Tag: Information Policy

As folks may recall, the primary opponents of opening the broadcast white spaces for use, the broadcasters and the wireless microphone manufacturers — notably our good friend and radio pirate Shure, Inc. (official slogan:”We get to break the law ‘cause we sound so good”) — insisted that the FCC conduct field tests on the white spaces prototypes. Of course, because these are concept prototypes and not functioning devices certified to some actual standard, everyone knew this would leave lots of leeway for the broadcasters and the wireless microphone folks to declare the tests a “failure” regardless of the actual results. Which, of course, they did.

I’m a Sprint customer, but thanks to something called “automatic roaming,” I can be reached in the DC Metro subway system, where only Verizon has service. Unfortunately, because of a recent FCC order, wireless customers like me might soon be harder to reach when on the move.

Wireless roaming agreements allow customers of one carrier to get service in areas where that carrier does not have its own network. Unfortunately, a gaping hole in some recent regulation means that an order meant to ensure that wireless customers get the best possible service might actually mean that some customers don’t get any service at all, even in their home region – especially if they’re customers of one of the smaller competitive carriers. This past week, we filed a letter urging the FCC to fix the problem and ensure continued customer access to wireless networks.

Today’s NYT has this op ed on Obama’s use of text messaging to announce his VP pick. It provides a nice reminder about the importance of the pending Petition by PK and others on text messaging. Not that Verizon or any other provider would be so foolish as to deny the Obama or McCain campaigns short codes or block their messages. I’m not even worried about independent candidates like Barr and Nader. No, I’m worried about us ordinary schlubs or unpopular folks who can’t count on getting a front page story on the NYT if something happens.

To quickly review the NARAL flap that prompted the filing of the Petition.

When should a court defer to an agency’s interpretation of its governing statute and/or its own regulatory actions?

I got interested in this question because deference by a flummoxed Supreme Court gave us Brand X, with its ahistorical “this looks really tricky so we’ll let the FCC categorize highspeed internet access” approach.

In this week’s Third Circuit opinion about the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident, the court doesn’t defer much.

As the Comcast/BitTorrent Complaint appears to wind down to its final conclusion, the critical questions revolve around whether the FCC has authority to resolve the complaint at all. Comcast argues that the FCC never gave any warning it would “enforce the policy statement,” that it has no basis for doing so anyway, and that even if the FCC had any authority, it would need to have a rulemaking to make rules first before it could resolve any complaints. At the same time, in a last ditch effort to avoid what looks like a total win for Free Press and the other parties to the complaint, Comcast has quietly floated the idea of a settlement decree. As bait for a settlement, Comcast holds out the risk of going to court and having the D.C. Circuit — famed for its open hostility to FCC ancillary jurisdiction and industry regulation generally — find that the FCC has no authority whatsoever to regulate broadband practices.

As folks may have heard, the Public Interest Spectrum Coalition filed a complaint against wireless microphone manufacturers and a Petition for Rulemaking last week. As I explain on my Wetmachine blog here, the filing has the dual purpose of cleaning up a potentially nasty mess in the broadcast UHF bands before the public safety and new commercial services start operating on Channels 52-69, and finally have an honest conversation about wireless microphones in the context of the FCC’s ongoing proceeding to open the white spaces to productive use. (FCC Docket No.

About 16 months ago, I heard Ed Richards of Ofcom speak at a CITI conference at Columbia, and blogged about it here. I remember thinking that Richards didn’t seem to think that highspeed access to the internet was all that important. The market had to demand it, and the market wasn’t being demanding. Also, he wasn’t interested in government intervention to support highspeed access.

Even though I was in Seoul a little less than a month ago, I would be remiss if I didn’t take note of the nightly protests that were occurring there. For one thing, they were impossible to miss—the convention center where the OECD Ministerial was held had a small phalanx of orderly protesters and riot police outside it during the days—a scene mirrored in vastly greater numbers each evening downtown. But another reason for me to pay attention to the protests was an issue that touched on media and even copyright issues.

On June 18, the front page of the Korea Times covered a speech given by President Lee Myung-Bak at the OECD Ministerial. The headline?

For months, Comcast spokespeople have been deny, deny, denying that the FCC has the power to do anything about Comcast’s throttling of BitTorrent traffic. Now, in papers filed as part of a class action lawsuit against Comcast, Comcast has gone the opposite direction, asserting that because “these issues are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the FCC, and because the FCC is actively investigating them,” the judge should put the suit on hold until the FCC renders a decision. The court has agreed, staying the case until the FCC acts.

Recently, I was in South Korea, attending the OECD’s Ministerial on the Future of the Internet Economy. Rather than try to give a blow-by-blow account, I’ve tried to package some of my thoughts in a series of posts. Here’s one:

A few days ago, I picked on Chairman Martin’s speech at the plenary session of the OECD Seoul Ministerial. Among the various deregulatory policies Martin cited as enhancing competition (and thus the United States’ position in terms of broadband pricing and deployment) was the removal of unbundling requirements for broadband.

Martin used the removal of unbundling requirements as one of many examples in creating a (false, I think) dichotomy between competition and regulation.