It says something about the messed up world of telecom today that the “Connect America Fund” the FCC will vote on tomorrow has become the “what the heck are we going to do about IP-based interconnection” proceeding. In particular, the rather high-profile spat between AT&T and Comcast (and other cable companies) over access charges illustrates exactly the kind of cosmic cluster#@$! we predicted would happen if the FCC failed to classify broadband as a Title II telecom service.

Many parts of America do not have broadband and go under-served by traditional Internet service providers, whether it’s because of limited resources or the provider believes there is a lack enough demand to make the investment. To address this problem, an increasing number of towns across the U.S. have decided that, as a public and commercial good, the municipality will blanket the town with WiFi, at little or no additional cost to its citizens.

Unfortunately, in some states, Internet service providers have taken the viewpoint that if they cannot provide the locale Internet access, no one should.

Public Knowledge’s Position

Public Knowledge supports municipalities that offer free or low cost WiFi to the people that live there. Broadband access is critical to a city’s economy as it gives its citizens and businesses the opportunity to compete in the global knowledge economy.

Hey everyone, remember back at the end of last year when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted the better-than-nothing-but-still-painfully-disappointing Network Neutrality rules? Well, after a long and winding road, which included bouncing back and forth between the FCC and the Office of Management and Budget a few times and a premature challenge by Verizon, the rules were finally published in the Federal Register today. So without getting into the merits, here is what to expect procedurally.

Congressional Review Act

Last Wednesday, the Justice Department planted a very large nail in the coffin of the AT&T takeover of T-Mobile when it filed a lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit to block the merger.   Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole couldn’t have been more unequivocal about how the Department views the proposed merger:

We have been talking more and more about the arbitrary limits that ISPs (both wired and wireless) have been imposing on consumers’ internet connections.  These limits are arbitrary because they do not seem to be based on any sort of technical evaluation.  AT&T wireless and Verizon wireless impose a 2 GB limit on their standard data packages – why 2GB as opposed to, say 1 GB or 3 GB?  Similarly, AT&T (wired) imposes a 150 GB limit on customers [update: AT&T imposes a 150 GB cap on DSL customers and a 250 GB cap on U-verse customers].  Comcast’s limit is 250 GB.  Where did these limits come from?  No one (outside of the company) has any idea.  For all we know, the companies just spun a big wheel to choose the cap.  In this murky world the only thing that is clear is that, while AT&T and Comcast’s network supports hundreds of TV channels, their internet limits prevent you from getting rid of their pay-TV offering and replacing it with a competing internet video service.

It was an unfortunate end to a long and laborious process when a coalition of more than 80 civil society organizations, including Public Knowledge, refused to endorse the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Communiqué on Principles for Internet-Policy Making.
While this may seem like an obscure process, it has large implications for Internet policy in the U.S. and abroad. 

The Senate is gearing up for another go-round on rogue websites legislation, and this time, they've jettisoned the "COICA" label in favor of calling it the "PROTECT IP Act." Like a summer blockbuster sequel, it tightens up some things, adds a few new villains, but in the end reprises the same general plot.

The United States Trade Representative (USTR) and its negotiating partners today released the near-final draft of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). This text, while similar to the last draft leaked in August, has a few notable changes, most of which make the text far less problematic.
First, the provision requiring Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to disclose the identity of alleged infringers now contains a balancing provision. It states that procedures to disclose such information “shall be implemented in a manner that avoids the creation of barriers to legitimate activity, including electronic commerce, and, consistent with each Party’s law, preserves fundamental principles such as freedom of expression, fair process, and privacy.”

On this weeks PK In the Know podcast, we discuss the ramifications of the Google/Verizon announcement, the reemergence (again) of a fashion copyright bill, and what the FCC's AllVid proposal means for the future of video devices.

You can download and listen to the audio by clicking here (MP3) or stream it using the player below:

Want to subscribe to our podcast? Click here for the MP3 feed and here for the mixed audio/video feed.