Legislative and Regulatory Strategies for Providing Consumer Safeguards in a Convergent Marketplace Legislative and Regulatory Strategies for Providing.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Status of broadband in the US High speed lines as of December 2008: –102 million total high speed connections 84% were faster than 200 kbps in both directions.
Advertisements

Open Access in CCSF Report to Telecommunications Commission December 20, 1999.
The status of broadband FCC defines –High-speed lines that deliver services at speeds in excess of 200 kbps in at least one direction –Advanced services.
Regulatory Landscape: FCC Regulation of Non-Interconnected VoIP Services and the “Cloud” Jonathan Marashlian.
Wireline Competition Bureau 2004 Promoting Real Consumer Choice and Investment in Broadband Facilities.
The Old Rules Just Don’t Fit Anymore: A Panel Discussion on the Proposed Revision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 John Windhausen, Jr., Past President,
Federal Communications Commission Intergovernmental Advisory Committee
Fiducianet, inc. tm 1 Presented by H. Michael Warren, President fiducianet, inc. VoIP Technology Perspectives Law Enforcement Concerns & CALEA Compliance.
John Windhausen, Telepoly Consulting Cathy Sloan, Computer and Communications Industry Association May 19, 2010.
Tele2 5 March 2008 EPP-ED Public Hearing Mikael Grape.
©Ofcom Review of the Framework Some issues under discussion by regulators Jim Niblett International Policy Director 22 December 2005.
Continuing Uncertainty Under FCC Network Neutrality Rules Prof. Barbara A. Cherry Indiana University Presented at EDUCAUSE Live! Webcast January 26, 2011.
Telecoms Regulation in the New Millennium David Edmonds Director General OFTEL.
Towards Regional Independent Operators – a main driver for successful market integration.
Federal Communications Commission Policy Statement Adopted Aug. 5, 2005Released: Sept. 25, 2005.
Net Neutrality Questions. What if? Customer Lamps for Less Luxurious Lumination Telephone Company Welcome to lamps [click] [dial tone] Welcome to Luxurious.
1 End of Regulation? Jerry Hausman Professor of Economics MIT July 2005
Regulation of Media Industries Regulation Generally speaking, why does the government regulate businesses and industries? Ensure free markets.
Position Paper: The Case For Universal Broadband Access By James Kim.
Net Neutrality. Tussle Who’s battling? What’s at issue? Is it contained?
Internet 3.0: Assessing the Scope of a Non-Neutral and Tiered Web Internet 3.0: Assessing the Scope of a Non-Neutral and Tiered Web Rob Frieden, Pioneers.
Hold The Phone: Assessing the Rights of Wireless Handset Owners and the Network Neutrality Obligations of Carriers A Presentation at Carterfone and Open.
Assessing the Merits of Network Neutrality Obligations at Low, Medium and High Network Layers Assessing the Merits of Network Neutrality Obligations at.
©Ofcom Bundling and regulatory issues Davide Gallino European Regulators’ Group European Commission.
Questions about broadband What do we do about broadband services? –Why didn’t the ILECs deploy DSL faster? Could regulation be to blame? –How do we get.
Internet Packet Switching and Its Impact on the Network Neutrality Debate and the Balance of Power Between IP Creators and Consumers Rob Frieden, Pioneers.
Rationales For and Against FCC Involvement in Resolving Internet Service Provider Interconnection Disputes Rationales For and Against FCC Involvement in.
Best Practices in Broadband Development Without Unnecessary Incentives A Presentation at the 32 nd Annual Conference of the Pacific Telecommunications.
March 2004Richard Stastny1 IP Communications in Europe Implications of Regulation Richard Stastny, ÖFEG* * The opinions expressed here may or may not be.
7/6/20041 The Jamaican Bar Association Continuing Legal Education Seminar Internet Access – Legal and Regulatory Issues The Jamaican Bar Association Continuing.
Invoking and Avoiding the First Amendment: How Internet Service Providers Leverage Their Status as Both Content Creators and Neutral Conduits Invoking.
MERGERS Clayton 7 as amended by the Celler-Kefauver Act:
National Communications Commission 2006 International Digital Cities Convention - Broadband Policies and Regulatory Reform - NCC Chairman, Dr. Su Yeong-Chin.
Transforming Education Through Information Technologies Casey Lide Focus on IP Telephony February 26,1999 Focus.
Changes in State and Federal Telecommunications Policies: How Do They Affect US All? SCAN NATOA 16 th Annual Spring Conference and Star Awards Long Beach,
Neither Fish Nor Fowl: New Strategies for Selective Regulation of Information Services A Presentation at the 35 th Annual Telecommunications Policy Research.
