Showing posts with label FCC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FCC. Show all posts
29 October 2015
Twilio, Messaging Services, SMS, MMS, FCC Seeks Comments
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on Twilio Petition Requesting Classification of Messaging Services Under Title II; Comments Due November 20th, Replies December 21st
source: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on Twilio Petition Requesting Classification of Messaging Services Under Title II; Comments Due November 20th, Replies Due December 21st | Kelley Drye & Warren LLP - JDSupra
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
28 October 2015
Blocking FCC-approved Wi-Fi Hotspots Is “Patently Illegal”
source: FCC says blocking FCC-approved Wi-Fi hotspots is “patently illegal” and imposes $750,000 fine on Smart City. | Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP - JDSupra
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
24 July 2015
Internet Association, FCC, TCPA, Internet Platforms
Internet Association Asks FCC To Distinguish Internet Platforms From Their Users For TCPA Purposes | Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP - JDSupra:
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
22 July 2015
FCC, Small Business Exemption, Open Internet Enhanced Transparency Requirements
FCC Seeks Comment on Small Business Exemption From Open Internet Enhanced Transparency Requirements | Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP - JDSupra:
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
20 May 2015
30 April 2015
FCC Transparency Rule, Internet Privacy
What FCC’s Transparency Rule Means For Internet Privacy | BuckleySandler LLP - JDSupra:
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
15 April 2015
FCC Broadband Consumer Privacy Workshop, April 28
FCC Announces Broadband Consumer Privacy Workshop – April 28 | Davis Wright Tremaine LLP - JDSupra:
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
22 March 2015
FCC, Net Neutrality Rules, Broadband Access under Title II
FCC Adopts Net Neutrality Rules, Reclassifies Broadband Access under Title II | Proskauer - New Media & Technology - JDSupra:
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
14 December 2014
Lessons of the 2014 ITU Plenipot, FCC Commissioner Michael O'Reilly
Lessons of the 2014 ITU Plenipot by Michael O'Rielly, FCC Commissioner:
Last month, I was honored to join FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler as part of the U.S. delegation to the 2014 International Telecommunication Union’s (ITU) Plenipotentiary Conference (Plenipot) held in Busan, South Korea. Since the conference recently concluded, it seems the appropriate time to share my thoughts about this experience. Before doing so, however, I must express my deep appreciation to the head of the delegation, U.S. Ambassador Daniel Sepulveda of the Department of State, the FCC staff, the members of the U.S. delegation, and all dignitaries with whom I was able to meet, including the newly-elected Secretary-General of the ITU, Mr. Houlin Zhao of China, and Deputy Secretary-General, Mr. Malcom Johnson of the United Kingdom.
As a member of the delegation, I attended the official plenary meetings of the conference, which included the elections for various ITU positions and discussions of various resolutions, and joined U.S.-led bilateral meetings with representatives of countries present at the Plenipot, including Germany and Chile. I attended meetings with a subset of our delegation to discuss U.S. positions on specific issues (e.g., cybersecurity and Internet governance). In addition, I participated in a number of FCC-led bilateral meetings with officials from the regulatory agencies of other countries, including Pakistan, Lebanon, Ghana, Australia and Guinea-Bissau. These meetings put into perspective the high standing that the FCC has internationally, and I was able to share the Commission’s pro-market approach to spectrum auctions, unlicensed spectrum, broadband deployment, and many other issues.
Reports indicate that the 2014 Plenipot was relatively successful in staving off ill-timed or questionable policy proposals, and much credit goes to the U.S. delegation for their commitment and dedication. Based on my short time in Busan and now reviewing the end product, here are my key takeaways:
The Internet Continues to Threaten the Status Quo
At the heart of the issues debated at the 2014 Plenipot was the continued development of the Internet and its remarkable, disruptive capabilities. There was noticeable policy tension between the desire to expand the Internet to all and the impact of the Internet on global economic and political practices. While the countries of the world embrace the benefits that the Internet brings to society and mankind, some are troubled by other changes it can bring.
The concerns some countries have about the Internet are quite strong. In general, they can be put into one of two categories: loss of control and reduction of revenues. The decentralized and global nature of the Internet reduces the ability of a government to control the information and experiences of its citizens. In other words, countries that restrict freedom could be the most affected by it. Moreover, the Internet is quickly supplanting the traditional telephone as the main source of communications traffic. For some countries that rely on telephone revenues, their solution seems to be based on imposing new fees of some sort on the Internet. Many of the proposals on Internet issues put forth at the Plenipot fit into one of these two problematic rationalizations.
Given the benefits of an informed society, the international community would be wise to continue to embrace the Internet rather than trying to limit its access and reach. Additionally, a more forward-thinking approach is that government fees and regulations are deterrents to users communicating and optimizing the Internet, and thus, should be opposed.
