Politics and Law

WASHINGTON--The wireless and TV broadcasting industries faced off for the first time at a congressional subcommittee meeting on the Hill on Tuesday, setting in motion what could be a long drawn out battle over whether wireless spectrum should be reallocated and where the government will get this new spectrum.

Steve Largent, president and CEO of CTIA, the wireless industry group, and Gordon Smith of the National Association of Broadcasters, were among the witnesses gathered before the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet to discuss what the CTIA and the Federal Communications Commission have called a looming spectrum crisis.

CTIA and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski have said that finding new spectrum as well as new ways to use existing spectrum more efficiently are top priorities that need to be addressed to keep up with growing demand for new wireless broadband services.

"Spectrum is our industry's backbone and it is what allows us to continue to innovate and create new apps, products, and services," Largent said in a statement. "Without this additional spectrum, our industry will cease to provide U.S. consumers with the most innovative and most competitive wireless offerings in the world."

The hearing comes just weeks after the CTIA ruffled broadcasters' feathers when it filed comments with the FCC suggesting that some of the additional spectrum it seeks for wireless broadband could come from unused TV broadcast spectrum. Broadcasters oppose giving up their spectrum. And some representatives for broadcasters say they don't believe that there is a spectrum crisis.

"There is no shortage of wireless spectrum in this country," said John Hane, counsel in the communications practice group of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, which represents the TV broadcast industry. "There is a lot of spectrum already available that could be used more efficiently. That is why we need these bills to take an inventory of what is currently being used."

Indeed, NAB and CTIA both said they support the passage of the Radio Spectrum Inventory Act, which would require the FCC and the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to inventory the wireless spectrum available in the U.S. It would also require those organization issue a public report on the government and private uses of the spectrum.

Smith of NAB also said during his testimony that it's important for Congress to look at all spectrum holders to ensure they are using their spectrum efficiently rather than singling out the broadcast industry.

"NAB believes that any inventory of spectrum should be comprehensive," he said in his prepared testimony. "Let's look at all bands and all services, including federal government bands. And let's view how each service is using its existing spectrum."

The NAB also said it supports another bill in the House, called the Spectrum Relocation Improvement Act, which would streamline the process for federal agencies to turn over unused spectrum so it can be auctioned to bidders in the private sector.

It's clear that the CTIA and FCC are taking on a big fight with calls for spectrum reallocation. And Jim Cicconi, senior executive vice president of external and legislative affairs for AT&T, said in an interview Tuesday that he admires the FCC for taking on such a battle.

"We certainly think that there is looming spectrum crisis," he said. "And I give the FCC chairman a great deal of credit for being courageous enough to lay out the problem and to seek what is best for consumers."

But he added that he also believes that the government needs to look at all sources of spectrum in solving this problem.

"That's why we agree there should be a spectrum inventory done," he said.

But skeptics, such as Hane, believe that a full inventory will actually show that no spectrum crisis exists. He argues that Congress may realize once it evaluates the data that there is no real crisis and that the current allocation of spectrum is sufficient to handle future growth.

Specifically, he says that wireless operators could be doing more with Wi-Fi and femto cell technology, which boosts radio signals indoors and then uses a wired broadband connection to send calls and data across a carriers network. He thinks this could help solve some of the efficiency problems that exist today instead of forcing TV broadcasters or government agencies to give up their spectrum.

But the CTIA argues that Wi-Fi and Femto cells are not enough to solve the spectrum shortage. Largent said additional spectrum is necessary to keep the U.S. competitive in the wireless market. And carriers such as AT&T, which is currently facing capacity issues due to heavy use of data services on devices like the iPhone, agree that freeing up more spectrum could help alleviate the problems the company currently faces.

Using a report from the International Telecommunications Union, CTIA calculates that by 2015 the U.S. and other developed nations will need about 1300 MHz spectrum to keep up with growing wireless broadband demand. Largent said in his testimony that the U.S. is lagging other nations in making additional spectrum available. Today, the U.S. has a little less than 500 MHz of spectrum that is commercially available. The trade group is asking the FCC to identify 800 MHz of additional spectrum that can be reallocated for wireless broadband use.