Winning the Silicon Sweepstakes: Can the United States Compete in Global Telecommunications? Rob Frieden, Pioneers Chair and Professor of Telecommunications.
The Mixed Blessing of a Deregulatory Endpoint for the Public Switched Telephone Network A Presentation at the End of the Phone System Conference The Wharton.
Internet Basics Monopoly Concerns & Review TC 310 May 22, 2008.
Wireless Carterfone: A Long Overdue Policy Promoting Consumer Choice and Competition A Presentation at Free My Phone-- Is Regulation Needed to Ensure Consumer.
1 Managing the Transition to IP-Based Public Phone Networks in the United States Joe Gillan CRNI November 22, 2013 Gillan Associates.
New EU-Framework for electronic communication Implications for Broadcasting Hans Peter Lehofer, KommAustria 16th EPRA-Meeting Ljubljana.
Assessing the Regulatory Consequences When Content and Conduit Converge A Presentation at the: 25 th Annual Pacific Telecommunications Council Conference.
Legal & Regulatory Classification of Broadband Demystifying Title II.
Internet Policy Day 3 - Workshop Session No. 5 The impact of telecomms regulation Prepared for CTO by Link Centre, Witwatersrand University, South Africa.
Directorate General for Energy and Transport European Commission Directorate General for Energy and Transport Regulation of electricity markets in the.
Implications of VoIP TC 310 May 28, Questions from Reviews Duty to Interconnect Reciprocal compensation Line of business v statutory line of business.
Overview of Network Neutrality Kyle D. Dixon Senior Fellow & Director, Federal Institute for Regulatory Law & Economics The Progress & Freedom Foundation.
VoIP Regulation: State and Federal Developments MARK J. O’CONNOR Lampert, O’Connor & Johnston, P.C. Session EI-05 January 23, :30 – 2:15 pm.
Net Neutrality or Net Bias? Finding the Proper Balance in Network Governance A Presentation at the What Rules for IP-enabled NGNs Workshop International.
Infrastructure Development Bill [B ] Submission by the Centre for Environmental Rights to Portfolio Committee on Economic Development 14 January.
VoIP Regulation: State and Federal Developments LAMPERT & O’CONNOR, P.C K Street NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC (202)
Network Neutrality and Its Potential Impact on Carrier Pricing Network Neutrality and Its Potential Impact on Carrier Pricing Rob Frieden, Pioneers Chair.
First Amendment Issues Triggered by a Non- Neutral and Tiered Web First Amendment Issues Triggered by a Non- Neutral and Tiered Web Rob Frieden, Pioneers.
Internet as Essential Infrastructure: Public Utility, Private Utility or Neither? Internet Access as Essential Infrastructure: Public Utility, Private.
Spectrum and the Concept of Net Neutrality Todd D. Daubert Partner Kelley, Drye & Warren, LLP.
+ BY: Falynn Elizabeth Lannert AP American Government 1 st Hour.
Decoding the Network Neutrality Debate in the United States Rob Frieden, Pioneers Chair and Professor of Telecommunications and Law Penn State University.
VoIP Regulation Klaus Nieminen TKK Table of Contents Background EU Regulatory Framework Objectives, PATS and ECS definitions VoIP Classification.
The Rise of Quasi-Common Carriers and Conduit Convergence The Rise of Quasi-Common Carriers and Conduit Convergence A Presentation at Competition and Innovation.
Mergers and Acquisitions in Telecommunications TC 310 June 12, 2008.
IEEE & Expansion of 1994's Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) & Security Services Information Technology Department 2 December.
Network Neutrality: An Internet operating principle which ensures that all online users are entitled to access Internet content of their choice; run online.
A Primer on Local Number Portability A Primer on Local Number Portability An Unsponsored Presentation at the Ministerial Workshop on a Regional Approach.
Interconnection and Access Presentation by Dale N. Hatfield Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology Federal Communications Commission June 6, 2000.
Best Practices for Competition Law Enforcement: March 18, 2016 Russell W. Damtoft Associate Director Office of International Affairs United States Federal.
Mec1224 EETT: From Telecommunications to Electronic Communications Athens, 28 March 2005 “Investment and competition in electronic communications services.
Comparative Telecommunications Law Spring, 2007 Prof. Karl Manheim 16: Internet III (Net Neutrality) Copyright © 2007.
Legal Framework for Broadband Internet Access Notice of Inquiry June 17, 2010.
The Digital Advantage: How Nations Win and Lose the Silicon Sweepstakes The Digital Advantage: How Nations Win and Lose the Silicon Sweepstakes Rob Frieden,
Presentation transcript:

