Washington Post 2011 Annual Report Download - page 30

of broadband Internet access services. Included among those obligations are requirements that fixed broadband Internet
service providers disclose publicly accurate information regarding their network management practices; refrain from
blocking lawful content, applications, services and non-harmful devices of the end user’s choosing; and refrain from
unreasonably discriminating in the transmission of lawful traffic. Wireless broadband Internet service providers are subject
to fewer regulations, and the application of all such regulations is subject to the broadband Internet service provider’s
ability to engage in reasonable network management. The FCC’s net neutrality rules also establish a process through
which complaints about the network management practices of broadband Internet service providers can be brought.
Congress, from time to time, also has considered whether to impose net neutrality requirements on providers of broad-
band Internet access service that would limit the ability of such providers to prioritize the delivery of particular types of
content, applications or services over their networks, or whether to limit the FCC’s ability to regulate such activity.
The FCC’s December 2010 order imposing certain net neutrality obligations on providers of broadband Internet access
services has been appealed, and the Company cannot predict the outcome or timing of this appeal. If the FCC’s order is
upheld, then these new obligations could cause the Company to incur certain compliance costs.
As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the U.S. Federal government has implemented
a program in which a total of approximately $7.2 billion in grants and loans has been distributed to fund investment in
the development of broadband networks throughout the U.S., mostly to facilitate the deployment of broadband Internet
access services in rural and remote regions that do not already enjoy such services. The ARRA also required the FCC to
develop a National Broadband Plan (NB Plan) to guide U.S. policy in the area of domestic broadband deployment. In
March 2010, the FCC submitted its NB Plan to Congress and announced its intention to initiate approximately 40
rulemakings addressing a host of issues related to the delivery of broadband services. Several of these rulemakings have
already been initiated. The broad reach of these rulemaking proceedings could ultimately affect the environment in which
Cable ONE operates. The NB Plan, which the FCC delivered to Congress on March 16, 2010, did not contain self-
effectuating provisions, but it is serving as a blueprint for broadband regulatory policy in the U.S. and, therefore, could
have a material effect on Cable ONE and other providers of broadband Internet access services. Compliance with these
laws imposes costs on the Company and may impact the competitive environment in which Cable ONE operates.
Providers of broadband Internet access services are subject to many of the same U.S. Federal and state privacy laws that
apply to other providers of electronic communications, such as cable companies and telephone companies, including
the U.S. Federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which addresses interceptions of electronic communications
that are in transit; the Stored Communications Act, which addresses acquisitions of electronic data in storage; and the
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), which requires providers to make their services and
facilities accessible to law enforcement for purposes of surveillance. Various U.S. Federal and state laws also apply to
Cable ONE and to others whose services are accessible through Cable ONE’s broadband Internet access service. These
laws include copyright laws, prohibitions on obscenity and requirements governing unsolicited commercial email.
Voice Services
Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP). Cable companies, including Cable ONE and others, offer voice service using VoIP
technology, which permits users to make voice calls over broadband communications networks, including the Internet. U.S.
Federal law preempts state and local regulatory barriers to the offering of voice service by cable companies and others, and
the FCC and U.S. Federal courts generally have preempted state laws that seek to regulate or classify VoIP.
The FCC has held that VoIP services are IP-enabled services, which are interstate in nature and thus subject exclusively to
the FCC’s U.S. Federal jurisdiction. This decision was upheld on appeal, although the FCC has an ongoing proceeding to
consider whether VoIP services provided by cable companies and others are properly classified as an “information service,”
“telecommunications service” or some other new category of service. This determination, once made, could have numerous
regulatory implications for cable companies that provide VoIP services, including Cable ONE. Although the FCC has yet
to ascribe a regulatory definition to VoIP services, the FCC nevertheless has imposed a number of obligations on some
types of VoIP providers known as interconnected VoIP service providers, some of which are discussed more fully below. In
2011, the FCC implemented a statutory provision that Congress adopted and imposed a smaller subset of requirements,
principally registration and contribution obligations for contributions to the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Services Fund,
on non-interconnected VoIP providers. In the absence of a definitive FCC decision regarding the regulatory classification of
interconnected VoIP services, several states, including several in Cable ONE’s service territory, also have attempted—and
are expected to continue to attempt—to regulate VoIP services like traditional telephony service and impose certain fees and
taxes on the provision of VoIP services. While Cable ONE and other VoIP service providers are actively challenging state
attempts to regulate and classify VoIP services, these state actions could have an adverse effect on Cable ONE’s business by
increasing its costs to provide VoIP services. Legislation from time to time has been introduced in Congress to address the
classification and regulatory obligations of VoIP providers. The prospects for passage of any such legislation are uncertain.
18 THE WASHINGTON POST COMPANY