The FCC website being what it is (or maybe politics being what they are), an agenda is not yet available for the December 20th meeting of the FCC. All eyes are on this meeting because commissioners (including recently de-recused Commissioner Rpbert McDowell) will vote on the AT&T-Bell South merger. However, it now looks like Chairman Martin is also going to take the opportunity to push through a resolution to the cable franchising proceeding that’s been open since January. According to Multichannel News, Martin has circulated a proposed rule that would require local franchising authorities to act on an application for a franchise within 90 days.
Martin, who waited for cable-franchising reform to fizzle on Capitol Hill before shopping his own plan, said FCC pressure on cities and towns to act promptly would produce several benefits, including spurring broadband deployment and lowering cable bills. The 90-day cap would apply to entities that had existing approval to occupy public rights of way presumably phone companies initiating service and cable incumbents seeking renewal. … Martin, who has circulated his plan among the other four FCC members, would like it voted on at the agency’s Dec. 20 open meeting.
There has been a flurry of activity in the docket for this proceeding, so it looks like it might happen. Not having seen the draft rule, I wonder what happens after the 90 days are up. In our recent law review article and comments to the FCC, Jerry Ellig and I proposed just such a regulatory shot clock. We proposed that if a locality doesn’t make a decision either way on an application, then the franchise would be deemed granted with a set of default terms, which could be set the same terms of the incumbent’s franchise, for example. Anybody seen the draft rule?
While in this country we’re debating whether the government should hand over to a single entrepreneur 30 of the 36 MHz of prime radio spectrum slated for auction after the digital TV transition, in the UK they’re doing things a little different. According to GigaOm:
British carriers might have spent over 20 billion pounds on 3G wireless auctions several years ago, but they will soon get a chance to spend even more for “the UK’s largest single release of radio spectrum”, says British regulator Ofcom. This morning Ofcom outlined a plan for wireless auctions, which will be technology agnostic, but could include spectrum for WiMAX, mobile TV, mobile broadcast and even 3G. Ofcom is asking for a consultation period until March 2007. Ofcom says the three bands that will be available are: 2010-2025 MHz, 2290-2300 MHz and 2500-2690 MHz, and a total of 215 MHz will be on the market. There will be two initial auctions which will be part of a bigger plan to sell off up to 400 MHz over the following years.
You heard right,
400 Mhz of technology agnostic spectrum. I invite my friends concerned about net neutrality to look at this. We all would like to see new competition in broadband, and spectrum reform seems to me to be the first obvious step in that direction.
According to today’s WSJ, Blue Note records (a subsidiary of EMI) will begin selling music in MP3 format via Yahoo. Hopefully this is a sign of things to come, but for now the plan is just for a couple of songs, including a single from Norah Jones’ new album. What’s amazing is that this hasn’t been done already. I’ve always been skeptical that no one at the record companies gets it. But the article explains,
The MP3 announcements highlight a growing internal debate at EMI and other music companies over the correct approach to maximizing the impact of digital sales. Throughout the music industry, executives at record labels who suggested using MP3s for promotions spent years butting heads with their corporate superiors. … Mr. Hochkeppel confirms that he and other Blue Note executives had to overcome what he called “general resistance” on the part of senior EMI executives. He says they were ultimately persuaded there was a need to try fresh approaches to digital sales.
What I fear now is that if this experiment with just a few songs isn’t wildly successful, the suits still won’t get it. They should think about it this way: They have licensing negotiations coming up with Steve Jobs. What a better bargaining chip than the promise of a music store competitor to iTunes that sells MP3s, which play on iPods?
I’m a happy user of the Nike+iPod Sport Kit. It’s an add-on for iPods that tracks your running: how far, how long, pace, calories burned, etc. It also lets you track your progress toward a goal or challenge other Nike+iPod users to races. It works by paring a radio receiver attached to your iPod and a radio transmitter placed in your shoe.
However, as those of us who follow such things know, there’s nothing that perks up the ears of privacy activists more than the words “radio transmitter” and “shoe” in the same sentence. Their ears must be at their perkiest as researchers at the University of Washington have issued a report claiming that the Nike+iPod kit can be used to track its wearer. Wired News reports in its usual alarmed tone,
If you enhance your workout with the new Nike+iPod Sport Kit, you may be making yourself a surveillance target.
A report from four University of Washington researchers to be released Thursday reveals that security flaws in the new RFID-powered device from Nike and Apple make it easy for tech-savvy stalkers, thieves and corporations to track your movements. With just a few hundred dollars and a little know-how, someone could even plot your running routes on a Google map without your knowledge.
Below the fold I’ll explain why there are no security “flaws” and you shouldn’t be worried if you own one of these devices.
Continue reading →
It looks as if now that national cable franchise reform is dead in Congress, the FCC is moving forward with its proceeding on the issue. According to USA Today, “Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin has proposed rules to make it easier for phone companies and others to jump into the video business.” According to the newspaper’s sources, the new rule would require localities to rule within 90 days on competitive franchise applications by phone companies and others with existing access to public rights-of-way. In a new article in the Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law (and a public interest comment), Jerry Ellig and I tell the FCC not only that they should preempt unreasonable local franchise practices, but how they can do so. One of the points we make is that while requiring localities to act expeditiously in making franchise rulings, that’s just a start. The FCC also has the power to curb unreasonable denials of franchises.
In our paper we calculate the cost of franchising to consumers, and it looks like the FCC has such costs in mind. According to the USAT article, “Martin is using the FCC’s upcoming annual report on cable TV prices as ammunition. FCC officials say the report shows that satellite TV and cable TV operators have settled into a cozy duopoly, keeping prices in a steady, upward climb. It shows the average price of cable TV in 2005 was $43.33 a month. Where satellite TV also was available, the average was $43.34. But in markets with another “wired” video provider, the price was dramatically less: $35.94. The upshot: Absent credible land-based rivals, cable TV prices will keep going up.”
