The FCC issued a press release yesterday that Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy will be chairing a conference of international regulators in December. The symposium will be hosted by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). It’s objective is:
“to achieve worldwide progress in promoting the development of low cost access to broadband and Internet connectivity. To this end, we are confident that the regulators at the Conference will work to reach consensus on a statement of Best Practice Guidelines to utilize in achieving this goal.”
Commissioner Abernathy is generally a friend of free markets. How will she hold up to a global crowd that will likely equate “promoting the development of low cost access” with a government subsidies or public works project?
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.
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.
Continue reading →
As Adam posted earlier, the FCC decided to not force incumbent companies to share their fiber to the curb networks with competitors. In my oped that appeared in the Washington Times last Sunday, I compare this decision to receiving a green light for speedier traffic. The FCC–the traffic cop of the communications industry–just raised the speed limits on broadband.
Continue reading →
“The Commission is not simply considering minor adjustments to specific regulations–the Commission is considering the future of electronic and optic communications for many years to come” – FCC Chairman Michael Powell.
Does this statement scare anyone?
Powell said this at the Fall Voice on the Net Conference 2004 in Boston yesterday. He said it in the context of streamlining regulations from the quilt of 51 different state regulatory bodies. One unified regulatory body for VoIP is good, right? (here’s an article on the speech)
Powell’s “patchwork” argument has benefits, but is also an excuse for FCC “oversight” and “involvement.” Shouldn’t this be handled by Congress, where there could be simple legislation banning states from interfering with VoIP. Whoops, there is – and it got hugely bloated.
Continue reading →
My latest C:\Spin article develops a methodology for determining when new legislation is needed to address bad online conduct. The skinny – first examine existing law, then consider whether new legislation will add not just a new law but a new ability or tool for law enforcement, and finally, assess educational opportunities and market initiatives.
Now that the Induce Act is dead, all eyes will be on spyware.
Amit Yoran is gone. And he might as well be saying how can a cybersecurity czar help online security when the Administration sends out signals of “wrong war, wrong place, wrong time?”
The news reports say Yoran’s departure was a result of his wanting more authority to address cybersecurity issues. As the director of the National Cyber Security Division, he was charged with implementing President Bush’s “National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace.” Will there now be a call for more government involvement in cybersecurity? Does cybersecurity warrant Assistant Secretary status within DHS, a position that has direct access to Secretary Tom Ridge?
Continue reading →
CEI filed comments today in response to a Federal Trade Commission request for comment about email authentication. The FTC will be holding a summit on November 9-10 about what authentication schemes will help the spam problem. The FTC, in its Federal Register notice, characterizes the summit as a “first step” towards “an active role in spurring the market’s development, testing, evaluation, and deployment” of authentication systems. Of course, what the FTC is really saying is that industry better play a card or else the government will force its hand.
I’m worried about the FTC role here. This summit is a foray into the technical standards setting process, which to me seems like it goes beyond the FTC’s consumer protection and antitrust mission.
Continue reading →
Pricing goods and services that are rapidly becoming commoditized presents a challenge to sellers. How to differentiate your product vis a vis competitors? Often this involves bundling, but can take on many different forms of price differentiation schemes enforceable by contract law. Most people, including most regulators, have no clue about how hard it is to price a product and get it right. The California Public Utilities Commission ruled last week that Cingular’s pricing decision was wrong, not as a matter of market preference, but as matter of law. It imposed a $12.14M fine on Cingular for unfairly slapping customers with “early termination” fees. Here’s a Washington Post article on it.
These termination fees are actually quite consumer friendly. They are the customer’s acknowledgement of the fact that a large portion of a carrier’s costs are upfront at the beginning of the contractual relationship. The “free phone,” setting up the user’s billing account, assigning the phone number – a mobile carrier could charge for each individually, then we’d hear the consumer complaints! Otherwise, it’s a reasonable bargain for a consumer to limit his or her freedom for a year or two in exchange for the benefits of a bundled product arrangement.
Continue reading →
Last Friday George Mason University Law School held a symposium called “The Economics of Self-Help and Self-Defense in Cyberspace.” It was an excellent event with a cutting-edge topic – technological self-help – that deserves more study. Self-help dominates our entire legal system, as influenced by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Self-help arrangements, either contractual or self-defense – occur everday. Society permits, even encourages, self-help when the legal remedy is less available or less efficient. But what about a virtual “repo man“?
I immediately hit Richard Epstein with the direct question of whether digital media copyright holders should be able to engage in self-help by invading computers and searching for pirated media (as in the Berman bill, or more perniciously, when Sen. Hatch actually said that he favors using technology to remotely destroy the computers of those who illegally download music on the net.). He indicated that any regime of self-help, as opposed to legal help through the courts or law enforcement, must have net positive benefits to society.
Continue reading →
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.