Largent pointed out that countries much smaller than the U.S. have much more spectrum available to them. For example, Germany, which has about 107 million wireless subscribers, will soon have about 645 MHz of spectrum available commercially. And the United Kingdom, which has only about 77 million subscribers will soon have 707 MHz of spectrum available for commercial purposes.

Largent said it is important for Congress to begin the spectrum reallocation process now because it takes years to identify and auction off new spectrum. The past two major FCC spectrum auctions each took more than 10 years to complete from start to finish.

NAB's Smith cautioned congressional leaders to not act hastily in reallocating spectrum. Not only could it hurt free over the air TV, but he said it could stifle innovation in improving digital TV. The U.S. just spent several years and billions of dollars converting to digital TV service, which uses spectrum more efficiently and often provides better service to consumers.

"Our national priorities should recognize the value that free over-the-air broadcasting brings to every American," Smith said in his testimony. "Broadcasting and broadband are not 'either/or' propositions as some have suggested; that's a false choice."

The bills before Congress are just the first step in what is likely to be a long battle for the wireless industry, government agencies and TV broadcasters.

"This is the first round in a 128-round match up," Hane said. "This is just getting started. So it's premature for the CTIA to begin talking about reallocating spectrum when we don't even have a full inventory of the spectrum that's currently being used."

WASHINGTON, D.C.--The Federal Communications Commission got a slap on the wrist Thursday from federal auditors for not doing enough to protect wireless subscribers.

The Government Accountability Office issued a report Thursday that said the FCC needs to improve oversight of the wireless industry to protect consumers. The agency said the FCC needs to do a better job enforcing consumer protection rules and educating the public about how they can submit complaints when they have experienced problems with their carriers.

The report was requested by Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) when he was chairman of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.

The survey of more than 1,100 cell phone users found that the vast majority of wireless subscribers, 84 percent to be exact, are satisfied with their mobile phone service, which is good news for the industry. But for the millions of wireless consumers who are dissatisfied, the report determined that the FCC is not doing enough to help them resolve their problems or protect their interests.

One of the biggest issues uncovered in the report is the fact that carrier early termination fees are preventing dissatisfied consumers from switching carriers. The report found that among consumers who wanted to switch carriers but did not, about 42 percent said they didn't switch because of the early termination fees that carriers charge customers when they end their contracts early. These fees apply to consumers who sign up for carrier contracts and buy a subsidized device. The fees can cost anywhere between $150 and $350.

The industry argues that the fees are set so that carriers can cover the cost of subsidizing the phones. Congress and the FCC have questioned this practice and now all four major U.S. wireless carriers prorate their early termination fees.

The GAO report also found that the FCC is not providing enough oversight in how carriers resolve complaints. The FCC receives about 20,000 complaints from consumers per year, and it forwards these complaints to carriers. But the GAO said the agency does not provide enough oversight to make sure those issues are resolved.

"FCC also lacks goals and measures that clearly identify the intended outcomes of its complaint processing efforts," the report said. "Consequently, FCC cannot demonstrate the effectiveness of its efforts to process complaints."

Other issues cited in the report include billing problems. According to the report, about 34 percent of mobile-phone customers received unexpected charges on their bills. And roughly 31 percent had difficulty understanding their bill.

CTIA, the trade group that represents the mobile phone industry, pointed to the positive aspects of the report that found that 84 percent of customers were satisfied with their service.

"In this fiercely competitive industry, our members work very hard for each customer to provide them with the best products and services," Steve Largent, CTIA's president and CEO, said in a statement.

The GAO report suggests the FCC develop goals for handling consumer complaints. And it recommends that the agency analyze the complaints to identify trends and to see if carriers are actually complying with existing rules. The report also suggests the FCC come up with better ways to communicate with state officials to address some of these problems.

"The FCC can--and must--do more to make sure consumer concerns are resolved by wireless carriers and oversee the wireless industry with a greater focus on consumer protection," Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), said in a statement. "It is time for the agency to take real action to better protect wireless consumers."

At the telecommunications and policy summit here on Thursday, Ruth Milkman, chief of the wireless telecommunications bureau at the FCC, said the agency is already addressing some of these issues. Last week it opened an inquiry into Verizon's recent early termination fee hike. Verizon Wireless raised the fee for terminating a contract for a smartphone to $350 from $175.

