Tag: FCC

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.

On August 1, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruled that Comcast’s interference with its customers Internet traffic violated the Commission’s policies and was not reasonable network management. Today, the Commission released an Opinion and Order detailing its analysis and commanding Comcast to cease its discriminatory practices.

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

“With today’s Order, the FCC acted to protect the rights of Internet users and set the precedent that unreasonable, discriminatory behavior like Comcast’s will not be tolerated. It agreed with public interest advocates and technical experts that Comcast’s conduct violated FCC principles and was not reasonable network management.

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.

For the second straight year, I addressed the EDUCAUSE/Cornell Institute for Computer Policy and Law, held at Cornell’s beautiful campus. The Institute gathers 50+ higher education information technology (IT) professionals – usually campus CTOs, librarians and legal counsels, and teaches them the substantive particulars of IT policy issues and advises them how to be strong advocates.

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.

Later this month I will celebrate 20 years as a public interest communications lawyer. After two unhappy years in a private law firm, I walked into the small and cluttered offices of Media Access Project in August 1988 and never looked back. We spent most of our time in those early days trying to get broadcasters and cable operators to live up to their public responsibilities – impossible work in the laissez-faire Reagan-Bush I years. It was all mass media reform then. There was no technology policy, and the Internet was the stuff of geeks and academics, but the goals we had then were the same as they are today – to ensure a communications system that promotes creativity, civic discourse and democratic self-governance.

Background: Earlier today, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-O) chastised FCC Chairman Kevin Martin over the Commission’s expected actions to punish Comcast for throttling Internet traffic.

The following is the response of Public Knowledge President and Co-Founder Gigi B. Sohn:

“It is a shame that the harm Comcast has done to the Internet has not been appreciated by Leader Boehner. Rather than criticizing FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, Leader Boehner should praise him for putting a stop to a practice that technical experts have said is clearly outside the bounds of accepted Internet practice, while at the same time the FCC is acting to protect consumers.

“The FCC’s action is in no way ‘heavy-handed,’ as Leader Boehner put it. It is, rather, a return to the principles of open competition and non-discrimination that have been a part of communications law in this country for more than 70 years.

As Art discussed yesterday, the expected FCC decision on the Free Press/Public Knowledge complaint against Comcast for throttling Bit Torrent will be groundbreaking precedent. This is because among other things, a Bush Administration FCC will find that the agency has the authority under the Communications Act to protect Internet users from discriminatory network management practices like those used by Comcast.

But nobody should confuse “groundbreaking precedent” with an adequate solution to the problem of broadband service providers using their bottleneck powers to pick winners and losers on the Internet. Yes, the Comcast decision will be powerful and significant. But it will not be enough to check the telco-cable duopoly.

Here is why the Comcast decision has its limits: First, the decision will apply only to Comcast.

After 18 months of waiting and speculation, the FCC late Friday evening approved the merger of XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio. While we still don’t have all the exact details (the Commission released only a detailed press release on Monday), it appears that all of Public Knowledge’s conditions were adopted in whole or in part. To review, those conditions were:

• a la carte or tiered pricing choices;

• a three year price freeze for its combined programming package;

• a 5% set-aside of capacity for non-commercial educational and informational programming;

• a requirement that the new company make the technical specifications of its devices and network open and available to allow device manufacturers to develop, and consumers to use, any device they choose without interference.

If all goes as we anticipate, a new era for the Internet could begin on Aug. 1, 2008. On that day, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is expected to decide that Internet users have rights under the communications law.

This is a spectacular victory, because not long ago the thought that a Bush Administration FCC would actually enforce its 2005 principles for an open Internet would have been laughable. The principles were the product of intense negotiations around an order that took telephone company DSL service out from under the protections of the Communications Act that protected consumers for 70 years. Democratic Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein got the principles as the best deal they could get at the time from FCC Chairman Kevin Martin.

Now, thanks to circumstance and hard work, the Commission will make those principles into something concrete and meaningful.