Policy Blog

Having completed the first of many readings of the FCC’s National Broadband Plan, I have prepared a relatively short summary of the document. It is available at my web site: http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/r/m/rmf5/. Scroll down toward the bottom of the page and under Broadband and Next Generation Network Development, click on the link titled Summary of National Broadband Plan.

Watch Art debate Adam Thierer of the Progress and Freedom Foundation about competition and the National Broadband Plan.

If you are interested in learning more about the debate over the FCC’s authority to protect broadband Internet users, you might want to check out this Federalist Society debate from March 3 featuring me and the very talented Helgi Walker, who argued the Comcast case. You will hear some of the myths I discussed in my previous post.

It’s amazing how many people seem shocked that I would participate in a Federalist Society event not once, but twice over the past 5 months. But I would do it again and again. The intellectual debates are honest and substantive, not personal, and more than one Fed-Soc member has come up to me after speaking to say that I made them rethink their assumptions.

Public Knowledge President Gigi Sohn attended the FCC’s big unveiling of its National Broadband Plan yesterday and recorded a quick reaction. She praises the work of the Commission, but points out that there is plenty of hard work to come.

So now we’ve had National Broadband Plan Day!. And, despite undeniable flaws and places where the Plan Drafters wussed out/”avoided controversy,” The Plan looks pretty damn good, actually.

Let me stress that: Pretty … Damn … Good!

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) shipped off to Congress a 376-page National Broadband Plan earlier today, and yet some of the most pointed commentary from the Commissioners at their meeting was about a part of the plan that was given relatively little emphasis.

It almost sounds silly to say there was too little discussion of a topic in a report that long and that comprehensive. Just looking at the table of contents, and all of the recommendations for moving the country ahead into the era in which high-speed Internet is the norm and not the exception. After all, this is a strategic outline for future actions, and there are lots of future actions in the report to contemplate on items big and small.

Today’s Broadband Plan has great things to say on the topic of video device compatibility—the idea that consumers should be able to access the video content they pay for on any device. It recommends that the Commission pursue a “gateway” approach: a lightweight model that allows for compatibility between consumer devices and networks such as cable, satellite, or FiOS TV. Late last year, Public Knowledge and others filed a petition with the FCC asking that it follow this exact approach—a petition cited heavily by the Plan.

The Communications bar was buzzing today because the FCC released the Executive Summary of its National Broadband Plan. Tomorrow at its monthly meeting, the agency will release the entire plan, all 360 pages of it.

But along with the Commissioners, staff and scores of onlookers, there will be an elephant in the meeting room that will not get nearly as much attention – that is, whether the FCC actually has the power under the Communications Act to enact major parts of the plan. Without a “cop on the beat,” the fate of broadband consumer protection regulations such as privacy, transparency and emergency communications will be at risk, as will other initiatives to ensure great access to broadband and greater adoption of broadband by the disadvantaged.

As John noted not too long ago, the new Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator has asked for your opinions on how the various government agencies involved with IP enforcement should go about doing their jobs—what harms of infringement should be addressed, and what changes in policies, regulations, and even the law, need to be made so that we can have a workable and effective national enforcement policy.

We want to make sure that enforcement efforts aren’t so broad and indiscriminate that they target fair uses of copyrighted works, or use draconian tactics that will cut off Internet access for those merely accused of infringement.

As PK legal eagle John Bergmayer noted in his blog post on attempts to "harmonize" copyright across national boundaries, the European Parliament decidedly rebuked the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) in a decisive 663 to 13 vote yesterday. The approved joint resolution calls for the immediate release of ACTA texts and public access to the negotiations and prohibits the EU from continuing to engage in secret talks with the other ACTA parties. Moreover, the resolution forbids EU member states from implementing so-called "three strikes" regimes, which some have reported or interpreted ACTA as prescribing. Finally, the resolution, "stresses that, unless Parliament is immediately and fully informed at all stages of the negotiations, it reserves its right to take suitable action, including bringing a case before the Court of Justice in order to safeguard its prerogatives." Needless to say, this resolution holds the potential to deal a massive blow to the secretive ACTA treaty and to finally shine a light on a purposefully opaque process. Unfortunately, here in the United States, policymakers are singing a very different tune.