About this Author
Ernest Miller pursues research and writing on cyberlaw, intellectual property, and First Amendment issues. Mr. Miller attended the U.S. Naval Academy before attending Yale Law School, where he was president and co-founder of the Law and Technology Society, and founded the technology law and policy news site LawMeme. He is a fellow of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School.
Ernest Miller's blog postings can also be found @
Copyfight
LawMeme
Listen to the weekly audio edition on IT Conversations:
The Importance Of ... Law and IT.
Feel free to contact me about articles, websites and etc. you think I may find of interest. I'm also available for consulting work and speaking engagements. Email: ernest.miller 8T gmail.com
|
Category Archives
July 13, 2005
Blink ›
Drew Clark's Spectrum Wars Now Online
posted by Ernest Miller |
 |
# |
0 |
0
July 06, 2005
Blink ›
Stifling Innovation Not Working Out Well for Cellular Providers
Business Week's Blogspotting has some interesting evidence of the failure of the closed network model for cellular service (Mobile Internet: a Story of Stagnation). What can we gather from this? The mobile industry, which has been breathlessly awaiting revenue growth from mobile data, has utterly failed to provide Internet handsets and services worth our time and money. Significantly, the one area of growth--wireless email--developed largely on services and handsets that came from outside the phone industry, from Research in Motion's Blackberrys and PalmOne's Treo. Gee, I wonder if they opened up their networks, someone more clever than the cellular service companies might come up with the killer app for mobile data?
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
July 03, 2005
Blink ›
More Crawford's Notes on the History of Telephony
Prof. Susan Crawford continues her excellent notes on the history of telephony with another couple of great posts (History of Telephony and When Old Technologies Were New). For an entire generation after the telephone was introduced, the Bell system managers resisted its use for social purposes. Yes, there are memos and reports from the early years saying that managers were trying to get people to stop gossiping on the telephone. The president of Bell Canada, in 1890, complained he couldn't stop trivial conversations, and a manager in Seattle in 1909 wanted to limit use of the telephone for purely idle gossip. [emphasis in original] Good stuff. Previous post here: Crawford's Notes on the History of Telephony.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
June 27, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
via SCOTUS Blog: In a 6-3 ruling, the Court decided that cable operators offering high-speed Internet access have no legal duty to open their service to customers of all Internet service providers.
In the cable case, the Court upheld the decision of the Federal Communications Commission that broadband cable moden companires arfe exempt from mandatory common-carfrier regulation. That, Thomas wrote, is a lawful interpretation of the Communications Act, and thus is due deference. Will update when the decision is available.
Public Knowledge is first out of the gate with a statement from their president, Gigi Sohn: The Court's decision today raises the question of whether Congress, in tackling its next revision of the Telecommunications Act, should act to ensure that communications, content, and applications are allowed to pass freely over the Internet's broadband pipes. We believe Congress should do so, because "net neutrality" is a worthy goal that not only will promote free speech and creativity on the Internet, but also will benefit those who provide broadband connectivity by making that connectivity more valuable.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Open Access | Telecomm
Posted by Ernest Miller
Where I'll be reading about the decision:
This post will be updated ...
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Copyright | File Sharing | Open Access | Telecomm
June 24, 2005
Blink ›
Crawford's Notes on the History of Telephony
Prof. Susan Crawford is doing something that I've always wanted to do: delve deep into the history of telephony. Good stuff ... hope she uses her blog to keep her notes (Telephony and We're Keeping Guard Over Your Loved Ones). In advertisements spanning the years between 1907 and 1958, the Bell System used emergencies as a key sales point to get people to buy telephones. Much of the usefulness of the telephone, as advertised, was that it was there, that it was watching over you. You weren't so much interacting as being guarded. The telephone, that magnificent instrument, was silently keeping you safe. .... The ties to the E911 controversy I've been focusing on are obvious. An important part of joining the telephony network was gaining the ability to tell other people when you were in trouble. [emphasis in original]
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Blink ›
EEJD Roundup on Community Broadband Act of 2005
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Posted by Ernest Miller
Prof. Michael Madison points to the debate over Brand X that is starting on Picker MobBlog (MobBlawg LiftOff). [Btw, Picker calls his site MobBlog. I like Madison's MobBlawg better.] Michael agrees with one of the MobBlawggers that Brand X may ultimately be a more important decision than Grokster. Furthermore, Michael points to a Dec 2004 post of his that looks at the conceptual connections between the two: they both are means of regulating communication (On Grokster and Brand X). Abso-posi-lutely! It's all about the distribution man! It's freedom of the press, it's telecomm, it's copyright. It's Network Law. It's All About the Distribution, Stupid. It's Freedom of the Press, Stupid. We're going to need analytic tools that work similarly in all these areas of law and treat them as one whole system of regulating communication.
Anyway, for a very nice discussion of how to frame some of these issues, see Randy Picker's post, Framing Openness and the response from Phil Weiser here: Making Sense of Openness.
In response to, or perhaps, just going off on my own tangent I would like to bring in the traditional concept of common carriage as part of the openness conversation, as that is yet another way we've framed openness issues in the past.
For example, Picker makes an interesting comment: I am comfortably in the camp of those who believe that an author should have some rights associated with her work and indeed don’t believe that even most of the copyright left favor eliminating all of the attributes associated with copyright. Well, airlines are common carriers. But advocating common carriage for airlines doesn't necessarily mean that one wants to completely socialize airlines. I see the copyfight similarly.
