject to the rule until May 1, 2009 to implement a written "Red Flag Program" to detect, prevent and respond to threats of identity theft in connection with accounts covered by the rules. In its Enforcement Policy Statement that accompanied the announcement, the FTC stated that:
[S]ome industries and entities within the FTC’s jurisdiction have expressed confusion and uncertainty about their coverage under the rule. These entities indicated that they were not aware that they were undertaking activities that would cause them to fall within FACTA’s definitions of “creditor” or “financial institution.” Many entities also noted that because they generally are not required to comply with FTC rules in other contexts, they had not followed or even been aware of the rulemaking, and therefore learned of the requirements of the rule too late to be able to come into compliance by November 1, 2008.
Thus, the FTC delayed its enforcement date in order to provide businesses ample time to bring their policies and procedures into compliance with the new rules.
For more information about the Red Flag Rules and how they might affect your business, please review our full posting regarding the rules here, and contact us with questions.
Joe Cutler: 206-539-6014
Veronica McGregor: 415-344-7062
|
On August 25th the Federal Communications Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to implement the requirements of the New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008.
|
On July 8, 2008, a clearly annoyed U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to provide a valid legal justification for its interim rules governing intercarrier compensation for telecommunications traffic bound for internet service providers (ISPs) by November 5, 2008, or suffer vacatur of its ISP Remand Order. In re Core Communications, Inc., No. 07-1446, 2008 WL 2649636, at *1, *11 (D.C. Cir. July 8, 2008).
|
In a Report and Order released on August 6, 2007, the Federal Communications Commission ruled that interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol providers are now subject to regulatory fee obligations. In re Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2007, MD Docket No. 07-81, FCC 07-140 (rel. August 6, 2007) (“2007 Regulatory Fees Order”).
|
Priceline, Travelocity and Cingular Wireless each contracted with DirectRevenue LLC to deliver ads to consumers. To service its clients (including Priceline, Travelocity and Cingular Wireless), DR installed adware on millions of computers. The adware, which was undisclosed to users and difficult to remove, monitored the websites visited by the users and collected the information they typed into web forms. The NY AG filed a law suit alleging that DirectRevenue had violated New York consumer protection law, then pursued DirectRevenue's three major advertiser clients.
|