The Structure of International Forums Needs Review
While I appreciate the history of the ITU and its work, the ITU’s structure—like that of the U.N.—provides each country an equal say in matters before it. That means some member countries, relying on bad information, advocate the fusion of existing policies or practices with the complexities inherent in the operations, functionality and architecture of the Internet, which can lead to unintended consequences. This also enables those countries that have questionable ulterior motives to push proposals that undermine the longstanding principles embedded in the Internet. The U.S. delegation, which included a number of Internet-centric companies, was forced to not only defend the Internet from harmful policies but also explain how implementing these policies could undermine the foundation of the Internet.
As I left Busan, it appeared that the role of the ITU in some people’s minds was on the way to shifting from the preeminent forum for public telecommunications to what our Korean hosts lauded as “the preeminent intergovernmental Internet forum.” The remit of the ITU continues to be a core discussion point at every global ITU conference, as some countries want to expand the ITU's reach to include Internet governance and content. These continued attempts need careful consideration, including whether and how best to obtain agreement prior to the start of any international forum discussing Internet matters, particularly those that have international treaty implications, to preclude issues that are outside of the organization’s purview or that may violate certain factors appropriate for international Internet negotiations, conventions, or conferences. Whether this is done via further establishing official U.S. policy along these lines or whether funding for such organizations needs to be examined closely beforehand would seem to be something for Congress to determine, but it may be a necessary conversation to have. Alternatively, perhaps the U.S. should focus on steering certain international discussions to other non-treaty based forums... The U.S. positions on Internet issues facing the Plenipot were rather refreshing. It focused on reaffirming our commitment to the free market and private sector: the guiding principles of the Internet. We rejected greater involvement by governments and railed against the desire by some to impose new fees (not unlike access charges) on Internet traffic. We opposed efforts to impose Internet traffic tracking, knowing that this was designed to subvert individuals’ freedom. We fought against efforts to inject the ITU into Internet content and applications. And we pushed the international community to keep the ITU’s role over the Internet limited... (emphasis added; read more at source: Lessons of the 2014 Plenipot | FCC.gov)
Last month, I was honored to join FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler as part of the U.S. delegation to the 2014 International Telecommunication Union’s (ITU) Plenipotentiary Conference (Plenipot) held in Busan, South Korea. Since the conference recently concluded, it seems the appropriate time to share my thoughts about this experience. Before doing so, however, I must express my deep appreciation to the head of the delegation, U.S. Ambassador Daniel Sepulveda of the Department of State, the FCC staff, the members of the U.S. delegation, and all dignitaries with whom I was able to meet, including the newly-elected Secretary-General of the ITU, Mr. Houlin Zhao of China, and Deputy Secretary-General, Mr. Malcom Johnson of the United Kingdom.
As a member of the delegation, I attended the official plenary meetings of the conference, which included the elections for various ITU positions and discussions of various resolutions, and joined U.S.-led bilateral meetings with representatives of countries present at the Plenipot, including Germany and Chile. I attended meetings with a subset of our delegation to discuss U.S. positions on specific issues (e.g., cybersecurity and Internet governance). In addition, I participated in a number of FCC-led bilateral meetings with officials from the regulatory agencies of other countries, including Pakistan, Lebanon, Ghana, Australia and Guinea-Bissau. These meetings put into perspective the high standing that the FCC has internationally, and I was able to share the Commission’s pro-market approach to spectrum auctions, unlicensed spectrum, broadband deployment, and many other issues.
Reports indicate that the 2014 Plenipot was relatively successful in staving off ill-timed or questionable policy proposals, and much credit goes to the U.S. delegation for their commitment and dedication. Based on my short time in Busan and now reviewing the end product, here are my key takeaways:
The Internet Continues to Threaten the Status Quo
At the heart of the issues debated at the 2014 Plenipot was the continued development of the Internet and its remarkable, disruptive capabilities. There was noticeable policy tension between the desire to expand the Internet to all and the impact of the Internet on global economic and political practices. While the countries of the world embrace the benefits that the Internet brings to society and mankind, some are troubled by other changes it can bring.
The concerns some countries have about the Internet are quite strong. In general, they can be put into one of two categories: loss of control and reduction of revenues. The decentralized and global nature of the Internet reduces the ability of a government to control the information and experiences of its citizens. In other words, countries that restrict freedom could be the most affected by it. Moreover, the Internet is quickly supplanting the traditional telephone as the main source of communications traffic. For some countries that rely on telephone revenues, their solution seems to be based on imposing new fees of some sort on the Internet. Many of the proposals on Internet issues put forth at the Plenipot fit into one of these two problematic rationalizations.