Weiser notes: Notably, in some cases, there will be alternative platforms (such as cell phones or video games), creating powerful incentives for some providers to voluntarily provide "open access" to their platform. Heck, yes. But I'll note in reply that in the case of common carriage, we apply it despite the fact that there are many alternatives. There may be many airlines servicing a particular airport, some even duplicating routes, but we still regulate them as common carriers. Furthermore, airlines have competition from trains and buses. One might say "there are alternative platforms" for airlines, so why regulate them as common carriers? Yet, we do. Interesting, that.
Just some random thoughts on a beautiful Friday afternoon.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Copyright | Freedom of Expression | Network Law | Open Access | Telecomm
June 23, 2005
Blink ›
Closed Satellite Networks
Democracy in Media harshes on satellite for being inherently a closed network (Why Satellite Isn’t Compatible With an Open Network World). Read the whole thing. There is certainly some truth in the claim (i.e., two-way communication is a bitch). And though I'm a fan of open networks, not every network is going to be suited for openness. I'm far from convinced that satellite is one such, but even if it is, it can still play a valuable role in our communications ecosphere. As long as our primary communications are open, closed networks can supplement.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
June 22, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
BusinessWeek has an an interesting article about radio for your cellphone (Dial R for Radio on Your Cell). Chances are radio services will be a hit with the 2 billion wireless subscribers worldwide. "Mobile phones are always with you," explains Nancy Beaton, a general manager at telco Sprint (FON), which became the first carrier with a commercial cell-phone radio service in December. "Because customers are familiar with how the phone works, adding radio can be very intuitive," says Beaton.
And many users want that addition. According to surveys conducted by America Online, a unit of Time Warner (TWX), more than half the respondents say they would listen to the radio on their phones. AOL is in talks with wireless service providers to offer its online radio stations on mobile phones within months. Radio on phones is a good idea. I could see that it would be very useful. However, a couple of questions ... many related to my rant yesterday ( Die Cellphone. Die! Die! Die!).
First, why the heck does AOL (or any other cellphone radio service) need to be in talks with wireless service providers? Why couldn't they simply be in talks with, you know, customers? The closed networks of the cellphone providers are really limiting competition and innovation (not to mention increasing the price).
Second, despite Miss Beaton's claim about ease of use, why the heck do we have to get the radio via a cellphone? Why not get the radio via an MP3 player? Why not let the MP3 player have basic connectivity for this purpose? A cellphone is great in some circumstances, but not necessarily all. Radio service also could spark sales of other wireless content. "Since radio is how people discover new music, I'd look at radio as the trigger that would create follow-through sales of [popular content like] ringtones, ringbacks, and music downloads," says Lewis Ward, an analyst at IDC. If users hear a song they like on their cell-phone radio, they'll be able to immediately buy a related ringtone via their cell. That should accelerate the growth of the $500 million ringtone market, as well as sales of ringbacks and music downloads. Of course, one reason the cellphone service providers like their closed networks is so that they can make more money via associated services. I still can't believe that people pay as much for ringtones as they do. Open up the network, let people buy ringtones without paying the cellphone service provider tax. Most cell-phone radiocasters, though, plan to use existing wireless networks, but to varying extents. Motorola's iRadio, expected to cost $5 a month, will let customers download hours of radio programming via a PC. New radio-ready Motorola phones are expected to be unveiled this fall. Motorola plans to insert snippets of breaking news into these broadcasts as they're downloaded over its wireless network. Downloading hours of radio programming via your PC already has a name. It's called "podcasting". Still, perhaps Motorola will share some of their technology, or help work on an open standard, for mixing breaking news with less time-volatile content. Would be useful.
via Mobile Content News
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcatching/Podcasting | Telecomm | Tools
June 21, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
On Monday, Adam D. Thierer, Senior Fellow and the Director of PFF's Center for Digital Media Freedom (CDMF), wrote an essay on media ownership for Tech Central Station (What Ever Happened to the Big Media Boogeyman?). The article bashes those who were fearful of too much media concentration, pointing out that many of the major media companies are splitting up rather than consolidating. To a certain extent this is true. However, the article goes too far in its claims. Regardless, this is an example of a well-functioning, dynamic marketplace at work. Media critics seem to think that any merger or acquisition is all just part of some sort of grand conspiracy to destroy democracy or competition, but in the end, things sort themselves out and we end up with an ever-expanding universe of media options at our disposal. Indeed, ask yourself a simple question: Do you have more media options and outlets at your disposal today than you did 5 to 10 years ago? This is not a well-functioning market. It is a highly distorted one. I agree with Thierer that media ownership rules are foolishness. However, I don't look at our currently regulatory structure and think it is a "well-functioning" market. Is it well functioning when SBC has to beg local communities to provide television service? Is it well-functioning when VoIP providers have to meet stricter E911 requirements than cellphone companies? Would the broadcast flag be an example of a well-functioning, dynamic market? I don't think Thierer thinks so: The real danger here in not just that asymmetrical FCC regulations will doom old media players to an early extinction, it is that -- in the name of fairness and "leveling the playing field" -- the old rules gradually come to incorporate new media outlets and technologies as well. Well, if that is the case, then isn't there a problem with current media ownership? It isn't a product of a well-functioning market, it is the product of asymmetrical FCC regulations that seriously distort the market.
