Blog - Page 14

The New York Times reports that officials at the Federal Trade Commission are exploring a “Do Not Track” option on websites and browsers similar to the “Do Not Call” list which prevents unwanted telemarketing calls. Meanwhile, the White House has established an interagency panel to ensure that any restrictions do not impede law enforcement and national security efforts. A “Do Not Track” feature won’t protect consumers from unwanted ads, only relevant ads they are more likely to find useful. That’s the whole purpose of tracking. Advertisers, who underwrite much of the cost of Internet content, applications and services, will lose an efficient opportunity to connect with potential customers. For what? Meanwhile, even if there will be no tracking for commercial Read More ›

Legions of consumers are not taking reasonable steps to combat botnets, leading some some experts to suggest that ISPs should monitor broadband connections and block botnet-generated traffic.
A botnet is a network of servers or PCs that have been surreptitiously infected with malicious software for the purpose of generating Internet traffic without the owners’ knowledge or consent for some criminal purpose. Antivirus software offered by vendors such as McAfee, Microsoft or Symantec eliminate malicious software, but many consumers don’t utilize these products even when they are available for free.

Read More ›

Commenting on routine contract (e.g. “retransmission”) negotiations between Fox and Cablevision, Michael J. Copps of the Federal Communications Commission had this to say: For a broadcaster to pull programming from the Internet for a cable company’s subscribers, as apparently happened here, directly threatens the open Internet. This was yet another instance revealing how vulnerable the Internet is to discrimination and gate-keeper control absent clear rules of the road. Whoa. Copps is saying net neutrality regulation should apply not only to Internet access providers, but also to content providers. That’s not exactly mainstream. You’ve got to appreciate the guy’s intellectual honesty. In May, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said: “I have been clear about what the FCC should not do in the Read More ›

From a “defender” of the First Amendment: The First Amendment, of course, protects speech only from the government. But access to the Internet is provided by private corporations enabled by government, and protecting the same interests and values that the First Amendment protects, requires in this case that the government create strong policies against incursion by companies that are, at root, profit-seeking rather than civic-minded. So argues a report from the American Civil Liberties Union entitled “Network Neutrality 101 – Why The Government Must Act To Preserve The Free And Open Internet.” Basically, the argument seems to be that if the government subsidizes, licenses or regulates something, it can be treated just like the government, at least for First Amendment Read More ›

I was privileged to make a presentation at the Florida Chamber of Commerce’s “Future of Florida Forum” concerning telecommunications regulation and broadband investment. My bullet points are here.

Yesterday the FCC received further public comment on two issues in the Open Internet (aka net neutrality) proceeding: (1) the relationship between open Internet protections and services that are provided over the same last-mile facilities as broadband Internet access service (“specialized services”) and (2) the application of open Internet rules to mobile wireless Internet access services, which have unique characteristics related to technology, associated application and device markets, and consumer usage. Basically, the first issue can be summarized as follows: the FCC wants to regulate broadband Internet access services, but has tried to carve out innovative future services because it does not want to be subject to the criticism that regulation would likely inhibit innovation. It is clear the FCC Read More ›

Amy Schatz of the Wall Street Journal reports that Republicans on Chairman Henry A. Waxman’s Energy & Commerce Committee declined to support his net neutrality proposal. Which is not a big surprise. And that the proposal was opposed for different reasons by members of his own party. Waxman apparently acted completely honorably in search of middle ground. Yet, it is now more clear than ever that net neutrality is nothing more than a left-wing fantasy. Moderate Democrats don’t really care. Republicans oppose it, of course. We now know it cannot pass in a House of Representatives with a significant Democratic majority. Chairman Waxman says, “If Congress can’t act, the FCC must,” according to Schatz. That’s very amusing. If the FCC Read More ›

Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) of the House Energy & Commerce Committee is floating draft legislation that would ensure the Federal Communications Commission can, for two years, intervene if broadband providers block or unreasonably interfere with access to lawful content, applications, services, or devices utilizing the Internet. Although Waxman drafted his proposal without significant Republican participation, sources report he dialogued with all stakeholders and acted fairly and transparently to fashion a compromise that might end the stalemate — at least for the time being — and possibly pass a floor vote. The Waxman proposal deserves a look for two reasons. One, it is a vehicle for elected officials rather than unelected bureaucrats to establish high-level policy that has a significant Read More ›

For years state and local officials have claimed that online sales will erode the sales tax since online merchants are only required to collect sales taxes in jurisdictions where they have a physical presence. The tax collectors are gearing up to pressure Congress once again to change the status quo (“Main Street Fairness Act,” H.R. 5660). Why are some online purchases but not others exempt from sales tax? For one thing, the compliance burden would be ugly. The Supreme Court observed (Quill Corp. v. N. Dak., 504 U.S. 298 (1992)) that requiring out-of-state merchants to collect the applicable state and local tax on all purchases regardless of physical presence might “unduly burden interstate commerce” since there were 6,000-plus taxing jurisdictions Read More ›