In a formal response to the GAO report, the FCC said it has already launched three proceedings examining mobile-phone practices. And the FCC also noted that it's developing a new system for tracking complaints.

Spanish officials said earlier this week that the government will require service providers to offer broadband with speeds of at least 1 Mbps at regulated rates to residents living anywhere in the country.

A frenzy over a new Sony Ericsson smartphone at the GSMA Mobile World Congress in Barcelona last February.

(Credit: Marguerite Reardon/CNET )

The Spanish telecommunications minister issued a statement Tuesday declaring that broadband would be added to the country's so-called "universal service," which guarantees reasonably priced telephone service to citizens, Reuters reported. The goal is to offer affordable broadband with speeds of at least 1 Mbps to residents by 2011.

To achieve this goal the Spanish government will require any service provider that gets universal service funds to also include broadband services to any home as part of its service.

Last month, Finland's minister of communications announced a similar plan. By July 1, 2010, every person in Finland will have the right to a 1 Mbps connection.

While the 1Mbps speeds don't sound like much, Spanish and Finnish officials say it's just the beginning. They hope this speed will serve as a starting point. And they believe that network operators will increase speeds over time.

Finland has already established aggressive public policies in place to encourage more ubiquitous and faster broadband deployments. In 2008, the Finnish government said it would pay a third of the cost to wire the country with fiber by 2015.

These mandates come at a time when the U.S. Federal Communications Commission is drafting a national broadband policy that outlines a plan for policies to help provide universal broadband to every American. The plan will be presented to Congress in February 2010.

In a report this week to the FCC, the task force working on the national broadband policy highlighted several barriers to universal broadband, including problems with the U.S. Universal Service Fund. But taking action to change the system is difficult.

The U.S. Universal Service Fund subsidizes the cost of building telephone infrastructure throughout the country in places where it is too expensive to deploy such services. Much of the money from this fund, which is collected from consumers as part of their monthly phone bills, is still being used to subsidize regular telephony service. Many policy makers and government officials say the program needs to be revised to include broadband. And the funding mechanism also needs to be revised.

While many consumer advocates believe the U.S. government should take a more active role in directing policy in way similar to what is happening in Finland and Spain, it's important to note that the U.S. is a much larger country by population and geography than either of these countries. To put it in context, Finland has about 5.3 million residents, compared to more than 300 million people who live in the U.S.

Developing and funding universal broadband access in the U.S. will cost anywhere between $20 billion and $350 billion, according to government estimates. That said, establishing a clear policy road map could help pave the way to truly affordable high speed Internet access everywhere in the U.S.

The Federal Communications Commission met Wednesday to discuss obstacles to enacting a national broadband policy that will provide high-speed Internet access to every American.

President Obama has made universal broadband access a key goal. Grants and loans for helping make universal broadband access a reality have already started being doled out as part of Congress' economic stimulus package.

In an effort to ensure that new programs and policies work toward achieving the same goal, the FCC has been tasked with developing a national broadband plan to help direct policy makers in getting affordable broadband to every American. A task force, headed by Blair Levin, who had been chief of staff for former FCC chairman Reed Hundt, is developing the plan that will be presented to Congress on February 17, 2010.

Levin and his staff appeared before the FCC Wednesday to present what they see as gaps or obstacles that must be overcome to develop clear recommendations and policy for universal broadband.

Levin said that commissioners and policy makers must consider the broadband ecosystem if they hope to achieve the president's goals. This means taking into account not only consumer needs but also considering the needs of the industry, which will likely fund the bulk of the $20 billion to $350 billion that will be needed to build new infrastructure and develop new programs for spreading broadband throughout the country.

In considering these needs, Levin said it is important to identify and come up with ways to overcome some hurdles that stand in the way for achieving the ultimate goal of providing broadband to every American.

Obstacles to universal broadband access
One major issue has to do with the Universal Service Fund, a program funded through extra charges on consumers' phone bills. The USF was originally designed to provide subsidies to pay for phone service in rural communities. But the task force believes that more of the $7 billion that is allocated each year from the fund should also be used to help subsidize the cost of deploying broadband in rural areas.

Today, most of these funds are used for voice services and not broadband, the task force reported. And of the money that is used to subsidize broadband, the group noted it is often used inefficiently so that gaps in broadband deployment are still not filled.