Those who argue in favor of more media ownership rules may have the solution wrong, but they're right that the current ownership structure is seriously flawed and distorted.
via PFF Blog
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Telecomm
Blink ›
Point and Snap Advertising
WIRED reports on an interesting technology that is being rolled out for porn, but I think has some potentially interesting marketing possibilities (Porn Stores Turn Into Clip Joints). Vivid Entertainment, one of the leading suppliers of adult entertainment, has licensed a system that will let shoppers preview racy trailers on their camera phones just by scanning the bar code on the box. Now that's handheld entertainment. I'm not sure why this should be limited to pornography. Why not bar codes on movie ads in newspapers, magazines, or the street? You could download clips of the movie, of course, but why not ring tones? Screensavers? Minigames? People would actually look at the advertisements. It wouldn't be limited to movies, either. You could do it for music, television, videogames ... basically any sort of mass produced content. There could be special codes for Happy Meals. What can I say? I like the idea. Cellphone companies should too.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Posted by Ernest Miller
Paul Resnikoff of Digital Music News muses about the future of the iPod in a world where cellular phones have increasing music carrying capabilities (Resnikoff's Parting Shot: The Future of the iPod). He doesn't think the iPod has much to worry about it, yet.
This is a variation of a question that is always asked. Will mobile gaming devices be swamped by cellphone/game consoles? Will digital cameras be made irrelevant by cellphones/cameras? Will MP3 players be made irrelevant by cellphone/MP3 players? No. No. And No.
Why not ask instead, will the cellphone be able to survive domination by combination game console/phones? Will cameraphones be made irrelevant by cameras with phone capability? Will MP3 players that let you call out destroy the market for phones with MP3 capability?
Cellphones aren't going to go away, but they're only a tool for communication. There is nothing particularly special about them that makes them the only form factor for communication. At base, they're a commodity device. Why are cellphone manufacturers so darn busy creating things to do with a cellphone other than communicate? Because, otherwise, there isn't much to distinguish the darn things.
My life doesn't revolve around my cellphone. My life is about the other things I do. I want to have a digital camera that takes good pictures, a game console that is designed to play cool games, and an MP3 player designed to handle thousands of songs, playlists and podcasts. And, oh yeah, I want connectivity. I don't want a "cellphone."
Stop pretending to sell me cellphones. Honestly, the cellphone companies aren't really selling cellphones. That is just the sales pitch. The cellphone companies are essentially selling commodity connectivity and trying hard to hide that fact with fancy cellphone capabilities.
Data is data. Sell me connectivity and let me pick my own darn devices to take advantage of it.
That's right, I said "devices." I'm paying for the connectivity, so why should it matter how many devices I can use to take advantage of that connectivity? Sometimes I want to take my camera to the park. Sometimes I want to take my game console when I anticipate a wait at the doctor's. And I want to take my MP3 player for the workday commute.
Used to be that you could only get your landline phone from AT&T. They decided what equipment you could use on their network. We got rid of this foolish requirement and the internet was able to bloom.
Why do we continue to tolerate similar foolishness for cellular?
Comments (1)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Open Access | Telecomm | Tools
June 20, 2005
Blink ›
What Should the Purpose of Public Broadcasting Be?
Jeff Jarvis discusses the ongoing controversy over severe cuts in the federal budget for public broadcasting and offers his own solutions (Saving Public Broadcasting). I'm not so sure many of them would work, but I do agree that we need to rethink public broadcasting: : Reexamine the mission of public broadcasting in an era when the public can broadcast. : Reexamine the mission of public broadcasting and when cable provides so much more value, like historical and educational programming (and I'm sorry that 11 percent of the country don't get TV via cable but, hey, We really should reexamine the mission of public broadcasting, not only in the context of cable, but in the context of the internet and the coming of broadcatching. Perhaps we may want to figure out how to democratize distribution, rather than subsidize flawed distribution schemes.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Posted by Ernest Miller
So, there I was, sitting in hot standby to blog the heck out of decisions in Grokster and/or the Brand X case, but the Supreme Court has held those decisions once again. From SCOTUS Blog (Court Decides Six "Second Tier" Cases): The Supreme Court, on a day on which it issued six decisions, released none of the major controversies still to be decided -- the Ten Commandments displays cases, music and movie downloading and copyright, government seizures of private property for private re-development, and access to cable companies' broadband lines for high-speed Internet connections.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Copyright | File Sharing | Telecomm
June 18, 2005
Blink ›
Getting Municipalities to Approve IPTV
Techdirt has a nice collection of links regarding the many outdated state requirements that every municipality must approve the provision of television services in their communities (IPTV Saga: Verizon Sticks With Good Ol' Lobbying, Adds Cash Incentive). Can we get some regulation not designed for the 1800s around here? Is that too much to ask? Instead of making life difficult for television providers these cities would be better off figuring out how they're going to replace cable tax revenues when broadcatching takes off.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Blink ›
More on the FCC's VoIP and E911 Order
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
June 16, 2005
Blink ›
Switch to DTV Causing TV Manufacturers to Remove Tuners Altogether
Digital TV Design Online reports that television manufacturers are removing analog tuners from their televisions, rather than add digital tuners to them (Tuning Stripped Out of Rear Projection CRT TVs). Why? However, it was later found out that by eliminating all tuning, the sets bypassed the FCC tuner mandate for all TVs 36-in. and above, which goes into effect on July 1st. And, as a bonus, the company will be able to offer the sets at much lower prices. The 57-in. widescreen model " 57HC85 " is priced at $1,599.99 (list), which means that it will sell for about $1,300-$1,400 (street). Apparently this is a trend. Technology360 explains the significance ( Eliminating Tuners): By not having any tuners in their sets at all (e.g., having consumers rely on cable and satellite set-top boxes and on DVRs and DVD players) the manufacturers can lower the cost of their sets. ¶ Impact: even fewer off-air DTV receivers, increasing reliance on cable (and perhaps ultimately on satellite local/local) for reception of broadcast DTV stations.)