Given the benefits of an informed society, the international community would be wise to continue to embrace the Internet rather than trying to limit its access and reach. Additionally, a more forward-thinking approach is that government fees and regulations are deterrents to users communicating and optimizing the Internet, and thus, should be opposed.
The Structure of International Forums Needs Review
While I appreciate the history of the ITU and its work, the ITU’s structure—like that of the U.N.—provides each country an equal say in matters before it. That means some member countries, relying on bad information, advocate the fusion of existing policies or practices with the complexities inherent in the operations, functionality and architecture of the Internet, which can lead to unintended consequences. This also enables those countries that have questionable ulterior motives to push proposals that undermine the longstanding principles embedded in the Internet. The U.S. delegation, which included a number of Internet-centric companies, was forced to not only defend the Internet from harmful policies but also explain how implementing these policies could undermine the foundation of the Internet.
As I left Busan, it appeared that the role of the ITU in some people’s minds was on the way to shifting from the preeminent forum for public telecommunications to what our Korean hosts lauded as “the preeminent intergovernmental Internet forum.” The remit of the ITU continues to be a core discussion point at every global ITU conference, as some countries want to expand the ITU's reach to include Internet governance and content. These continued attempts need careful consideration, including whether and how best to obtain agreement prior to the start of any international forum discussing Internet matters, particularly those that have international treaty implications, to preclude issues that are outside of the organization’s purview or that may violate certain factors appropriate for international Internet negotiations, conventions, or conferences. Whether this is done via further establishing official U.S. policy along these lines or whether funding for such organizations needs to be examined closely beforehand would seem to be something for Congress to determine, but it may be a necessary conversation to have. Alternatively, perhaps the U.S. should focus on steering certain international discussions to other non-treaty based forums... The U.S. positions on Internet issues facing the Plenipot were rather refreshing. It focused on reaffirming our commitment to the free market and private sector: the guiding principles of the Internet. We rejected greater involvement by governments and railed against the desire by some to impose new fees (not unlike access charges) on Internet traffic. We opposed efforts to impose Internet traffic tracking, knowing that this was designed to subvert individuals’ freedom. We fought against efforts to inject the ITU into Internet content and applications. And we pushed the international community to keep the ITU’s role over the Internet limited... (emphasis added; read more at source: Lessons of the 2014 Plenipot | FCC.gov)
12 November 2014
FCC and Net Neutrality (videos); Tim Berners-Lee slams Internet fast lanes 'It's bribery'
World Wide Web inventor slams Internet fast lanes: 'It's bribery.' http://t.co/E7AgHS8a6G #FCC #NetNeutrality
— expVC (@expVCcom) November 11, 2014
FCC Reacts to Obama's Net Neutrality Stance: Video - Bloomberg: (Allow video to load after clicking play or go to link above)
FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel discusses President Obama’s net neutrality stance. She speaks with Bloomberg’s Cory Johnson on “Bloomberg West.” (Source: Bloomberg 11/11)
Net Neutrality: Will U.S., Europe Agree on Open Internet?: Video - Bloomberg:
(Allow video to load after clicking play or go to link above)
President Barack Obama came out in favor of net neutrality, urging the FCC to regulate broadband similar to phone service. Bloomberg’s Hans Nichols looks at opposition to the proposal and how Europe approaches the subject. He speaks on “On The Move.” (Bloomberg 11/11)
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
10 November 2014
President Obama's Statement on Keeping the Internet Open and Free (video)
President Obama's Statement on Keeping the Internet Open and Free -
President Obama's Statement on Keeping the Internet Open and Free, video above
Published on Nov 10, 2014: President Obama today urged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to adopt the strongest possible rules (Title II), to protect net neutrality, the principle that says Internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all internet traffic equally.
More info: http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
President Obama's Statement on Keeping the Internet Open and Free, video above
Published on Nov 10, 2014: President Obama today urged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to adopt the strongest possible rules (Title II), to protect net neutrality, the principle that says Internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all internet traffic equally.