The task force also reported that there is still a high level of disparity in income levels between people who subscribe to broadband service and those who do not. Nearly 90 percent of families with incomes of $100,000 or more subscribe to broadband services, compared to 35 percent with incomes of $20,000 or less. Rural households are less likely to subscribe to broadband service than urban households. About 65 percent of white households subscribe to broadband, while only 40 percent of Hispanic households subscribe to broadband and 46 percent of African-American households have broadband.

Another issue that was brought up by the task force during the meeting is the fact that broadband service providers tend to favor higher-income regions in more populated areas over low-income areas.

The data suggests that many low-income people in these parts of the country are offered only one broadband service option. The data also suggests that these consumers who have only one option tend to pay higher prices for service.

What this means is that lower-income people, who have less disposable income, are often the ones forced to pay higher prices, while people who have more money pay lower prices for service.

Deployments in rural areas are often affected by the high cost of building infrastructure and providing service. The task force noted that "middle mile" costs are almost three times higher than general network operations costs. This high cost is often a serious barrier to rural broadband deployments, the group said.

Blair Levin, head of the task force developing a national broadband policy for the FCC.

This "middle mile" infrastructure consists of equipment and fiber that connects local cable head-ends or telephone company central offices with bigger points of presence that connect those networks to nationwide networks. The task force said there was a lack of efficient coordination when carriers or other utility providers dig trenches for fiber infrastructure. The group also noted that these deployment gaps don't only affect rural consumers, but many residential neighborhoods and small business marketplaces as well.

As the Internet and television markets converge, the task force also noted that a lack of innovation exists in the TV set-top box market. Specifically, the majority of consumers today use set-top boxes provided through their subscription TV providers. And only a very small number of devices are even available to purchase at retail. By comparison, there are hundreds of devices available in the mobile phone market. Due to a lack of competition, innovation has been stifled. And the task force recommends the FCC adopt policies to encourage a retail market for such devices.

That said, the FCC has tried to encourage the consumer electronics industry to develop set-top boxes that could be bought separately from cable services, but so far the efforts have largely failed.

More spectrum needed
On the wireless side, the key barrier is a lack of spectrum, the task force said. The problem is simple, as demand for mobile broadband increases, there is a need for more spectrum to support these services. Demand for these services comes from the rapidly growing market for smartphone wireless devices and Netbooks. By 2011, smartphone sales are expected to overtake standard mobile phones.

The task force said it is critical for the FCC to identify and reallocate available spectrum as soon as possible. The group said the nation could face a spectrum shortage as soon as 2013 or 2015, if nothing is done today.

The wireless trade group CTIA and the Consumer Electronics Association support this claim. And the groups sent a letter to FCC chairman Julius Genachowski on Tuesday urging him to investigate using broadcast TV spectrum for mobile Internet use.

The measure is opposed by the broadcast TV industry. But the FCC task force noted that as the need for wireless broadband spectrum increases, the need for broadcast TV spectrum is actually decreasing. Specifically, smartphone subscriptions have increased by 690 percent since 1998, while over-the-air TV viewership decreased by 56 percent. This proposal is already generating criticism from lawmakers supporting the TV broadcast industry.

Levin and his staff acknowledged there are many other barriers that exist in providing affordable broadband access to every person in the U.S. Levin said his staff is on track to meet its February deadline, but he said the process will remain open throughout the remaining 90 days that are left to incorporate new ideas. He also emphasized the fact that the ultimate success or failure of the national broadband plan will be in the hands of Congress and policy makers who must remain committed to implementing the plan.

"In my experience and seeing what has worked in other countries, you can plan all you want, but there really needs to be a long-term commitment for such plans to succeed," he said.

Also as part of the meeting, the five-member FCC unanimously voted to impose a "shot clock" for wireless tower applications to speed up the time it takes for wireless operators to deploy new cell phone networks.

Chairman Genachowski promised last month at the CTIA tradeshow in San Diego that the Commission would do what it could to speed up this process. And the Commission's vote solidified that promise.

"Tower siting is a vital piece of our industry," CTIA president and CEO Steve Largent said in a statement. "It enables mobile services, including voice and broadband, for consumers, public safety, and businesses. Both Congress and the Supreme Court recognized the importance of taking concrete steps to ensure that the zoning process does not become a barrier to the reasonable deployment of, and competition among, diverse wireless networks."

