Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 9 of 191 Results in FCC
Popular Media The line between a “principled change of views” and a “craven flip-flop” is a fine one. But if there were a land-speed record for changing one’s mind, Netflix would have just won it.
Excerpt The line between a “principled change of views” and a “craven flip-flop” is a fine one. But if there were a land-speed record for changing one’s mind, Netflix would have just won it. A mere four days into the new net neutrality world order it helped to usher in, Netflix was already expressing doubts about the regnant Title II canon. Twitter was agog much of Wednesday with reporters politely noting the absurdity. “Can’t believe that @netflix, the poster child for #Title II, is now saying it really didn’t mean it. WTF,” remarked one journalist. It’s not an exaggeration to say that Netflix was one of the chief evangelists for an exhaustive net neutrality decree. One of the watershed moments in the debate leading up to the FCC’s vote last Thursday was Netflix’s fervent claim that the strongest possible rules were needed to prevent Internet providers from imposing “online tolls” or discriminating against the video giant’s traffic. With Google sitting out this round, net neutrality activists needed a corporate crusader. They found one in Netflix. Of course, that inflammatory charge was never actually borne out by the facts. It turns out that Netflix (and its partner, Cogent) was slowing down its own traffic with spurious routing decisions, seemingly tailor-made to create the spectacle it needed to galvanize the faithful. The gambit worked. Disingenuous or not, there’s no disputing that it greatly influenced the outcome, ultimately leading to the passage of the most onerous form of net neutrality rules. And this isn’t the only case where Netflix is sitting comfortably on both sides of the issue. The company recently announced a new initiative in Australia where one ISP will exempt Netflix traffic from its data limits. That practice — called “zero rating” — isn’t unusual, especially in the developing world, but it raises plenty of hackles among net neutrality disciples.
The line between a “principled change of views” and a “craven flip-flop” is a fine one. But if there were a land-speed record for changing one’s mind, Netflix would have just won it.
A mere four days into the new net neutrality world order it helped to usher in, Netflix was already expressing doubts about the regnant Title II canon. Twitter was agog much of Wednesday with reporters politely noting the absurdity. “Can’t believe that @netflix, the poster child for #Title II, is now saying it really didn’t mean it. WTF,” remarked one journalist.
It’s not an exaggeration to say that Netflix was one of the chief evangelists for an exhaustive net neutrality decree. One of the watershed moments in the debate leading up to the FCC’s vote last Thursday was Netflix’s fervent claim that the strongest possible rules were needed to prevent Internet providers from imposing “online tolls” or discriminating against the video giant’s traffic. With Google sitting out this round, net neutrality activists needed a corporate crusader. They found one in Netflix. Of course, that inflammatory charge was never actually borne out by the facts. It turns out that Netflix (and its partner, Cogent) was slowing down its own traffic with spurious routing decisions, seemingly tailor-made to create the spectacle it needed to galvanize the faithful. The gambit worked. Disingenuous or not, there’s no disputing that it greatly influenced the outcome, ultimately leading to the passage of the most onerous form of net neutrality rules.
And this isn’t the only case where Netflix is sitting comfortably on both sides of the issue. The company recently announced a new initiative in Australia where one ISP will exempt Netflix traffic from its data limits. That practice — called “zero rating” — isn’t unusual, especially in the developing world, but it raises plenty of hackles among net neutrality disciples.
Continue reading on TheHill.com
Regulatory Comments In this proceeding, the Commission proposes to expand the definition of a multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) to encompass “subscription linear” online video distributors (OVDs), defined as services that make “multiple streams of prescheduled video programming available for purchase” over the Internet.
In this proceeding, the Commission proposes to expand the definition of a multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) to encompass “subscription linear” online video distributors (OVDs), defined as services that make “multiple streams of prescheduled video programming available for purchase” over the Internet. We believe this proposal is unwise as a policy matter and incorrect as a matter of statutory interpretation. Instead, we urge the Commission to affirm the Media Bureau’s Transmission Path Interpretation, which holds that an MVPD must “own or operate the facilities for delivering content to consumers.” We contend that this is the only permissible construction of the term MVPD as used in the Communications Act.