More info: http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
02 November 2014
GUILTY: Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, CenturyLink, AT&T
These companies--Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, CenturyLink, AT&T, deserve full regulation by the FCC for these kinds of shenanigans--
Jammed — Backchannel — Medium: by Susan Crawford (Oct 30, 2014) : "...The proof is in: Detailed report shows how U.S. Internet access monopolies punish rivals and catch innocent bystanders in the crossfire—legally. Devan Dewey, the Chief Technology Officer of midsize investment consultancy NEPC, has an orderly office and a highly organized mind ... His team’s research led him to suspect something astonishing and dark: that NEPC, and probably many other businesses and consumers, were caught in the crossfire of an ongoing battle between “eyeball networks” run by Internet access providers, such as Comcast and Verizon; and “transit networks” used by competing video services, such as Netflix. He came to wonder whether, in their attempts to charge Netflix for access to their subscribers, Comcast and some other networks were recklessly affecting Internet connectivity for businesses like NEPC. Could that possibly be true? The answer is yes. What started out as suspicion is now fully documented, in a study that has just been released by a nonprofit research consortium called M-Lab. M-Lab’s data suggests the logical conclusion that Verizon and Comcast, as well as Time Warner Cable, CenturyLink, and AT&T, are intentionally squeezing data coming from some incoming networks — in particular, networks associated with Netflix, which competes with these companies in video entertainment. Customers of these eyeball networks are getting degraded service that cannot be explained by anything other than business decisions. And these eyeball networks are acting with an apparent disregard for users not affiliated with Netflix, affecting all kinds of traffic and all kinds of users. By tacitly allowing network traffic jams — affecting only the highways of fiber that Netflix was using to send its bits — everyone else using those routes was getting stuck. NEPC employees working from home, for instance, could barely operate...." (read more at link above)
As for the FCC, it appears they are still clueless:
The reported FCC 'hybrid' plan for Net neutrality is not winning many fans | VentureBeat | News Briefs | by Barry Levine: “This Frankenstein proposal is no treat for Internet users, and they shouldn’t be tricked,” consumer group Free Press CEO Craig Aaron said in a statement. “No matter how you dress it up, any rules that don’t clearly restore the agency’s authority and prevent specialized fast lanes and paid prioritization aren’t real Net Neutrality.”
Update: see also Why the U.S. Has Fallen Behind in Internet Speed and Affordability - NYTimes.com: "....it is telling that in the cities with the fastest Internet in the United States, according to New America, the incumbent companies are not providing the service. In Kansas City, it comes from Google. In Chattanooga, Lafayette and Bristol, it comes through publicly owned networks. In each case, the networks are fiber-optic, which transfer data exponentially faster than cable networks...."
Report submitted by Contributing Editor, John Poole, Domain Mondo
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Jammed — Backchannel — Medium: by Susan Crawford (Oct 30, 2014) : "...The proof is in: Detailed report shows how U.S. Internet access monopolies punish rivals and catch innocent bystanders in the crossfire—legally. Devan Dewey, the Chief Technology Officer of midsize investment consultancy NEPC, has an orderly office and a highly organized mind ... His team’s research led him to suspect something astonishing and dark: that NEPC, and probably many other businesses and consumers, were caught in the crossfire of an ongoing battle between “eyeball networks” run by Internet access providers, such as Comcast and Verizon; and “transit networks” used by competing video services, such as Netflix. He came to wonder whether, in their attempts to charge Netflix for access to their subscribers, Comcast and some other networks were recklessly affecting Internet connectivity for businesses like NEPC. Could that possibly be true? The answer is yes. What started out as suspicion is now fully documented, in a study that has just been released by a nonprofit research consortium called M-Lab. M-Lab’s data suggests the logical conclusion that Verizon and Comcast, as well as Time Warner Cable, CenturyLink, and AT&T, are intentionally squeezing data coming from some incoming networks — in particular, networks associated with Netflix, which competes with these companies in video entertainment. Customers of these eyeball networks are getting degraded service that cannot be explained by anything other than business decisions. And these eyeball networks are acting with an apparent disregard for users not affiliated with Netflix, affecting all kinds of traffic and all kinds of users. By tacitly allowing network traffic jams — affecting only the highways of fiber that Netflix was using to send its bits — everyone else using those routes was getting stuck. NEPC employees working from home, for instance, could barely operate...." (read more at link above)
As for the FCC, it appears they are still clueless:
The reported FCC 'hybrid' plan for Net neutrality is not winning many fans | VentureBeat | News Briefs | by Barry Levine: “This Frankenstein proposal is no treat for Internet users, and they shouldn’t be tricked,” consumer group Free Press CEO Craig Aaron said in a statement. “No matter how you dress it up, any rules that don’t clearly restore the agency’s authority and prevent specialized fast lanes and paid prioritization aren’t real Net Neutrality.”
Update: see also Why the U.S. Has Fallen Behind in Internet Speed and Affordability - NYTimes.com: "....it is telling that in the cities with the fastest Internet in the United States, according to New America, the incumbent companies are not providing the service. In Kansas City, it comes from Google. In Chattanooga, Lafayette and Bristol, it comes through publicly owned networks. In each case, the networks are fiber-optic, which transfer data exponentially faster than cable networks...."
Report submitted by Contributing Editor, John Poole, Domain Mondo
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
23 March 2014
The Open Internet, Net Neutrality, FCC
Court Decision Threatens Open Internet; Guts FCC “Net Neutrality” Rules | Best Best & Krieger LLP - JDSupra:
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
