Search Results

Next week the FCC is slated to vote on the second iteration of Chairman Wheeler’s proposed broadband privacy rules. Of course, as has become all too common, none of us outside the Commission has actually seen the proposal. But earlier this month Chairman Wheeler released a Fact Sheet that suggests some of the ways it would update the rules he initially proposed.

According to the Fact Sheet, the new proposed rules are…

Read the full piece here. 

Summary

“Dear Ms. Dortch:

I write to express my concerns regarding the consumer welfare effects of the revised broadband privacy proposal summarized in a Fact Sheet by Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) Chairman Tom Wheeler earlier this month. While the Fact Sheet appears to indicate that the Chairman’s revised proposal includes some welcome changes from the initial broadband privacy NPRM adopted by the Commission this Spring, it also raises a number of problematic issues that merit the Commission’s attention before final rules are
adopted.

While the Fact Sheet asserts that the Chairman’s new proposal is “in harmony” with the privacy framework outlined by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) (as well as the Administration’s proposed Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights), the purported changes in this regard are merely rhetorical, and do not, in fact, amount to a substantive alignment of the
Chairman’s proposed approach with that of the FTC.

• First, unlike the FTC’s framework, the proposal described by the Fact Sheet ignores the crucial role of “context” in determining the appropriate level of consumer choice before affected companies may use consumer data, instead taking a rigid approach that would stifle innovation and harm consumers.
• Second, the Fact Sheet significantly expands the scope of information that would be considered “sensitive” well beyond that contemplated by the FTC, imposing onerous and unnecessary consumer consent obligations that would deter welfare-enhancing uses of data.

I agree with the Chairman that, if adopted, the FCC’s rule should align with the FTC’s. But the proposed rule reflected in the Fact Sheet does not. I urge the Commission to ensure that these important deviations from the FTC’s framework are addressed before moving forward with adopting any broadband privacy rules…”

The FCC’s blind, headlong drive to “unlock” the set-top box market is disconnected from both legal and market realities. Legally speaking, and as we’ve noted on this blog many times over the past few months (see here, here and here), the set-top box proposal is nothing short of an assault on contracts, property rights, and the basic freedom of consumers to shape their own video experience.

Read the full piece here. 

Copyright law, ever a sore point in some quarters, has found a new field of battle in the FCC’s recent set-top box proposal. At the request of members of Congress, the Copyright Office recently wrote a rather thorough letter outlining its view of the FCC’s proposal on rightsholders.

Read the full piece here.

Last week the International Center for Law & Economics and I filed an amicus brief in the DC Circuit in support of en banc review of the court’s decision to uphold the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order.

In our previous amicus brief before the panel that initially reviewed the OIO, we argued, among other things, that…

Read the full piece here.

Summary

The Commission’s NPRM would shoehorn the business models of a subset of new economy firms into a regime modelled on thirty-year-old CPNI rules designed to address fundamentally different concerns about a fundamentally different market. The Commission’s hurried and poorly supported NPRM demonstrates little understanding of the data markets it proposes to regulate and the position of ISPs within that market. And, what’s more, the resulting proposed rules diverge from analogous rules the Commission purports to emulate. Without mounting a convincing case for treating ISPs differently than the other data firms with which they do or could compete, the rules contemplate disparate regulatory treatment that would likely harm competition and innovation without evident corresponding benefit to consumers.

Concerns relating to online privacy have been extensively studied by regulators and others over the past two decades. By and large, regulators responded to these concerns with a combination of a general case-by-case approach alongside tailored rules derived from the relevant information involved in particular areas of privacy concern. Few, if any, regulators have adopted an “opt-in” privacy regime for non-sensitive data such as the FCC proposes. The FCC’s proposed regime may have been cutting-edge in the 1980s and 1990s — but it makes no sense in today’s information economy in which firms from different segments of the economy fluidly enter each other’s markets and effectively compete in a separate, cross- sector, informatics and advertising market. The proposed rules instead dig in the heels of the Commission against the irresistible tide of progress, attempting to maintain arbitrary industry firewalls between firms.

The “problem” the Commission attempts to fix with this proposed rulemaking is not one of preventing ISPs from using personal information to prevent new entrants from effectively competing with their incumbent businesses — which was, in fact, the genesis of the CPNI rules.1 Rather, these rules are designed to keep ISPs from competing with edge providers like Google, Facebook, and Netflix. But, in truth, both edge providers and ISPs actually need general rules of broad applicability. This is what the FTC and other regulators have largely done to date. Such broadly applicable rules are designed to be competitively neutral, and to offer the flexibility needed to address the various concerns that may come up in these markets while balancing legitimate economic and privacy interests and providing an adequate level of notice to those subject to regulation about their expected norms of conduct.

