Information Policy

I have a nifty little service I buy from my telephone provider called “teleblock.” It blocks calls originiating from certain types of phone calls unless I affirmatively allow them. Thanks to this nifty service, I am once again able to sleep late on Sundays.

I bring this up because if there is a common carriage service left in the telecom world, it’s plain old telephone service (POTS). My POTS landline is absolutely regulated as a “Title II” common carrier telephone service. But despite being a common carrier Title II telecom service, my POTS provider can offer me a very useful tool for limiting annoying calls.

We’re now accepting nominations for our annual IP3 Awards. Each year, Public Knowledge singles out three people who have advanced the public interest in one or more of the “three IPs”: Intellectual Property, Internet Protocol, and Information Policy.

As technology advances, the roles of users, content creators, and service providers expand and blur. This year, more than ever, the areas have overlapped in debates around patents, copyright, net neutrality on the Internet and on other networks, the use of spectrum, and many others. As new questions arise at the intersection of law and technology, certain individuals come forward to advance to public interest in each of the three types of “IP”.

As always, we need your help in choosing this year’s winners. So please send your nominations to IP3nominees@publicknowledge.org, or post your picks in the comments below.

A constant complaint of net neutrality naysayers is that no one knows what net neutrality is. Lacking an agreed-upon definition, the debate swirls into a maelstrom full of red herrings, as various ISP spokespeople talk about how net neutrality threatens legitimate network management, or will interfere with quality of service.

It’s high time we moved past that argument, define some terms, and get on with things. That’s one of the accomplishments of the recent resolution on net neutrality issued by the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialog(TACD). PK’s press release on the resolution is here; Ars Technica has a nice writeup here.

Center for Technology and the Law
George Mason University Law School
Arlington, Virginia

TPRC is an annual conference on communication, information, and internet policy that convenes international and interdisciplinary practitioners and researchers from academia, industry, government, and nonprofit organizations together with policy makers.

For additional information please visit: http://www.tprcweb.com/

Today, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin announced at the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) conference that he is circulating an order at the FCC that would dismiss the petition (pdf) filed by Skype that sought an FCC ruling requiring a wireless network provider to allow the use of any non-harmful device and application on its network.

The rationale behind this decision is one we have heard many times over the past few months: Verizon announced that they are going to be open to third party devices and applications; the FCC already has required the C block of the 700 MHz spectrum recently auctioned to be open (again, controlled by Verizon); the wireless industry is headed in the direction of openness, etc. It’s done, so why do we need a ruling?

Comcast has sent a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin clarifying last week’s announcement that they were in discussions with BitTorrent, Inc. about how to improve Comcast’s network management. In short: Comcast has “admitted” nothing, they do not “block” applications or “discriminate,” and the old system they say they will be replacing is still completely legitimate. It seems that Comcast thinks that the FCC needs to keep on investigating the petition as much as we do.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Comcast and BitTorrent, Inc. are now working together to “collaborate on ways to run BitTorrent’s technology more smoothly on Comcast’s broadband network, and allow Comcast to transport video files more effectively over its own network.” While we applaud application developers and network operators getting together to figure out how to improve the efficiency of the Internet, this changes nothing about the issues raised in the petitions on network management; the FCC must still act quickly to ensure that its four principles for broadband service have real meaning and that consumers are protected.

On March 19, I was invited to a symposium at Penn Law entitled “Copyright and the Internet: Solutions for a Digital World.” The panel before mine was dedicated to reconciling copyright and the first amendment in the areas of filtering, takedown notices, and fair use.

The panel discussion was fascinating, and covered more ground than I can do justice to here. What I want to focus on was a particular point addressed by Jannifer Pariser, Senior Vice President of Sony BMG’s Litigation and Anti-Piracy department.

Shareholders for Verizon, AT&T, and other companies that paid big money in the 700 MHz auction may want to check the fine print and hold back on final payment. Thanks to a quirk in the FCC’s rules, the NFL, the MPAA, and other users of “broadcast ancillary services” (BAS) may have superior rights in the spectrum.

I’ve written a longer and more technical version of this on my Tales of the Sausage Factory blog. But for those without the patience for the long story, here’s the quick version of what may turn out to be the funniest and most expensive joke in FCC history.

At long last, the FCC went three rounds without any new bids and declared Auction 73 (better known as Battle 700 MHz) closed. You can see the final provisional winning bids on the FCC’s Auction 73 page here.

Of course, we are all waiting to see who won what licenses, particularly C Block. But we have some preliminaries to go through first. Most importantly, the FCC has to make a decision on whether to sever the D Block from the Auction so that it can investigate what happened, especially the allegations around Cyren Call and Morgan O’Brien.