The state of Virginia has backed away from its attempts to force Facebook to divulge the complete contents of a user's account to settle a dispute over workers' compensation, narrowly avoiding what promised to be a high-profile privacy battle in federal court.

On Monday, the Virginia's Workers Compensation Commission said it was no longer going to levy a $200-a-day fine on the social-networking site for refusing to comply with a subpoena from an airline that previously employed a flight attendant named Shana Hensley.

Facebook had objected to the June 4 subpoena from Colgan Air--the Manassas, Va.-based company that operates under the names United Express, US Airways Express, and Continental Connection--on privacy grounds. It said federal law prohibits divulging user data in response to a subpoena, and promised to "further litigate this issue by seeking, among other things, an injunction from the federal courts."

In principle, this isn't a novel concept: employers and insurance companies have long used private investigators to ferret out fraud and show that someone who claims to be a virtual cripple actually participates in waterskiing competitions.

Because social-networking sites offer such information-rich glimpses into a person's private life, insurers and employers have begun eyeing them. A personal injury lawyer in Elmira, N.Y., noted in July that an accident victim claiming to be severely injured was, thanks to Facebook, revealed to be playing in soccer games. An article last week in Business Insurance said that social-networking sites revealed exaggerated claims of injuries from a judo instructor, a bowler, and a rodeo bronco rider.

In the Colgan Air case, Facebook says it's happy that privacy rights prevailed. "We're pleased with the outcome and that our users' information will be protected," said Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt.

Colgan Air, which is owned by the publicly traded Pinnacle Airlines, initially paid Hensley's disability benefits that were related to a back injury while on the job (she was diagnosed with a herniated disc that did not want surgery). After about 18 months, however, Colgan Air claimed that Hensley was not cooperating with its efforts to find her a desk job and appears to have concluded that Hensley's holiday vacation photos posted on her Facebook account would demonstrate that any back problems were not severe.

The airline's June 4 subpoena from Virginia attorney Charles Midkiff (PDF) demands "all documents, electronic or otherwise, related directly or indirectly, to all activities, writings, photos, comments, e-mails, and/or postings" on Hensley's Facebook account.

Six days later, Facebook responded, saying that the request must come from a California court, and that it was "overly broad" because the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) protects the privacy of user accounts. Midkiff, the airline's lawyer, replied by requesting a "contempt citation against Facebook" from the Virginia's Workers Compensation Commission.

Randolph Tabb, a deputy worker's compensation commissioner, granted it. On August 28, Tabb held Facebook in contempt for "a failure to comply" and ordered a $200-a-day fine "until such time as compliance is satisfied by the production of said documentation."

Facebook's response to Tabb sent last week says that "users such as Ms. Hensley rely on Facebook to protect their data and vigorously enforce the privacy decisions they make on Facebook." It adds: "Courts have interpreted the ECPA to prohibit services such as Facebook from producing a non-consenting subscriber's communications even when those communications are sought pursuant to a court order or subpoena."

Put another way: unless you change your mind, we'll see you in federal court.

It worked. Tabb backed down, reversing his previous ruling and fine, and claimed that Facebook should have made the full scope of its objections clear earlier.

James Szablewicz, Virginia's chief deputy worker's compensation commissioner, said in an interview on Monday that he didn't know of any other case involving Facebook that his colleagues have faced. "I think it's a pretty good chance that this is a case of first impression for us," he said.

Privacy advocates applauded Monday's decision, likening it to Google's mostly successful effort to fend off a subpoena from the Justice Department three years ago. Jim Dempsey, a vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, said: "Too often, lawyers in civil cases are turning to service providers like Facebook, AOL, and Google with fishing requests. The law is clear--service providers cannot turn over content in civil cases."

Kevin Bankston, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the principles are similar to the one involving Apple Computer's efforts to unmask product leakers (the case is O'Grady v. Superior Court). "We were very glad to see that the rule of law we helped to establish in the O'Grady case is being used to ensure that Facebook content is not disclosed in violation of federal privacy statutes."