In short, the Commission has not made a convincing case that discrimination between ISPs and edge providers makes sense for the industry or for consumer welfare. The overwhelming body of evidence upon which other regulators have relied in addressing privacy concerns urges against a hard opt-in approach. That same evidence and analysis supports a consistent regulatory approach for all competitors, and nowhere advocates for a differential approach for ISPs when they are participating in the broader informatics and advertising markets. Absent the collection and analysis of substantial evidence — which at this point has not been articulated by the Commission or those advocating the Commission’s proposed approach, and which is far beyond the scope of the present NPRM — the proposed approach is not supportable.

And all of the foregoing is particularly perplexing in light of the fact that the Commission will inadvertently create more consumer harm than benefit. At the same time, the Commission has not shown that regulatory efficacy, administrative efficiency or anything else demands such rules. Particularly given TerraCom and the demonstrated ability of the Commission to handle harms as they arise even absent prescriptive rules, the need for these aggressive new rules simply cannot be justified.

On Friday the the International Center for Law & Economics filed comments with the FCC in response to Chairman Wheeler’s NPRM (proposed rules) to “unlock” the MVPD (i.e., cable and satellite subscription video, essentially) set-top box market. Plenty has been written on the proposed rulemaking—for a few quick hits (among many others) see, e.g., Richard Bennett, Glenn Manishin, Larry Downes, Stuart Brotman, Scott Wallsten, and me—so I’ll dispense with the background and focus on the key points we make in our comments.

Our comments explain that the proposal’s assertion that the MVPD set-top box market isn’t competitive is a product of its failure to appreciate the dynamics of the market (and its disregard for economics). Similarly, the proposal fails to acknowledge the complexity of the markets it intends to regulate, and, in particular, it ignores the harmful effects on content production and distribution the rules would likely bring about.

Read the full piece here.

Summary

“In this proceeding the Commission proposes to “open” the market for multichannel video programming distributor (“MVPD”) set-top box video interfaces. We believe that the Commission’s proposed rules fail to take account of the fundamental economic realities that govern the creation of content and its distribution, fail to properly respect copyright and contractual rights, and constitute an inappropriate, to say nothing of unwise, exercise of the Commission’s authority under Section 629.

With this NPRM the Commission undertakes an intervention into a market that is robust, competitive, and scarcely in need of regulatory assistance. And Chairman Wheeler is well aware of this reality:

“American consumers enjoy unprecedented choice in how they view entertainment, news and sports programming. You can pretty much watch what you want, where you want, when you want.”

Not only is the market robust, but it is rooted in a complicated set of business negotiations (most notably between programmers and distributors) that contain an enormous number of moving parts.

“Content providers negotiate with MVPDs along many dimensions, including the presentation of content in terms of adjacencies; how a content producer’s brand will be treated; how and when content can be commercialized with advertised; limitations on the use of content as part of a content producer’s larger set of business model innovations; and the legal and regulatory obligations of the content producers themselves, including “self-regulatory initiatives such as the Better Business Bureau’s Children’s Advertising Review Unit (“CARU”) and Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (“CFBAI”), and contractual agreements with writers’, directors’, and/or actors’ guilds.”

And not only are the contracts themselves extremely complex, but the various players in content and distribution markets are interrelated in complex and subtle ways. The no- tion that the FCC could focus in isolation even on something as seemingly incidental as set-top boxes without unanticipated and far-reaching ramifications throughout the eco- system is misguided.

On the one hand, the Commission’s proposed rules seem to dramatically underappreciate and insufficiently assess this underlying complexity, thereby misconstruing the likely effects of the regulation and threatening the investment and innovation that have produced this “Golden Age” of television and home video.6 On the other hand, if it does proceed with such rules anyway, the Commission should, and perhaps must under the APA and relevant judicial decisions like Michigan v. EPA,7 take much greater care to identify and evaluate the broad consequences—that is to say the costs and benefits—of its rules than it appears to have so far done in this NPRM…”

Netflix’s latest net neutrality hypocrisy (yes, there have been others. See here and here, for example) involves its long-term, undisclosed throttling of its video traffic on AT&T’s and Verizon’s wireless networks, while it lobbied heavily for net neutrality rules from the FCC that would prevent just such throttling by ISPs.

It was Netflix that coined the term “strong net neutrality,” in an effort to import interconnection (the connections between ISPs and edge provider networks) into the net neutrality fold. That alone was a bastardization of what net neutrality purportedly stood for, as I previously noted…

Read the full piece here.