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Blink ›
Clear Channel Reveals Own Weaknesses
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
June 15, 2005
Blink ›
Public Knowledge: Set Hard Date for Transfer of DTV Spectrum
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
June 14, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
Jeff Jarvis is attending the Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands' Institutions of Democracy and discussing the First Amendment and government support for media with mass communications professor Timothy Cook (Gov Giveth and Gov Taketh Away). Various ideas were raised by respondents that made my spine shake: taxing ads to support publications with fewer ads, giving postal subsidies only to publications below a circulation threshold, government search engines. As Jeff responds, "Arrrgh."
There is insight here: the government shapes our communications environment far more than we realize. However, these ideas for direct subsidy seem to do both too much and too little. Too much in that they invite all sorts of governmental decisions about what sort of content and media should be subsidized and too little in that they don't address the structural and architectural elements of our communications infrastructure.
Telecomm (and I'm not talking about the distraction about "media ownership") and copyright law are the real powers that shape our communications environment. You want to talk about government helping media, that is where you have to look.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Copyright | Freedom of Expression | Telecomm
June 13, 2005
Blink ›
Congressman Opposing Municiple Telecom Will Benefit Financially
On the Huffington Post, Josh Silver has an interesting post about the financial background of Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), who has introduced a bill essentially banning municiple telecom (Another Corrupt Congressman from Texas: The Next DeLay?). Sessions stands to gain as well. According to his "Financial Disclosure Statement for Calendar Year 2003," the former SBC executive owns $500,000 in SBC stock options and received more than $75,000 from SBC and it’s employees. It's no wonder he would sponsor legislation that is supported by nobody in this country except for the telecom and cable giants that punch his ticket. The Congressman's 2004 disclosure statement will be released June 15. Cynicism about our regulatory structure seems appropriate in this case, I think. Read the whole thing.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
June 11, 2005
Blink ›
Trip the E911 Fantastic
Prof. Susan Crawford blasts the FCC's E911 for VoIP ruling (AOL, MSN, Yahoo!, and E911). No user of an IM client expects to be able to reach 911. There, I've said it. I don't, you don't -- we just don't. Even if we're calling familiar phone numbers. These online offerings are just not substitutes for phone service. They're much better. And they shouldn't be saddled with impossible, fantastical emergency response requirements in the absence of a clear Congressional statement. We should be very worried about a Congress that would be willing to make such a statement. UPDATE 2140PT: Jeff Pulver has more excellent comments ( So What Does the FCC VoIP Order Really Mean for "Real" VoIP?). Frankly, I was somewhat relieved that the FCC is not imposing technologically impossible E911 obligations on peer-to-peer communications applications that no one could reasonable consider POTS-replacement services. I, however am concerned over the FCC's tentative conclusion in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking attached to the VoIP E911 Order that might serve to extend traditional E911 obligations to applications that are primarily peer-to-peer, but might offer some limited access to and from the public switched telephone network. Devices and applications that a consumer should not expect to behave like a traditional phone service should not be stifled simply because they behave differently than traditional phone service.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
June 09, 2005
Blink ›
Some Ironies of Our Telecomm Regulatory Structure
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
June 08, 2005
Blink ›
A Child's Phone That Actually Works
Telepocalypse has an interesting idea for a Fisher-Price style child's phone that actually works, thanks to Skype (Baby Babble). Up to five buttons, one for each person. When they’re online, the button glows green. When you’re talking to that person, it glows red. Press the button to connect and disconnect. Press multiple buttons for a conference call between all grandparents. Totally under the initiative of your kid, no parents needed. Incoming calls? Probably not, or at least a parent-selectable option (naturally, only from pre-approved buddies). Auto power-off after 5 mins of relative silence. There will be other limited-use phones developed as well. This seems a wide open area for innovation.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
June 07, 2005
Blink ›
Malik: Phone Companies Need to Think Different, Not Simply Complain to Congress
Om Malik raps the phone companies for trying to nationalize rules for sending IPTV to customers through their network (Bells: Lets Change the Broadband Policy). Malik argues that they should simply adopt internet TV and forget about competing directly with cable. How about giving consumers 100 megabits per second and letting them figure out what they want to do with it. Downloadable video, not IPTV makes more and more sense over the new fiber networks Verizon is building. Why build the same-old television, when you can build a new TV. Not a passive TV, but something better. A sort of hosted TiVo where consumers go to the web and build their own TV channel which comes down the fiber. Thinking different is hard, but in the end that is what is going to make Bells broadband standout, not complaining from the roof tops.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Blink ›
Good Question for Cell Phone Company
Andrea Harner has a very good question for her cell phone company (Dear T-Mobile): I recently received a text message from you kindly alerting me to my overdue bill. For this courtesy SMS, I thank you. I called 611, the convenient 3 digit number you graciously provide for the ease of customers, and an automated voice told me that my account was overdue $857.00 due to 'minutes overage'. IF YOU CAN TEXT ME THAT MY BILL NEEDS TO BE PAID WHY CAN'T YOU TEXT ME THAT I'VE GONE OVER MY MINUTES?????!!!!!! Absolutely. Of course, WHAT THE HECK WAS HARNER DOING ON THE PHONE FOR THAT LONG????!!!!!
