Net Neutrality

U.S. Capitol Building, Room HC-5

Join the Internet Caucus Advisory Committee for a luncheon panel discussion featuring former Federal Trade Commission officials and Federal Communication Commission officials discussing how much authority, if any, those agencies have to police alleged “Net Neutrality” problems — should they arise. The panel will detail and debate the scope of enforcement authority and remedies available to the FTC, FCC and, perhaps, public opinion.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr., (D-MI) and Internet stalwart Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), have added another element to the debate about how to ensure a free and open Internet.

Last week, they introduced legislation H.R. 5994, the “Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2008.” This bill provides a nice complement to HR 5353, the “Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008,” introduced by House Telecom Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Chip Pickering (R-MS).

The new Clearwire could be game-changing, but the rules of the game may not be quite as Clearwire presents them. I have been wondering since last July whether something significant would happen in the Google/Sprint world. The deal announcement earlier this weekseems to be that key development. (Here’s the press release and here are slides describing the transaction.)

Background: House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) today introduced H.R. 5994, the “Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2008.”

The following statement is attributed to Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge:

“We are grateful to Chairman Conyers and Rep. Lofgren for introducing this legislation.

“The bill squarely addresses the issue of the enormous market power of the telephone and cable companies as the providers of 98 percent of the broadband service in the country. The bill restores the principle of non-discrimination that allowed the Internet to flourish in the dial-up era, making certain that the same freedom and innovation will flourish in the broadband era without burdensome regulation.

If you haven’t read about it, the New York Times reported yesterday that: Microsoft May Build a Copyright Cop Into Every Zune. Essentially, the large content provider would withhold their content from a distributor unless the distributor put in effective measures to prevent against piracy. We’re not talking about DRM here, we’re talking about filtering software, whether it resides on the playback device like a Zune or iPod, or in the software on a syncing computer that stores the consumers’ library of music and movies like the Zune or iTunes software. This software would troll your library checking for content that was somehow infringing or unauthorized. It may even be spyware that could report back to someone about the contents of your media library.

In response to my post a couple of days ago about the possibility that VZ might not plan to comply with the 700 MHz “open platform” rules, someone wrote:

would you have the FCC mandate that every mobile device must be capable of running every operating system? If Verizon sells me a BlackBerry, should the device allow me to install Android, Palm OS, Windows Mobile, or Symbian OS? Obviously, Google believes the answer is yes (they will make the most money if they can install their OS on every device). Is it good for consumers if the FCC starts managing software specifications for computers and mobile devices?

Last Friday (HT: IPDemocracy), Google filed a petition [PDF] asking that the Commission ensure that Verizon understands what those “open platform” requirements for the C Block really mean. Verizon has taken the position in the past that its own devices won’t be subject to the “open applications” and “open handsets” requirements of the C Block rules, and Google says it is concerned that Verizon doesn’t plan to follow those requirements in the future.

This is big. Here’s the background.

Just in time for the House Telecom Subcommittee’s May 6 hearing on Net Neutrality legislation, Public Knowledge achieved a new level of notoriety when we were prominently mentioned in a blog post on the American Spectator, the publication best known for funneling millions of dollars to investigations of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Pope Auditorium
Fordham University
New York, NY

Co-Sponsored by the Intellectual Property & Communication Law Program at the Michigan State University College of Law, the Donald McGannon Communication Research Center at Fordham University, and the Quello Center for Telecommunications Management and Law at Michigan State University.

For program and registration information please visit: http://www.law.msu.edu/ipclp/information/

Maybe the FCC can handle the truth.

A couple of days ago, we asked the question whether the Federal Communications Commission was up for confronting the reality of Comcast’s blocking and throttling of peer-to-peer traffic and, if so, what the Commission would do about it.

Just as Jack Nicholson’s character, Col. Nathan Jessep, was arrested at the end of the movie, “A Few Good Men” after telling Tom Cruise’s character Lt. Daniel Kaffee the truth, it looks as if the Commission is preparing to take some action against Comcast.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin made his announcement in dramatic fashion at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing. He wasn’t on the original agenda to testify. Martin’s staff contacted the Committee the afternoon before the April 22 hearing and asked if he could testify. Martin wanted to a big forum for a big announcement, and he made the most of it.