There's an ironic ending to this story. Julie Heiden, a Virginia personal injury lawyer representing the former flight attendant, Shana Hensley, said in an interview on Monday that the subpoena won't be necessary after all.

"We agreed to sign a release," Heiden said, meaning a document that authorizes Facebook to disclose the contents of Hensley's account to her former employer. "Shana has executed the release...She has nothing to hide."

Update 9/15/2009: Colgan Air spokesman Joe Williams says: "As you might expect, we do not comment on pending litigation."

The average Internet download speed in the U.S. is slower than that in 27 other countries, according to a new report by the Communications Workers of America.

Web surfing in the U.S. averages around 5.1 megabits per second (mbps), lagging far behind top-ranked South Korea, where speeds average more than 20 mbps. In 2007, the U.S. download speed was 3.5 mbps, inching up only 1.6 mbps since then. At that rate, notes the report, it will take the U.S. 15 years to catch up with South Korea.

(Credit: Communications Workers of America)

The CWA's 2009 Report on Internet Speeds also compared Internet performance throughout all 50 U.S. states.

The report discovered that Internet users who live in the Northeast or Mid-Atlantic regions enjoy faster speeds than those in the South or West. The five fastest states included Delaware (9.9 mbps), Rhode Island (9.8 mbps), New Jersey (8.9 mbps), Massachusetts (8.6 mbps), and New York (8.4 mbps).

States on the slow end were Mississippi (3.7 mbps), South Carolina (3.6 mbps), Arkansas (3.1 mbps), Idaho (2.6 mbps), and Alaska (2.3 mbps).

"Every American should have affordable access to high-speed Internet, no matter where they live. This is essential to economic growth and will help maintain our global competitiveness," said Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America. "Unfortunately, fragmented government programs and uneven private sector responses to build out Internet access have left a digital divide across the country."

The U.S. is the only country without a national policy to promote high-speed Internet access, noted the report. But that may be about to change.

Signed earlier this year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act includes a provision for a national broadband plan by spring of next year and grants of $7.2 billion to bring high-speed Internet to rural and remote locations across the country.

That's a step in the right direction, said the CWA. But the organization would like to see more specific improvements.

In the report, the CWA called for such measures as an Internet infrastructure with enough capacity for 10 mbps downstream and 1 mbps upstream by 2010, tax incentives for businesses to provide faster speeds, and grants to provide computers and broadband equipment to low-income households.

The 2009 report was compiled using data from the CWA's latest Speed Matters test, which measures the time it takes to communicate with the nearest server on the Net. Gathered from May 2008 to May 2009, the test tracked the speed of more than 413,000 Internet users.

Euna Lee

(Credit: Current TV)

North Korean leader Kim Jong Il issued a "special pardon" to two Current TV journalists who were recently charged for perpetrating "hostile acts" against the communist state, according to various news reports.

We "are overjoyed by the news of their pardon," the journalists' families said in a statement.

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton reportedly arrived in Pyongyang, North Korea, on Tuesday in a publicly unannounced visit to meet with Kim. During this meeting, the North Korean leader ordered the two prisoners released, according to the Associated Press.

"While this solely private mission to secure the release of two Americans is on the ground, we will have no comment," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement. "We do not want to jeopardize the success of former President Clinton's mission."

Laura Ling, 32, and Euna Lee, 36, were detained on the Chinese border on March 17 and convicted of sneaking into North Korea illegally. Working for Current TV, a San Francisco-based Internet news and video site co-founded by former Vice President Al Gore, they were reporting on North Korean refugees fleeing to China.

Laura Ling

(Credit: Current TV)

In June, the journalists were sentenced to 12 years of hard labor for "the political motive to isolate and stifle the socialist system," according to the Korean Central News Agency. Both Ling and Lee accepted the judgment.

This was Kim's first meeting with an American official since October 2000, when he met with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. After suffering a stroke last August, he has reportedly not met with Western officials from other countries either.

According to the Associated Press, the Korean Central News Agency said the release of the journalists is a sign of North Korea's "humanitarian and peace-loving policy." It is still not clear when the women will be allowed to leave, said The New York Times.

"We are so grateful to our government: President Obama, Secretary Clinton and the U.S. State Department for their dedication to and hard work on behalf of American citizens," Lee and Ling's families said in the statement. "We especially want to thank President Bill Clinton for taking on such an arduous mission and Vice President Al Gore for his tireless efforts to bring Laura and Euna home...We are counting the seconds to hold Laura and Euna in our arms."