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
June 03, 2005
Blink ›
FCC Issues E911 for VoIP Order, Pulver Comments
Jeff Pulver provides his thoughts on the FCC's order for E911 requirementts for VoIP that was released today (Some Initial Impressions of the FCC's "Order on E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers"). Having said the foregoing, I am concerned that the FCC inverted what, to me, could have been a forward-looking approach that might have seriously advanced our emergency response capabilities. Rather than compelling VoIP providers to build "backwards" to accommodate the existing broadband-and-IP-limited emergency response centers, the FCC could have worked to bring the emergency response centers into the 21st Century. The PSAPs should all have broadband access and become IP-enabled. In fact, voice should not be the only mechanism to place an emergency "call." An IP user should be able send an IM, SMS, text or email message to emergency responders. In other words, the PSAPs should be upgraded; the PSAPs should become broadband-ready and should talk in IP to the IP-enabled world. That would produce a much more robust emergency response system. Instead, we might be stuck with a mediocre, limited, narrow-band emergency response capability and never get around to devoting the resources needed to upgrade the existing emergency response infrastructure. Read the whole thing. The 90-page order is here: In the Matters of IP-Enabled Services, E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers [PDF].
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
May 31, 2005
Blink ›
The Golden Age of Telecom: 1950-1980
Ben Compaine suffering from a massive overdose of sarcasm pens the following screed: The Critical Need for Restructuring the Media Industry Before It’s Too Late. The media industry must be reformed. It needs the restructuring that only the federal government can undertake. Congress is certainly on the right track, having already handed out free digital spectrum to the incumbent broadcasters. Good thing they didn’t have it auctioned off to other players. The shrinking media companies must not be permitted to get any more fragmented. We must write to the FTC and Justice Department urging them not to permit further divestitures, such as the recently announced sale of big multinational Bertelsmann’s magazines to the much smaller publisher, Meredith. The FCC must be convinced to limit the bandwidth available for wireless services such as satellite radio, Wi-Max and the like so newer services cannot be initiated. And certainly we cannot allow any further news services to find room on the multichannel video providers. Even better would be to roll back to the conditions that existed before 1986, thus taking the Fox, WB and UPN networks off the air as well as removing Fox News and MSNBC from the cable line-up.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Blink ›
FCC Chairman's Number 1 Priority
David Isenberg writes about FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin's announced number one priority: broadband (FCC's Martin: Broadband No. 1 Priority). Isenberg is skeptical about Martin's actual commitment as well as his free market bona fides: This must be why he's left "indecency" and 911 to the free market, letting application providers succeed or fail based on whether customers want "decent" programming and/or 911 service. (NOT! -- for these (but not for broadband?) Martin believes in FCC mandates.) Me too.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Blink ›
Telcos Will Have to Fight to Provide TV in Texas
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
May 27, 2005
Blink ›
Municiple Fiber in Burlington, VT
Seven Days, "Vermont's Alternative Webweekly", has a substantial article on Burlington, VT's effort to bring municiple fiber to every home (Working His Connections). It hardly seems possible, but by the end of 2007, all Burlington residents will be able to pay just one bill each month for their home phone service, broadband Internet connection and cable television channels. And they won't be making the check out to Verizon, or Adelphia -- they'll be paying the City of Burlington, via Burlington Telecom. via Slashdot
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Blink ›
Skype Spam
Telepocalypse reports an instance of what will likely become a major problem, VoIP spam (Disreputable). In this case it was Skype authorization spam, but as Telepocalypse says, "here we go again."
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Blink ›
Coffeeshop Shuts Down Free WiFi on the Weekend: Mass Panic Results
David Isenberg has some good comments on the recent and popular report that a Seattle coffee shop is shutting down free WiFi on the weekends (Free Weekend WiFi Nix). It's an interesting minor speedbump on the infobahn. Predictable. Will some mainstream newspaper sensationalize it? How about "Internet Moochers Destroy Saturday Coffee Outings." Probably.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
May 23, 2005
Blink ›
Felten on VoIP and 911
With regard to the FCC's latest ruling requiring VoIP that connects to POTS to provide enhanced 911 service within the next 120 days, Ed Felten asks, Is the FCC Ruling Out VoIP on PCs? His conclusion? So the real effect of the FCC's order may be to cut off interaction between the old and new phone systems, which won't really help anyone. Yup.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
May 20, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
As expected, the FCC has ordered VoIP carriers that interconnect with the traditional telephone service to implement enhanced 911 capability within 120 days.
Read the press release: Commission Requires Interconnected VoIP Providers to Provide Enhanced 911 Service [PDF].
Here's an interesting quote: [This order] does not place obligations on other IP-based service providers, such as those that provide instant messaging or Internet gaming services, because although these services may contain a voice component, customers of these services cannot receive calls from and place calls to the PSTN. And, now they're definitely not going to, even though one would expect such convenient technology to be developed in the near future. What is it about innovation that the FCC doesn't like? And, given the statements of the commissioners that public safety is job #1, what is to prevent them from requiring such obligations in the future? If they have authority to regulate VoIP, they are claiming authority to regulate all IP-based services. Note how this quote is framed ... it is not that they can't regulate IP-based online games, it is that they chose not to.