Legislative and Regulatory Strategies for Providing Consumer Safeguards in a Convergent Marketplace Legislative and Regulatory Strategies for Providing Consumer Safeguards in a Convergent Marketplace A Presentation at The Broadband Act of 2011: Designing a Communications Act for the 21 st Century Washington, D.C. September 30, 2010 Rob Frieden, Professor of Telecommunications and Law Penn State University Web site : Blog site:

2 Opportunities and Challenges Presented by Convergence Technological and market convergence has become a reality with IP- centric networking and carrier “quadruple play” offers. Technological and market convergence has become a reality with IP- centric networking and carrier “quadruple play” offers. Service definitions created by Congress create mutually exclusive regulatory silos that don’t work when carriers offer convergent services like Voice over the Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) and Internet Protocol Television (“IPTV”). Service definitions created by Congress create mutually exclusive regulatory silos that don’t work when carriers offer convergent services like Voice over the Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) and Internet Protocol Television (“IPTV”). The Comcast case leaves little doubt whether the FCC can apply even streamlined Title II common carrier, telecommunications services regulation to information services. Deregulation appears to operate one way, irreversibly. The Comcast case leaves little doubt whether the FCC can apply even streamlined Title II common carrier, telecommunications services regulation to information services. Deregulation appears to operate one way, irreversibly. Congress should create an Internet Service definition with quite limited nondiscrimination, reporting and transparency requirements for the bit transport function of ISPs. The likelihood of this: near zero. Congress should create an Internet Service definition with quite limited nondiscrimination, reporting and transparency requirements for the bit transport function of ISPs. The likelihood of this: near zero. In lieu of clear legislative authority the FCC risks exceeding its statutory authority (Chairman Genachowski’s “Third Way”). In lieu of clear legislative authority the FCC risks exceeding its statutory authority (Chairman Genachowski’s “Third Way”). The paper explores what the FCC can and should do in the absence of a new legislative mandate: impose structural or functional separation of bit transport from services; require transparency, nondiscrimination and network congestion reporting coupled with sanctions like that imposed on the Madison River Telephone Company which blocked DSL subscriber access to VoIP services. The paper explores what the FCC can and should do in the absence of a new legislative mandate: impose structural or functional separation of bit transport from services; require transparency, nondiscrimination and network congestion reporting coupled with sanctions like that imposed on the Madison River Telephone Company which blocked DSL subscriber access to VoIP services.

3 One Size No Longer Fits All Incumbent firms, in particular, have vertically and horizontally integrated to exploit technological convergence. While this can promote competition, market consolidation also occurs through more numerous mergers and acquisitions. Incumbent firms, in particular, have vertically and horizontally integrated to exploit technological convergence. While this can promote competition, market consolidation also occurs through more numerous mergers and acquisitions. Congress contemplated that public utility, economic regulation need only apply to core telecommunications services that favored monopolization and scale economies. Information services qualified for limited oversight as new technologies initially and perhaps later based on their non-essentialness and the likelihood of sustainable competition. Congress contemplated that public utility, economic regulation need only apply to core telecommunications services that favored monopolization and scale economies. Information services qualified for limited oversight as new technologies initially and perhaps later based on their non-essentialness and the likelihood of sustainable competition. The FCC considers statutory service definitions to be mutually exclusive and has evidenced an inability to apply 2 or more classifications to ventures offering multiple and convergent services. The FCC considers statutory service definitions to be mutually exclusive and has evidenced an inability to apply 2 or more classifications to ventures offering multiple and convergent services. Either/or classifications create regulatory quandaries and irrational outcomes: 1) the FCC cannot provide consumer safeguards when information service providers operate anticompetitively, and 2) the Commission has to finesse or avoid providing clarity in classifying services, e.g., having classified basic Internet access (DSL, cable modem, wireless broadband) as an information service, how can the FCC not treat “over the top” software and applications as an information service as well? Either/or classifications create regulatory quandaries and irrational outcomes: 1) the FCC cannot provide consumer safeguards when information service providers operate anticompetitively, and 2) the Commission has to finesse or avoid providing clarity in classifying services, e.g., having classified basic Internet access (DSL, cable modem, wireless broadband) as an information service, how can the FCC not treat “over the top” software and applications as an information service as well? If the FCC acts consistently VoIP and IPTV would qualify for information “safe harbors” leading to harmful secondary effects, e.g., a bankrupt universal service fund. If the FCC acts consistently VoIP and IPTV would qualify for information “safe harbors” leading to harmful secondary effects, e.g., a bankrupt universal service fund.

