WASHINGTON, D.C.—FCC chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel has announced a new initiative to strengthen and formalize the cooperation between the Commission and state Attorneys General on privacy, data protection, and cybersecurity enforcement matters.  

As part of the work of the FCC’s Privacy and Data Protection Task Force, the agency’s Enforcement Bureau has signed Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with the Attorneys General of Connecticut, Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania to share expertise, resources, and coordinated efforts in conducting privacy, data protection, and cybersecurity-related investigations to protect consumers. 

The FCC is also encouraging other states to join the effort. 

“Defending consumer privacy is an all-of-government responsibility and a shared challenge,” Rosenworcel said. “Today we take on evolving consumer threats with new formal partnerships with state law enforcement leaders, which have already been successful in obtaining record-breaking results in combatting illegal robocalls.  I am thankful to these four partners for prioritizing interagency cooperation, and we welcome other state leaders to join us in this effort to ensure we work together to protect consumers and their data.”

The FCC said that the new Memoranda of Understanding affirm that the FCC and State Attorneys General “share close and common legal interests in working cooperatively to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute or otherwise take enforcement action in relation to privacy, data protection, or cybersecurity issues” under sections 201 and 222 of the Communications Act.

Coordinated action and information sharing will take place under all applicable Federal and State laws and privacy protections, the agencies said. 

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, co-chair of the National Association of Attorneys General’s (NAAG) Internet Safety/Cyber Privacy and Security Committee, said: “The Connecticut Office of the Attorney General was the first nationwide to form a dedicated privacy department in 2015.  This work, in coordination with state attorneys general nationwide, has remained a core priority of our office since then. Consumers have a right to know and control how their personal information is used, stored, and protected, and companies who violate that trust must be held accountable. This powerful new partnership between our states and the Federal Communication Commission is a recognition of the growing importance of this critical work.”

“I am proud to work with the FCC to safeguard the private information of Illinoisans,” added Illinois Attorney General and co-chair of the NAAG’s Consumer Protection Committee. “Similar state and federal partnerships have allowed us to successfully target perpetrators of illegal robocalls. This initiative gives Illinois access to more resources for investigating and holding accountable bad actors who fail to protect or misuse personal information.”

WASHINGTON—Attorneys general from a handful of states have told the FCC it does not have the authority to raise the 39 percent national audience reach cap for TV station groups, that it does have the authority to eliminate the UHF discount, and that it should eliminate the discount.

That came in comments this week on the FCC's inquiry into whether it should raise, or lower, or retain the cap, and how that dovetails with the UHF discount that counts only half a UHF TV station's audience toward that cap.

The FCC under chairman Ajit Pai reinstated the cap, saying the previous commission should have considered the cap and the discount together, which it is now doing.

The AGs were from Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, California and Virginia. Initially the filing excluded California, but that was a mistake corrected in a follow-on filing.

They said they were weighing in on the issue because they are "he chief consumer protection and law enforcement officers in our respective states, we are responsible for promoting and defending the public interest," and that "raising the national audience each limit and/or maintaining the UHF discount fails to further the public interest."

[FCC Seeks Comment on National Reach Cap]

The AGs appear fairly convinced this deregulator FCC majority will wind up lifting the cap, if not doffing it altogether.

They argue that getting rid of the cap would threaten diversity, competition, and localism, and cites Sinclair Broadcasting, whose Tribune deal would benefit from lifting or eliminating the limit, pointing out that it distributes news stories that must run in its newscasts. They extrapolate that to local preferences being lost in other programming—sports, religious, science—if "as a result of excessive consolidation, a large owner requires all of its stations to show particular sporting contests, religious celebrations, or scientific perspectives."

A politically, and philosophically, divided FCC voted Dec. 14 to launch a review of the FCC's national 39 percent broadcast audience reach cap. (It was as busy meeting, also including the FCC's rollback of net neutrality regs).

TV station group owners cannot own stations that reach more than 39 percent of the national audience, with waivers in some circumstances.

The FCC is looking at whether it can modify the cap, which was created by Congress, and if so, whether it should be lowered or, more likely under this FCC, raised or eliminated altogether given the increasing programing and technological options for accessing content.

It also asks whether to retain the UHF discount, which allows station groups to count only half their UHF station audience toward that cap, and if not, should the cap be adjusted.

[Deregulation Picks Up Steam: New Media Rules Foreshadow a New Terrain for Broadcasters]

"We need to take a holistic look at the national cap rule, including the UHF discount," chairman Ajit Pai said of the review when it was approved in a 3-2 party line vote. "The marketplace has changed considerably due to the explosion of video programming options and various technological advances that have occurred since the cap was last considered in 2004. So we need to examine whether our rules should change accordingly. That’s an important discussion that will be informed by the facts in the record—not anything else."

The item drew no tentative conclusions. Chairman Pai said the item was all about developing a record and could not say when any action would be taken.

This article originally appeared on TVT's sister publication B&C.