And here is one of the scary parts: Finally, the Commission stated its intention to adopt, in a future order, an advanced E911 solution that includes a method for determining the customer’s location without the customer having to self report this information. IP is just bits. It doesn't care whether the bits are voice or some other form of data. If the technology will tell people where you are based on an IP datastream for voice, it will very likely be able to tell people where you are for any IP datastream. Gee, I wonder if this technology will ever be used for anything having to do with geographic censorship and privacy violations, among other things?
All four of the commissioners have issued separate statements:
Chairman Kevin Martin is all about the public safety and wishes he could order that the rules be implemented immediately (Statement of Chairman Kevin J. Martin).
Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy statement wasn't closely proof read as it repeats several paragraphs verbatim (Press Statement of Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy [PDF]).
Commissioner Michael Copps shows his frustration with, you know, the law (Separate Statement of Commissioner Michael Copps [PDF]): For far too many years now, the Commission has engaged in all sorts of term-parsing and linguistic exegesis as if just finding the right descriptor for new technologies would magically create a policy framework for them. Yet here we are today still trying to determine if those who provide new calling technologies need also to provide up-to-date emergency calling and location capabilities to those who use their services. The sad fact is that we have spent so much time splitting hairs about what is a telecommunications service and what is an information service that we have endangered public safety. At some point the semantic debates must end and reality must assert itself—when customers sign up for a telephone they expect it to deliver like a telephone. When an intruder is in the house and the homeowner goes to the phone to call the police, that’s a call that just has to go through. Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein's statement is a little more detailed and worth reading for a better understanding of what the order is trying to achieve ( Statement of Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein [PDF]).
More later, but be sure to read Prof. Susan Crawford's take when the reports that this would happen started yesterday (911 and VoIP): This is crazy. It's not even clear what the Commission thinks its source of jurisdiction is. Non common-carrier VoIP service providers surely don't fit under Title II. And the DC Circuit has clearly told us that Title I isn't the ever-expanding golden purse that the FCC thought it was. So just what gives the Commission the power to do this? Read the whole thing.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Telecomm
May 17, 2005
Blink ›
Common Carrier Would Keep Cable Companies from Blocking Competitor's Ads
The New York Times reminds us, yet again, why we need common carriage regulation (Phone Companies Shut Out of Local Cable for Some Ads): For years, Comcast, Cox and other major cable providers have routinely denied requests from direct competitors to advertise on their local cable channels. Cable providers do not want to give companies that go head-to-head with them any extra opportunity to compete for their customers. Sure is nice to have a monopoly franchise. via Furdlog
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
May 16, 2005
Blink ›
Geist on Canada's VoIP Ruling
Respected professor and Canadian cyberlaw guru Michael Geist writes about Canada's recent decision to regulate VoIP the same as traditional telephony and why that doesn't make sense (CRTC Picks Wrong Analogy in Net Telephony Ruling). Might I suggest that not only does the analogy not fit VoIP, that today's regular telephony doesn't fit the analogy to old-school POTS.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
May 12, 2005
Blink ›
Broadband to the Home Via Natural Gas Pipelines?
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
May 02, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
Comments (2)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Freedom of Expression | Telecomm
March 30, 2005
Blink ›
Don't Ignore Brand X Case
In all the hoopla about Grokster being argued before the Supreme Court yesterday, another important case was also on the docket, Brand X, which deals with whether the FCC can treat similar services differently. The case is whether cable internet service is a telecommunications service and subject to common carriage(the FCC says it is not) or whether cable internet service is an "information service" and not subject to common carriage. Here's a good article on how the oral argument went from Law.com (In Broadband Case, Justices Seem Attuned to Internet Services' Arguments). I'm rootin' for Brand X.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
March 28, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
The Seattle Times has a very informative article about the ways that Microsoft is becoming involved in Washington lobbying, particularly in the regulatory arena (Microsoft woos new pals in D.C.). I highly recommend reading this article to learn a bit about how many of these various regulatory issues tie together, at least from the perspective of one company.
The article also reveals (inadvertantly, perhaps) many of the tensions within our existing regulatory structures. For example, the article notes: In yesterday's analog world, television programs were delivered on TVs, radio shows on radio. Today's technology has complicated the situation by enabling cable, computers and all manner of electronic devices to deliver the Web, phone service, music, video and other digital content. Why is that convergence is complicating the situation? The situation has been complicated by regulatory structures that created artificial distinctions among various forms of distribution technologies.
There is also some disingenousness: Only a few years ago, Microsoft opposed the [broadcast] flag, because such an approach attempts to tell software designers what to include and sets limits on the Internet. But now, Microsoft cannot afford to tick off its fledgling friends from Hollywood, the movie moguls it will need to provide content as it ventures into new video technology. Gee, and it couldn't have anything to do with Microsoft desiring to be a gatekeeper to technological development in the video distribution sector and to inhibit the development of open source alternatives. Microsoft is just trying to help its friends in Hollywood. Yeah, right.
Anyway, read the whole thing.
UPDATE 1145 PT
Donna Wentworth has a couple more things to say on this over on Copyfight (Why Microsoft Won't Fight the Broadcast Flag).
Comments (1)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Telecomm
October 12, 2004
Posted by Ernest Miller
Last Saturday, the LA Times (reg. req.) broke a story regarding the plans of the Sinclair Broadcast Group (owners of 62 television stations in 39 markets) to preempt regularly scheduled programming about a week or so before the presidential election in order to air a film attacking Sen. John Kerry's activism against the Vietnam War (Conservative TV Group to Air Anti-Kerry Film). Such a move is unusual: "I can't think of a precedent of holding up programming to show a political documentary at a point where it would have the maximum effect on the vote," said Jay Rosen, chairman of New York University's journalism department. Of course it is unusual. It would be unusual if a major newspaper, magazine, or website made a similar announcement of preemption in order to publish partisan content on behalf of a particular candidate. However, though there might be complaints about the decision to do so, there would likely be little question that the newspaper, magazine, or website had a right to do it.