4 The FCC Lacks Regulatory Flexibility As evidenced by the need to backtrack from near complete abandonment of broadband access regulatory oversight, the FCC needs to find a lawful way to impose limited safeguards. As evidenced by the need to backtrack from near complete abandonment of broadband access regulatory oversight, the FCC needs to find a lawful way to impose limited safeguards. For VoIP the Commission found a way to stretch Title I “ancillary jurisdiction” in light of the potential economic harm to universal service funding and carriers providing conventional telephony. For VoIP the Commission found a way to stretch Title I “ancillary jurisdiction” in light of the potential economic harm to universal service funding and carriers providing conventional telephony. Without ever specifying which statutory definition applies to VoIP that has access to or from conventional networks (the “PSTN”), the FCC has applied some Title II requirements ostensibly to safeguard consumers at the expense of VoIP competitive attractiveness. Without ever specifying which statutory definition applies to VoIP that has access to or from conventional networks (the “PSTN”), the FCC has applied some Title II requirements ostensibly to safeguard consumers at the expense of VoIP competitive attractiveness. VoIP operators with PSTN access must contribute to universal service funding, support number portability, provide access to subscribers with disabilities, and install wiretaps for law enforcement. VoIP operators with PSTN access must contribute to universal service funding, support number portability, provide access to subscribers with disabilities, and install wiretaps for law enforcement. Remarkably the FCC has avoided classifying IPTV and applying the same sort of Title I jurisdiction in light of the potential for IPTV to cause economic harm to television broadcasters and adversely impact public policy goals such as localism. Remarkably the FCC has avoided classifying IPTV and applying the same sort of Title I jurisdiction in light of the potential for IPTV to cause economic harm to television broadcasters and adversely impact public policy goals such as localism.

5 The FCC Abandoned the Most Effective and Straightforward Safeguards While many nations have successfully imposed structural/functional separation of basic and enhanced services, the FCC abandoned such requirements over twenty years ago based on unproven assertions of lost synergies. No one has demonstrated significant economic harm and inefficiency in requiring the dominant incumbent carrier to split its basic line provisioning duties from other value added services. The FCC could but will not pursue this option in light of heavy lobbying pressure and the benefits the Commission accrues in deregulating powerful stakeholders. The FCC has eliminated other safeguards still mandated by the Communications Act, e.g., local loop unbundling based on also unproven assertions that such requirements cost jobs and remove incentives to invest in next generation network plant. LLU in other nations has promoted price competition, even for broadband access, without the significant predicted harms.

6 The FCC Creates Regulatory Quandaries When It Engages in Results-Driven Decision Making The FCC’s deregulatory bias creates incentives for the Commission to “fudge” the facts by failing to generate a complete evidentiary record, relying on stakeholder advocacy masquerading as facts, generating suspect statistics to favor preferred outcomes and failing to subject its fact finding to peer review. Consider the number of instances where the FCC has generated flaws or deceptive statistics: ala carte cable; 70/70 rule trigger; counting media outlets by number regardless of market share; broadband floor or 200 kilobits per second in one direction; zip code geographical wingspan for broadband measurements; 99% of all merger proposals approved as ways to “promote competition;” deliberately obscuring and sanitizing data through redactions and trade secret classification.

7 Recommendations The FCC should: Refuse to grant blanket trade secret/confidentiality requests from stakeholders; Resolve to compile understandable, credible, granular, and reproducible statistics based on reasonable benchmarks; Seriously consider the consequences of mergers to consumers; Commit to best practices that would survive peer review; Use open hearings and compile a complete evidentiary record; and In the absence of legislation, require Internet Service Providers to separate their bit transmission conduit function from content; this would require the FCC to abandon the semantic distinction between offering and providing telecommunications—part of the flawed rationale for deregulating broadband access which Justice Scalia in the Brand X case identified as too clever.