Last week, the EPA reversed course and said it will begin to regulate nanotechnology, specifically nanoparticles of silver used in washing machines. Now comes word that “Berkeley is proposing what a city official says would be the world’s first local regulation of nanomaterials,” according to the SF Chronicle. I love the rationale offered by the city official: “There have been a great number of attempts to regulate them, and they’ve all amounted to nothing because of the fear of upsetting industry, which leaves workers and the community at some unknown risk,” he said. “It’s the unknown that’s a concern to us.” Someone recently explained to me that when pasteurization first became prevalent, many opposed it because of possible unknown health risks. Nanotech is something I plan to keep an eye on and maybe shed some light on the consumer benefits as well as the risks.
According to Congress Daily, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff “said today his department will ensure that the highest-risk urban areas have interoperable [public safety] communications equipment by the end of next year, and that all states have it by the end of 2008.” DHS has been under pressure from the incoming Democratic majority to do something about the lack of communications among first responders. According to the article,
Without explicitly acknowledging the looming pressure for faster action, Chertoff told a conference of emergency response officials that metropolitan regions under his department’s Urban Areas Security Initiative grant program will have interoperable communications by the end of the 2007 calendar year, followed by all states by the end of 2008.
Chertoff said the department will give urban locations “interoperability scorecards” next month to help them decide how much money to seek in their upcoming grant applications. He did not provide additional details during his speech.
A Homeland Security Department aide would only add: “We will have further info at later date, as well as further info on the grant guidance.”
The whole speech is here, but it doesn’t really add much. I’m not sure what to make of this, but if the interoperability problem could be solved so simply, by just giving more money in federal grants to states and localities, then we would have fixed it a long time ago. As the Katrina Commission pointed out in its report, “Although some New Orleans and Louisiana state officials attribute the lack of true interoperability for first responders in the region to financial limitations, this explanation flies in the face of the massive amounts of federal grants to Louisiana.” Among other things, the interoperability problem is caused by a collective action problem, which in turn is cause by a spectrum policy that gives each of 50,000 public safety agencies their own (untradable) spectrum license and thus the impetus to build their own custom radio system. Coordination among these 50,000 actors is not easy, and I don’t see how more money will help.
Luckily, the Mercatus Center and Tom Hazlett’s Tech Center at GMU are putting on a symposium along with the FCLJ that will try to offer some solutions for the interoperability issue on Friday, Dec. 8. You’re intvited. Presenting papers on the topic will be Gerald Faulhaber, Jon Peha, Phil Weiser, and yours truly.
I can’t believe Tim Lee hasn’t posted about this already, but the Copyright Office has released its list of new exemptions to the DMCA. All around they’re pretty good considering how stingy the Copyright Office has been with exemptions in the past. Missing, of course, is an exemption that would allow folks to format-shift their DRMd DVDs or CDs onto other devices like PCs or iPods. Derek Slater has a round-up of reaction from around the web.
Notable among the exemptions is one for locked cell phones. Wireless carriers will subsidize your phone purchase, but the phone you get is locked so you can only use it on one network. This exemption will now allow consumers to take their locked phones to a competing network who I’m sure will be happy to unlock it for them. On the surface this is great for consumers, but I also wonder what impact it will have on carriers’ willingness to subsidize phones. On the margin, at least, their incentive has shrunk. If that’s the case (and allow me to be a geek for a moment) then it might help Apple’s assuredly forthcoming iPhone better compete since many believe that it will be sold unlocked and without attachment to any carrier.
WIlliam Patry writes today about what the election could mean for copyright. Bottom line, either Howard Berman or Rick Boucher will take over the IP subcommittee in the House, and Patry thinks there’s a good chance it will be Boucher. Boucher is no friend of the DMCA and seems to understand fair use.
Mr. Boucher is viewed by content owners as generally less sympathetic to their interests, although I would phrase the matter quite differently. Mr. Berman will always play an important role in the House on IP matters even if he is not chair of the subcommittee. In the past, he has taken great interest in international issues, and that may be the way he goes. The idea that he would pass on a different chairmanship solely at the urging of content owners is an idea that doesn’t reflect Mr. Berman’s overall interests or his role as a member of Congress. This isn’t to say he won’t take the IP subcommittee, it is only to say that I doubt the matter is as settled as some think.
Yesterday the FCC did something a little weird. One week after putting up for public comment Cyren Call’s proposal to revamp public safety communications, it rejected the petition but also decided to keep the commenting open. Quite admirably, the Commission cites lack of authority from Congress. What’s weird is that they didn’t decide to reject the petition during the three months they sat on it before putting out for comment. Also weird are the post-decision comments, which will now have another audience: Congress.
In the new issue of
Regulation magazine I explain the depth of the public safety interoperability problem and how we might go about tackling it.
In some parts of Europe, private enterprise builds and maintains the public safety network and sells interoperable communications capacity to the agencies there. A similar approach could be pursued in the United States. The government could allow private carriers to build advanced networks on frequencies that it now restricts to public safety use. Instead of building their own incompatible and duplicative networks, agencies and jurisdiction could purchase their communications needs from the private carriers. Because public safety communications typically use very little communications capacity, the carriers could sell space on the network to private entities without interfering with emergency communications.
This a warm-up to a paper I’m writing for FCLJ symposium on public safety interoperability that the Mercatus Center and GMU’s Tech Center are co-sponsoring. The event will take place Dec. 8 at GMU School of Law. Cyren Call’s Morgan O’Brien will be one of the panelists. Event details here.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.