Former Catoite and GMU law student Jerry Brito notes that the LOC will be hosting a lecture series on “Managing Knowledge and Creativity in a Digital Context.” The series starts tonight and runs through March. C-SPAN will broadcast each lecture.
Like some regulatory Freddy Krueger, it looks like the FCC’s UNE rules just can’t be killed off. Earlier this year, it looked like the rules were doomed when the D.C. Court of Appeals struck down the regs–which require telephone companies to lease network elements to competitors. And only last month, the Supreme Court turned down requests to review the decision. It was widely assumed then that the rules, if not eliminated entirely, would be reduced to a minimal level. Recent news reports, however, now indicate that the Commission may in a few days adopt new rules that retain forced access requirements in certain circumstances, if there is not sufficient competition among telephone companies in a given area. That sounds reasonable, except that “competition” may be defined in an extremely narrow way–perhaps on a block by block basis. Thus, for instance, if there are a slew of competitors offering service on K Street, but none on L Street, the rules would be retained for L Street (even if competitors could easily expand into neigboring areas). Surprisingly, the new rules are being pushed by Chairman Michael Powell, usually seen as key defender of deregulation. We’re still awaiting details on what exactly the new rules will provide, but right now it looks like the UNE horror story will continue for some time to come.
Short piece by Norbert Michel and myself on the MPAA lawsuits, released yesterday by Heritage…
Hollywood, Values and P2P Lawsuits
If exit polls can be believed, issues of moral values were among the most important factors in last week’s presidential elections. Pundits are still weighing the meaning of that vote and what it means for public policy. Yet buried beneath the election news, the values issue was also raised last week in a much different context, the fight against the theft of intellectual property on the Internet. Ironically, the motion picture industry–rarely seen as a hotbed of traditional morality–is leading this fight. It announced that it will file lawsuits against individuals found illegally trading copyrighted movies over the Internet.
The U.N.’s Working Group on Internet Governance is the careful effort of overpaid international bureaucrats to seize control of the Internet on behalf of have-not countries and drive it into the ground – er, I mean, to create an “open and inclusive” process and “a mechanism for the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums.” Or something.
Look through the list of countries represented in the working group, announced today and listed at the bottom of this page. Sure enough, it’s larded up with academics and bureaucrats from backwater foreign countries like Mauritius, China, Kenya, and Rhode Island. In July 2005, they will assuredly report back to the U.N. Secretary-General that international bureaucratic control of the Internet is needed.
Which raises the crucial question about Internet Governance: If the report of a U.N. Working Group is totally irrelevant, does the U.N. Working Group actually exist?
Today the FCC told state public utility commissions to back off – it announced its ruling (see press release as ruling text is not yet out) that marks the beginning of the process for telecommunications regulatory reform. A unanimous FCC ruled that VoIP is not subject to traditional state regulation.
There still remains much to do before we have coherent telecom law. What federal rules will apply to VoIP is still an open question. The FCC’s ongoing IP-Enabled Services Proceeding will determine whether VoIP services are an “information service” or a “telecommunications service” under current law.
At the very least, this ruling answers the question of “who decides.” Commissioner Copps, in his statement, downplays this ruling. But don’t believe him. This is a good start toward the recognition that a national industry deserves an institution accountable to national interests. This is a win for federalism, the principles of which recognize that federalism is not just “state rights” but is a consideration of what institutional arrangement will best serve the national interest over time. This is a win for consumers, although I envision that so-called consumer “watchdog” groups will gripe about this decision. These same groups bemoan the fact that the U.S. is slipping in the per capita penetration of broadband subscribers. But perhaps, just perhaps, one of the reasons (and there are many) for high penetration rates in Korea and Japan is that they don’t have 50 state PUCs trying to run the show!
Of course, states have other ways to insert their noses into VoIP under the guise of “consumer protection” and social services like 911.
Soon, perhaps, the American Psychological Association can certify that anti-spam activism is an obsessive-compulsive disorder. At the risk of wasting a lot of time myself, I’ll let you read for yourself about the guy who (literally) thinks getting an e-mail is a federal case. Alas, it is. But it really isn’t.
The delete key, Bob! And then go on with your life!
Troubling times could lie ahead for free speech and the First Amendment in the wake of Tuesday’s election. With so many political analysts saying that “values” played a major role in getting Bush re-elected and giving the GOP more seats in Congress, I think there’s a good chance that the pro-censorship crowd will come knocking asking for a payoff. Various Christian conservative and “pro-family” groups will lobby for increased indecency / obscenity enforcement efforts. Here’s how that might play out by branch of government:
Here’s my take on the MPAA lawsuits against individual file sharers:
http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/041104-tk.html
The FCC’s universal service fund finds itself, not unsurprisingly, increasingly embroiled in accounting troubles, from fraud to difficulty complying with accounting rules requiring it to have monies in hand before paying them out. Not to mention consumers irate about the growth of the line items on their bills.
This pit is potentially bottomless. In a nutshell, “Everyone wants to take out of the pool, especially if they pay into it, and anyone who doesn’t stake a claim will lose out to more aggressive competitors.” I quote IPI‘s recent telecom guide for state legislators, which I helped author.
Years ago, I saw the economic justification for universal service set out in the form of an equation. In English, it went something like this: The network is more valuable to everyone if absolutely everyone is on it. So we impose a tax to avoid the cost of some being excluded from the network. It all sounds very precise, put that way. But consider that no one knows the amount of the cost we are supposedly avoiding by this tax & spend scheme! And the amount we are coughing up to avoid it is apparently limitless! At the same time that technologies from the Internet to wireless are finally bringing transmission costs down. It is sad, that we cannot give the market a chance to work in rural areas as it has worked elsewhere.
-Solveig
The universal service tax on long-distance calls is expected to increase. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Universal Service Administrative Corp. will ask regulators to increase from 8.9% to 12.5% the percentage of long-distance revenues that phone companies must hand over to the universal service fund. I’m not happy to hear this, and I suppose the USAC is just doing its job, but this increase highlights just how bloated this creature of the 1996 Act is becoming. But I’m truly becoming more and more incensed at the way that politicians are playing the “rural” card in telecom policy.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.