Smart Cities Raise Surveillance State Questions, O'Rielly Says

A concern with the coming era of smart cities is a potential for data misuse or a surveillance state, said FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly at a Charter Communications event Tuesday (remarks later posted). He said privacy advocates are misguided to fret about consumer data being used for marketing purposes when far greater harms could come from the state using data to control or punish citizens. He said the FCC has been trying to ensure the proper regulatory framework for smart city rollouts as it tries to remove state and local deployment barriers and guard against its own mission creep. He said beyond the various millimeter band auctions to come, starting with the 28 GHz band, a number of other bands need FCC attention, such as 26, 23 and 50 GHz. He said the agency needs to focus on opening the 3.7-4.2 GHz band and spectrum below 3.5 GHz. He said the FCC should start a proceeding to review the 5.9 GHz band and determine its best use since dedicated short-range communications systems there seem increasingly unlikely due to alternatives like cellular vehicle-to-everything technology. Monday, the FCC released initial results on Wi-Fi coexistence with DSRC (see 1810290063). Columbia, South Carolina, Mayor Steve Benjamin (D) said smart cities raise a variety of questions, such as ensuring network deployment in public rights of way doesn't impede other users and that all ROW users "pay their fair share" for that access. On rollout in rural areas, "we don't yet have the answers" or the economies of scale that would make the technology available, said NTIA Senior Broadband Program Specialist Jean Rice. Tests are ongoing in states involving aspects of smart cities such as telehealth or agriculture, Rice noted. Criticizing the privacy law California passed this summer, Chamber of Commerce Assistant Policy Counsel Jordan Crenshaw said the Chamber wants to stem the tide of different state laws and has a working group on developing privacy principles for model legislation to be pitched to Congress. He wants protection ensuring localities don't charge unreasonable siting fees and regulatory certainty in the form of "a permanent net neutrality solution" that doesn't involve treating cable as a Communications Act Title II common carrier.