That is not the case for broadcast: Still, although broadcast stations are required to provide equal time to major candidates in an election campaign, the Sinclair move may not run afoul of those provisions if Kerry or a representative is offered time to respond. Moreover, several sources said Sinclair had told them it planned to classify the program as news, where the rules don't apply.
Calling it news, however, poses its own problems, said Keith Woods, dean of the faculty at the Poynter Institute, a journalism school in St. Petersburg, Fla., that teaches professional ethics. "To air a documentary intended to provide a one-sided view of Kerry's record and call it news — it's like calling Michael Moore's movie news," he said, adding that the closer to an election that a controversial news report is aired, the "higher the bar has to go" in terms of fairness. If you don't like what Sinclair is doing, then there are three basic responses to it: - Everybody Should Do It.
If the rightwing is going to broadcast propaganda, then the leftwing should organize the purchase of a network of broadcast stations and broadcast its own propaganda.
Not a terribly satisfying solution, however. - Government Regulation of Speech.
This can be done either as regulation of broadcast through the FCC or regulation of campaign speech through the FEC.
Either option should concern free speech advocates. Do we really want government commissions to decide what counts as "news" and what doesn't? What is fair and what is not? Does extending the mess of campaign finance reform to include ever more publishers make a lot of sense? - Change Broadcast Regulation to Eliminate Gatekeepers
Might it possibly be that Sinclair's decisions are merely a symptom of the regulatory structure of broadcast, and that the best way to cure it is to change our regulatory structure? I argue yes.
Our Broadcast Regulatory Structure Made Sinclair Possible
And I'm not talking about the recent controversy over cross-media ownership that has been the focus of so much attention this past year. I'm talking about the fundamental structure of our broadcast regulatory structure.
I find Reed Hundt's comments to Josh Marshall telling (From Reed Hundt): If Sinclair wants to disseminate propaganda, it should buy a printing press, or create a web site. These other media have no conditions on their publication of points of view. This is the law, and it should be honored. Call me crazy, but if most other media is free to publish whatever it wants (something we call freedom of the press), shouldn't our first question be why broadcast gets treated so differently? Why isn't there freedom of the press for broadcast?
Basically, because broadcast is a government-licensed gatekeeper. Imagine if we had a Federal Newspaper Commission that decided who was allowed to publish newspapers in a particular city. Suddenly, we would have calls for a "fairness doctrine" for newspapers and other government regulation of newspaper content.
One might argue that the broadcast airwaves belong to the people and they must be licensed by the government and regulated because of scarcity. Even if there was scarcity, so what? Cellphone companies lease the scarce airwaves as well. Local telephone companies exist in part because of scarce government granted rights of way. Yet, we don't worry about them distributing propaganda, because our regulations have structured their businesses differently, so that these companies don't really care what they distribute. They are common carriers. There is no particular reason why broadcast couldn't be regulated in a similar way.
Hundt spoke of buying a website to distribute propaganda. Well, perhaps we should try to transition broadcast regulations so that broadcast acts more like the internet. Why should the government maintain a medium that requires government content regulation? Shouldn't the government attempt to structure things so that such content regulation is unnecessary?
The real scandal of what Sinclair is doing is not the propaganda, but that so many people seem to readily accept government regulations that create a perceived need for regulation of free speech.
Comments (12)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Freedom of Expression | Telecomm
September 01, 2004
Posted by Ernest Miller
There has been much talk about the use of Xbox Live as a VoIP platform, such as this article from C|Net News back in February 2004 (Playing Games with VoIP). Today, there are a number of interesting articles concerning gaming consoles and VoIP.
Jeff Pulver, the dean of VoIP, has an interesting speculation about who will dominate the VoIP space in 2005 (Nintendo and Sony May Dominate the Consumer VoIP Marketplace in 2005): Both Nintendo and Sony are now leveraging the power of IP communications to incorporate both IP Voice and IP Video inside of their products, without directly marketing these products as VoIP devices on their own. Both the DS and PSP are well positioned to be living examples of “killer applications” for IP Communications. So while these companies won’t be calling their platforms powered by: “VoIP Inside”, we just need to smile when we read about the buzz surrounding these really cool consumer products.
Details regarding the DS and PSP has been written about in countless gaming magazines over the past few months but it was only recently that my kids connected the dots and told me about these new products that are well positioned to redefine gaming amongst the 10 year-old set (and their parents.)
It may be just a matter of time before some of the more creative forces within the VoIP industry start to announce the availability of commercial VoIP communication services associated with these really cool devices. Indeed. Especially considering the news from Gamespot today ( Analyst note: Nintendo DS invites free voice-over-IP chat): In its Electronic Entertainment Industry Update released today, TNI Securities reports that the recently revealed headset port on the Nintendo DS will be used in conjunction with the built-in wireless 802.11b networking capabilities to offer voice-over-IP chat--in effect, allowing gamers to use the DS to make free phone calls at wireless network hotspots. That is real news ( via Gizmodo).
