Telecommunications & Electronic Media
- Common Carrier
- International Developments
- Mass Media
|FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide: The Limits FTC “Unfairness” Authority and the Future of Cyber and Data Security Enforcement|
|Second Annual Executive Branch Review Conference|
|The Internet: Are We Losing Control? - Podcast|
On March 14, 2014, the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its plan to transition its key internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. It has asked the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to commence the multistakeholder process to develop the transition plan.
NTIA administers changes to the authoritative root zone file – the database containing the lists of names and addresses of all top-level domains – and serves as the historic steward of the Domain Name System. NTIA currently contracts with ICANN to carry out the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions and has a cooperative agreement with Verisign under which it performs related root zone management functions. ICANN’s government contract expires September 30, 2015. NTIA has indicated that ICANN’s transition plan must adhere to four principles. It must:
In this Teleforum, we discussed the implications of this pending transition and its potential impact on a free and open internet.
|Communications Act Reform - Podcast|
In December 2013, Rep. Fred Upton, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman, and Rep. Greg Walden, Chairman of the Committee's Communications and Technology Subcommittee, announced plans to use 2014 to begin a review process leading to an update of the Communications Act of 1934. Rep. Walden announced in a news release that the committee plans “to look at the Communications Act and all of the changes that have been made piecemeal over the last 89 years and ask the simple question: ‘Is this working for today’s communications marketplace?’” The statute has not been changed in any material way since 1996, when the internet was just beginning to be used on a widespread basis and broadband services were only then emerging.
The participants in this Teleforum addressed fundamental questions, such as: whether an update to the Communications Act is needed and why; if an update is desirable, what a new Communications Act should like, including, more specifically, how the structure of the act should be changed along with the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission.
|Book Review: America the Vulnerable: Inside the New Threat Matrix of Digital Espionage, Crime, and Warfare|
America the Vulnerable, Joel Brenner’s call to arms in our nation’s ongoing cyber-crisis, is both a diagnosis and a potential cure. Brenner, who served as senior counsel at the National Security Agency as well as in other high-level government positions, knows first-hand the dire challenge facing our government when it comes to cybersecurity. Much of his book provides a detailed—and chilling—depiction of our nation’s overall vulnerability to cyber-attack....[Read Now!]
|The Internet: To Regulate, or Not to Regulate - Podcast|
On January 14, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its decision in Verizon v. FCC, the case regarding the Federal Communications Commission’s Open Internet Order. The decision leaves the door open for the FCC’s regulation of the internet, but strikes down certain provisions of the Order, leaving many to wonder what the future holds for innovation, experimentation, and competition in the online marketplace.
While the court did not unequivocally uphold the Commission’s net neutrality protections, it recognized the FCC’s authority to regulate broadband internet service and access under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and found that open internet requirements would promote deployment. Specifically, it found support for the Commission’s conclusion that absent open internet requirements, “broadband providers represent a threat to Internet openness and could act in ways that would ultimately inhibit the speed and extent of future broadband deployment.” The court also deferred to the FCC’s finding that broadband providers have the ability to impose restrictions on edge providers’ conduct, particularly given end users’ inability to immediately respond to ISPs’ activities in this regard. Nonetheless, the court vacated and remanded the non-discrimination and no-blocking requirements adopted in the Order on the basis that they improperly constitute common carriage regulation of broadband services, but left in place the FCC’s transparency (i.e., disclosure) requirements.
Randy May and John Bergmayer held a spirited discussion about this landmark decision.