Popular Media The day after the FCC's net neutrality vote, Washington was downright frigid. I'd spoken at three events about the ruling, mentioning at each that the order could be overturned in court. I was tired and ready to go home.
Excerpt The day after the FCC’s net neutrality vote, Washington was downright frigid. I’d spoken at three events about the ruling, mentioning at each that the order could be overturned in court. I was tired and ready to go home. I could see my Uber at the corner when I felt a hand on my arm. The woman’s face was anxious. “I heard your talk,” she said.“If net neutrality is overturned, will I still be able to Skype with my son in Turkey?” The question reveals the problem with the supposed four million comments submitted in support of net neutrality. *Almost no one really gets it. *Fewer still understand Title II, the regulatory tool the FCC just invoked to impose its conception of net neutrality on the Internet. Some internet engineers and innovators do get it. Mark Cuban rightly calls the uncertainty created by Title II a “Whac-a-Mole environment,” driven by political whims. And telecom lawyers? They love it: whatever happens, the inevitable litigation will mean a decade’s worth of job security. As I’ve said in technically detailed comments, academic coalition letters, papers, and even here at Wired, while “”net neutrality”” sounds like a good idea, it isn’t. And reclassifying the internet under Title II, an antiquated set of laws repurposed in the 1930s for Ma Bell, is the worst way to regulate dynamic digital services.
The day after the FCC’s net neutrality vote, Washington was downright frigid. I’d spoken at three events about the ruling, mentioning at each that the order could be overturned in court. I was tired and ready to go home.
I could see my Uber at the corner when I felt a hand on my arm. The woman’s face was anxious. “I heard your talk,” she said.“If net neutrality is overturned, will I still be able to Skype with my son in Turkey?”
The question reveals the problem with the supposed four million comments submitted in support of net neutrality. *Almost no one really gets it. *Fewer still understand Title II, the regulatory tool the FCC just invoked to impose its conception of net neutrality on the Internet.
Some internet engineers and innovators do get it. Mark Cuban rightly calls the uncertainty created by Title II a “Whac-a-Mole environment,” driven by political whims. And telecom lawyers? They love it: whatever happens, the inevitable litigation will mean a decade’s worth of job security.
As I’ve said in technically detailed comments, academic coalition letters, papers, and even here at Wired, while “”net neutrality”” sounds like a good idea, it isn’t. And reclassifying the internet under Title II, an antiquated set of laws repurposed in the 1930s for Ma Bell, is the worst way to regulate dynamic digital services.
Continue reading on WIRED.com
Regulatory Comments "We are professors and scholars of law, business, economics, and public policy with expertise in communications, competition, innovation, industrial organization and related fields..."
“We are professors and scholars of law, business, economics, and public policy with expertise in communications, competition, innovation, industrial organization and related fields. We write to express our concerns regarding the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC”) apparent plans to prohibit paid prioritization and to reclassify broadband under Title II of the Communications Act. In its competition advocacy, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) promotes consumer welfare by analyzing policies and offering alternatives to state and federal governmental agencies. Currently, the FCC is considering a new Open Internet Order that would have considerable negative effects on consumers…”
Presentations & Interviews WATCH: Video
President Obama has come out in support of net-neutrality rules. Critics argue that the Internet should not, however, be treated as a utility like electricity. Joining Brian Lehrer to dissect both sides are Timothy Karr, senior director of strategy at Free Press, and on Skype from D.C., Geoffrey Manne, founder of the International Center for Law and Economics.
http://youtu.be/s7bnaPaIpS4?t=13m44s
Regulatory Comments "The International Center for Law and Economics (ICLE) and TechFreedom filed initial comments in these proceedings urging the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) not to preempt the state laws at issue in North Carolina and Tennessee..."