What is most interesting to me is the WiFi capability. Many people dismiss WiFi as a VoIP platform due to coverage issues and what not. However, I think there is a lot more potential than most people realize. Coverage doesn't have to be perfect if the connectivity is free and the capability is built into a device you have already. Instead of cameraphones, phonecameras. You use it mostly as a camera, but it has limited phone capabilities when you need that, too.
This won't happen overnight, but Nintendo has sold an awful lot of GameBoys ...
UPDATE 1845 PT
Slashdot has more (Nintendo DS To Allow Free VoIP Calls).
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Telecomm | WiFi
August 31, 2004
Posted by Ernest Miller
Denise Howell relates an anecdote in which the wonders of VoIP demonstrate one of the myriad changes in our near future (PSA Re Law Firm Voicemail): Note to anyone who might be contemplating calling a law firm and leaving a voice message that might be even remotely considered, shall we say a novelty:
More and more firms are using voicemail integration systems like Cisco's Unity Messaging. The upshot of this is voicemail becomes automatically and immediately freed of the phone, showing up as a .wav attached to the recipient's email. (I'm now so used to receiving voicemail this way I've all but forgotten how to get it off the phone itself.) From there, the message becomes trivially easy to forward or upload, whereupon the analog circle is closed as audio bits become widely circulated paper. [links in original] Of course, you don't need fancy voicemail integration systems; this capability will be default for VoIP systems very soon, if it isn't already.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Telecomm
August 30, 2004
Posted by Ernest Miller
Slashdot points to an extremely interesting Google Gmail hack - the Gmail File System (GmailFS - The Google File System): GmailFS provides a mountable Linux filesystem which uses your Gmail account as its storage medium. ... GmailFS supports most file operations such as read, write, open, close, stat, symlink, link, unlink, truncate and rename. Most of the comments on Slashdot deal with the fact that this hack probably violates Google's terms of service and may result in users having their accounts abruptly terminated. However, there are some insightful ones ( Re: GoogleOS).
More importantly, this does point towards another piece of the internet operating system puzzle (or, more specifically, Google Operating System).
Gee, I wonder if the advent of a Google Operating System will have any impact on copyright law, telecom regulation, etc., etc., etc...
UPDATE 2200 PT
On a somewhat related note Discourse.net (GoogleWatch Says 'Google Is Dying').
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Copyright | Internet | News | Open Standards | Telecomm | Tools
July 21, 2004
Posted by Ernest Miller
As the communications world migrates to IP-based services, the FCC feels that it is losing regulatory control over the endpoints of the network (where most of the interesting stuff is happening). Consequently, the FCC is trying to figure out ways that it can regulate the endpoints, either through breaking the end-to-end principle and/or direct regulation of the application layer. This should be a scary thought to anyone who thinks dumb networks are a really good idea. As part of this massive regulatory shift, the FCC will be holding a roundtable discussion on July 30, 2004 (FCC Announces Agenda and Featured Panelists for July 30, 2004 Global Roundtable Discussion on Internet-Protocol Based Services [PDF]): On Friday, July 30, 2004, the FCC’s Internet Policy Working Group (IPWG) will hold a roundtable discussion to address international issues associated with the migration of communications services and applications to IP-based technologies. The event is open to the public, and seating will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Internet | Telecomm
July 09, 2004
Posted by Ernest Miller
FCC Chairman Michael Powell has launched a blog [As Dave Barry would say: I'm not making this up] (Michael Powell Joins the Blogosphere). So what does the chairman have to say in his first post? Well, he reiterates his commitment to deregulation, that is, when it doesn't upset entrenched interests too much. Our struggle to define appropriate regulatory regimes to promote innovation is not limited to the telephone sector. The Commission's digital television transition is yet another example of how difficult the struggle can be. Yeah, the broadcast flag is really going to promote innovation. Why, just think of the useless technology developed because television was an open platform! To borrow some concepts from Prof. Frink, "I predict that, if the FCC were in charge of developing the VCR, that within 100 years a VCR will record twice as much programming, be 10,000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest moguls in Hollywood will own them." For example, I need to hear from the tech community as we transition to digital television. It may be possible to deploy innovative wireless services in the unused spectrum between broadcast stations (for example, there is no channel 3 or channel 6 here in San Francisco)...Broadcasters, however, claim these unused channels as "their" spectrum. Yet a public policy that favors innovation and experimentation would seek to open these unused channels to develop new wireless services…just look at how much value has been created in the sliver of spectrum that has become Wi-Fi! If the high-tech community believes that new digital technologies will enable this kind of new thinking about and use of spectrum, then I need to know that. *ahem* Chairman Powell, it may be possible to deploy innovative television services based upon an open television platform. Broadcasters, however, claim that they must control and direct development of a closed platform, that the platform is "theirs" and requires a "broadcast flag." Yet a public policy that favors innovation and experimentation would seek to open the platform to develop new services…just look at how much value has been created in the open analog television platform! Many in the high-tech community believe that new digital technologies will enable this kind of new thinking about and use of an open television platform. *ahem* Regulated interests have about an 80 year head start on the entrepreneurial tech community when it comes to informing regulators what they want and need, but if anyone can make up for that, Silicon Valley can. This is important not just for Silicon Valley—it's essential to insure that America has the best, most innovate communications infrastructure. You know, unless it upsets Hollywood. Because Hollywood will ensure that America has the best, most innovative communications infrastructure.
via JD Lasica
UPDATE
Jeff Jarvis has some harsh words for Powell's "blog" (Daily Stern - July 9, 2004).
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Blogging and Journalism | |