The nonprofit Committee to Protect Journalists also welcomed the news of the journalists' pardon.

"This has been a long and complex process given the situation on the Korean peninsula," CPJ Deputy Director Robert Mahoney said in a statement. "We thank former President Clinton for his intervention and we are grateful that the North Korean authorities have responded to appeals for clemency."

This post was updated at 3:45 p.m. PDT with comments from the journalists' families and again at 4:45 p.m. PDT with more details.

Acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps released a report on broadband strategy for rural America on Wednesday.

The report was mandated as part of the 2008 Farm Bill. In that bill Congress asked the Federal Communications Commission to work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to submit "a report describing a comprehensive rural broadband strategy."

The emphasis on forming a rural broadband strategy came several months before President Obama took office. Obama also sees broadband as a priority and included funding for broadband development as part of the stimulus package passed by Congress earlier this year.

In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Congress appropriated $7.2 billion for broadband grants, loans, and loan guarantees to be administered by the USDA's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). As part of this bill, the FCC is also required to file a report with Congress in February 2010 describing a national broadband policy.

Copps called this report on rural broadband strategy a starting point for developing a national broadband policy. And even with the $7.2 billion of money from the stimulus package, Copps said that more money will be needed to ensure that every American has access to broadband.

Copps identified several issues in this report that must be overcome to get broadband deployed in rural areas. These issues include technological challenges, lack of data about where broadband is available and who is accessing it, and high network costs. Despite these challenges, Copps said that the U.S. government must pour resources into solving these problems just as it did when building the U.S. Postal Service, the railroads, the nationwide electrical grid, the interstate highway system, and even the Internet backbone.

"From the country's earliest days, building the nation's infrastructure has required federal resources and leadership, and this federal role continues," he said in the report. "At their inceptions, some of these projects were controversial. Many considered them too expensive; others doubted their efficacy. Today, few would question their value, but each of these undertakings depended on a strong and coordinated national vision."

Faced with a whopping $1.7 trillion deficit, President Obama is proposing tacking on a spectrum license fee to wireless operators to help generate revenue for the government.

The Obama administration's proposal was loosely outlined in the new budget plan for 2009 and 2010 submitted Thursday. In that plan, the administration proposes adding a new fee to be paid by wireless carriers that license wireless spectrum from the government.

These annual fees would start at $50 million in 2009 and jump to $200 million in 2010, Reuters reported. The fees will gradually increase over the next 10 years to $550 million per user per year, generating an estimated total of $4.8 billion over the next decade.

The proposed fees are in addition to license fees that operators have already paid the federal government as part of its wireless auctions. The Federal Communications Commission has been auctioning off wireless spectrum to phone companies and other entities since the 1990s. These auctions grant license holders exclusive rights to the spectrum in exchange for cash.

Over the years, these auctions have generated billions of dollars for the federal government. The most recent auction, which ended in March 2008, was for the 700 MHz block of spectrum that is being vacated by television broadcasters after the mandated digital TV transition. This valuable spectrum generated a record $19.6 billion.

But wireless spectrum is a limited resource. And the government is running out of airwaves to auction. In fact, the Obama administration predicts that it will only be able to generate about $4.8 billion in revenue from wireless auctions over the next 10 years.

Even though the additional fees could help the government halve the deficit by 2013 as well as help it fund several new spending initiatives, it's likely to be met with a great deal of resistance from mobile operators.

So far, none of the big four wireless carriers in the U.S.--AT&T, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile USA and Verizon Wireless--has been willing to comment on the proposal. And the CTIA wireless-industry association said it's still looking into the matter.

"We are currently reviewing the details of the proposal and look forward to participating in the next stages of this issue," CTIA said in a statement.

Previous spectrum fee proposals have been strongly opposed by the wireless industry, and there's little reason to suggest that the industry would support them now. The big difference this time around is that a Democrat-controlled Congress could be more willing to support President Obama's plans.

More details about the proposal are expected later this spring when the administration releases a more detailed budget package. But any changes to the fee structure would require legislation. And my guess is that the wireless industry would fight hard against it.