“The International Center for Law and Economics (ICLE) and TechFreedom filed initial comments in these proceedings urging the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) not to preempt the state laws at issue in North Carolina and Tennessee because (1) the Commission lacks the legal authority to do so under Section 706, (2) even if the FCC had such authority, it would be a double-edged sword, which could be used to ban government-owned networks in the future, so it should not be exercised in this case, (3) such a reversal in approaches could be premised on the rather obvious economic point that government provision of broadband may in fact decrease broadband deployment and investment in the aggregate by deterring private broadband competition; and (4) in general, government-run broadband, which lacks profit-driven feedback loop, is unlikely to serve consumers better in the long-run than private provision of broadband…”
Regulatory Comments "The International Center for Law & Economics ("ICLE") and eleven independent professors and scholars of law and economics file these comments to address general merger review issues and certain specific concerns that were raised in some of the Comments and Petitions to Deny filed in this proceeding..."
“The International Center for Law & Economics (“ICLE”) and eleven independent professors and scholars of law and economics file these comments to address general merger review issues and certain specific concerns that were raised in some of the Comments and Petitions to Deny filed in this proceeding…”
“The FCC’s inquiry is limited to the proposed merger’s likely effect on the public interest. But many of the comments in opposition to the merger take issue with various aspects of the marketplace for residential broadband and video as it exists to- day. Indeed, much of the criticism seems leveled at decisions made decades ago with regard to cable franchising. But those criticisms, whether valid or not, do not speak to whether – against the backdrop of the relevant markets as they exist today and are likely to exist in the near future – the merger of Comcast and Time Warner Cable (“TWC”) is in the public interest. Among many other things, for example, the Comments of the American Antitrust Institute urge the FCC to consider the issue of network neutrality in reviewing the merger. But there is nothing merger-specific about net neutrality, and consideration of that issue (other than as a potentially relevant aspect of the market backdrop) is wholly inappropriate for merger review….”
Regulatory Comments "Any new rules issued by the Commission should not be based on Title II. For the reasons we explained in our comments, we believe re-opening Title II would be a disaster in ways that Title II proponents do not seem to understand – or, at least, have not been willing to seriously discuss."
“Any new rules issued by the Commission should not be based on Title II. For the reasons we explained in our comments, we believe re-opening Title II would be a disaster in ways that Title II proponents do not seem to understand – or, at least, have not been willing to seriously discuss.”
“First, subjecting broadband to Title II would not even allow the FCC to do the one thing the D.C. Circuit’s Verizon decision clearly bars the FCC from doing under Section 706: banning “paid prioritization.”…Second, the Commission cannot simply “reclassify” broadband in the sense that that term has been used by Title II proponents; the FCC can only re-open the interpretation of the key definitions of the 1996 Telecommunications Act…Third, Title II proponents invariably assert that any problems created by Title II can be solved by the FCC through various forbearance proceedings…”
Regulatory Comments "On July 24th, 2014, the Electric Power Board (EPB) of Chattanooga, Tennessee, and the City of Wilson, north Carolina, filed separate petitions with the Federal Communications Commission..."
“On July 24th, 2014, the Electric Power Board (EPB) of Chattanooga, Tennessee, and the City of Wilson, north Carolina, filed separate petitions with the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”), each asking the FCC to use the authority the FCC has claimed under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to preempt state laws in Tennessee and North Carolina restricting the deployment of municipally-owned broadband networks. Just four days later,the Commission released a Public Notice establishing the current comment cycle, giving interested parties scantly over a month’s time to review and respond to the complex and voluminous petitions, despite the litany of other important and intricate issues currently before the FCC.
TechFreedom, ICLE, and seven other organizations – many of which are small operations with limited resources – filed a request seeking to have the comment deadline in this proceeding extended, but this request was summarily denied. Thus, due to time and resource constraints, the following comments will not address each and every point raised by the two petitions. Rather, these comments will address a few discrete points – including (1) the legal authority for Federal preemption in this case, and (2) the policy implications raised by the two petitions – before offering some general advice to the Commission: Deny the petitions of EPB and Wilson; issue a Notice of Inquiry to gather further data on the efficacy of government-run broadband networks; and, in the meantime, focus on broadband deployment initiatives that have gathered more consensus (e.g., promoting “Dig Once” policies, extending pole-attachment rights to broadband-only providers, and encouraging intermodal facilities-based competition, such as by maximizing the reallocation of spectrum for wireless broadband). We also note the unique dangers posed by increasing control over broadband, particularly in terms of censorship, surveillance, and other kinds of privacy invasions.”
