January 2011

Judge: Law Prohibiting Text Message Spam Not Unconstitutional

Clearing the way for a potential class-action lawsuit regarding wireless spam, a judge has rejected two marketing companies' argument that a federal law banning text message spam is unconstitutional.

US District Court Judge Claudia Wilken in Seattle ruled last week that the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which has been interpreted to require that companies obtain users' "prior express consent" before sending them text ads, is not too vague to be enforced. The companies had argued that the federal law did not adequately define the term prior express consent. But Wilken ruled that previous court decisions and rulings by the Federal Communications Commission provided "ample guidance" about how to determine whether users had given marketers permission to send text ads. The decision means that Illinois resident Christopher Kramer can move forward with his lawsuit against mobile ad company B2Mobile and lead-generation company LeadClick for allegedly sending ads to his cell phone.

Public Interest Groups Urge FCC Action To Protect TV Viewers

Public Knowledge, New America Foundation and Benton Foundation urged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to take strong action to protect consumers caught up in disputes between cable companies and broadcasters over program carriage.

The groups told the FCC that, “Commission’s current actions and rules are insufficient to protect members of the public from losing access to important and popular programming.” In 10 years, the FCC has found a violation of the “good faith” standard only once, and has never enforced a forfeiture penalty, the groups noted. Instead, the three organizations emphasized that the FCC has more authority than it has been exercising previously, whether to make certain cable and broadcasters negotiate in “good faith” as the law requires, and to protect consumers from rate increases: “We write to reemphasize that the Commission has clear authority to act in this docket, both to enforce the ‘good faith’ requirement and fulfill the Commission’s responsibility to ensure that fees for retransmission consent do not unreasonably raise the basic rate consumers pay for cable.”

Moody's sees broadcast TV safe for the next decade

The evolution of wireless technology and growing demand for faster connections and rapid access to the Internet are key trends that will shape the US telecommunications, media and technology sectors this decade, said Moody's Investors Service in a new report. Looking specifically at television, though, Moody’s isn't buying the idea that over-the-top (OTT) broadband video competition is going to wipe out broadcast and cable operators anytime soon.

“Even with the advent of Internet TV, the broadcast and cable networks that invest heavily in exclusive content rights to popular programming and sporting events that command high viewership ratings will be protected from online competition over the next 10 years,” wrote Sr. VP Neil Begley in his section of the far-ranging Moody’s report, “2020 Vision: U.S. Telecom, Media and Technology. “The economics associated with the existing mass-market TV-advertising and carriage-fee model are so strong that it is the primary reason a new online model will not be embraced by the networks or the content producers that own them, a high barrier that will help insulate the industry’s profits and cash flow over the decade,” Begley concluded. The “wild card,” he noted, is whether Google or Apple will be willing to make the financial commitment to compete for sports-content rights and invest in production to put their own programming on the web in competition with the traditional content companies. “But this is not highly likely as they would need to create or buy a lot of programming to be successful, which would be very costly and outside their traditional area of expertise,” he noted.

Towards a National Transition Plan for Libraries

[Commentary] Public libraries are undergoing huge changes in the shift from analog to digital media. Some large city libraries have hired digital strategists to help them take appropriate steps in this transition. Smaller or poorer libraries don't have the benefit of having a full-time staff person working on the transition. To keep those libraries from falling behind, it makes sense to devise a national plan for this transition – a plan that will unfold in increments over the next ten years. With such a plan in place, libraries – and the communities they serve – will have a good idea of where their own libraries are in the transition. Truth is, nobody really knows what public libraries will look like in 2020. That doesn't stop us from imagining how they could best serve the community in the digital age. And the time for having conversations about that topic is now. We can't wait until 2015 to discuss these kinds of things. At the heart of a National Library Transition Plan is a broad understanding of the core purposes of public libraries. Yes, public libraries are about books, but they are also about so much more than books.

Electronic Medical Record vs. Electronic Health Record: Clarifying the EHR/EMR Difference

What’s in a word? Or, even one letter of an acronym? Some people use the terms “electronic medical record” and “electronic health record” (or “EMR” and “EHR”) interchangeably. But here at the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), you'll notice we use electronic health record or EHR almost exclusively.

While it may seem a little picky at first, the difference between the two terms is actually quite significant.The EMR term came along first, and indeed, early EMRs were “medical.” They were for use by clinicians mostly for diagnosis and treatment. In contrast, “health” relates to “The condition of being sound in body, mind, or spirit; especially…freedom from physical disease or pain…the general condition of the body.” The word “health” covers a lot more territory than the word “medical.” And EHRs go a lot further than EMRs. Electronic medical records (EMRs) are a digital version of the paper charts in the clinician’s office. An EMR contains the medical and treatment history of the patients in one practice. But the information in EMRs doesn't travel easily out of the practice. In fact, the patient’s record might even have to be printed out and delivered by mail to specialists and other members of the care team. In that regard, EMRs are not much better than a paper record. Electronic health records (EHRs) do all those things—and more. EHRs focus on the total health of the patient—going beyond standard clinical data collected in the provider’s office and inclusive of a broader view on a patient’s care. EHRs are designed to reach out beyond the health organization that originally collects and compiles the information. They are built to share information with other health care providers, such as laboratories and specialists, so they contain information from all the clinicians involved in the patient’s care.

The FCC’s Open Internet Rules – Stronger than You Think

Federal Communications Commission members Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn were able to strengthen the network neutrality rules proposed by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

In particular, the text of the order:

sets out important principles that will guide the commission’s interpretation of the non-discrimination rule and the reasonable network management exception;
explicitly bans network providers from charging application and content providers for access to the network providers’ Internet service customers;
stops just short of an explicit ban on charging application and content providers for prioritized or otherwise enhanced access to these customers (this second practice is often called “paid prioritization”); and
keeps alive the threat of regulation with respect to the mobile Internet.

FCC: ISPs can't use First Amendment as shield from network neutrality

The Federal Communications Commission's network neutrality order rejects the notion that Internet service providers enjoy First Amendment protection from its open Internet rules. Here's how the debate played out.

Over the last two years of deliberation about net neutrality, the big ISPs sometimes compared their broadband transmission services to cable television. They did so because a crucial Supreme Court decision upheld the idea that pay-TV providers enjoy First Amendment protections as "speakers." In its order, the FCC took a stance similar to the Supreme Court, calling cable ISP analogies with Turner "inapt." "Unlike cable television operators, broadband providers typically are best described not as 'speakers,' but rather as conduits for speech. The broadband Internet access service at issue here does not involve an exercise of editorial discretion that is comparable to cable companies' choice of which stations or programs to include in their service. In this proceeding, broadband providers have not, for instance, shown that they market their services as benefiting from an editorial presence. To the contrary, Internet end users expect that they can obtain access to all or substantially all content that is available on the Internet, without the editorial intervention of their broadband provider." Bottom line, the FCC insists, its new rules are 'narrowly tailored' to limited goals. They focus on the end user's link to the Internet, barring actions that might "unfairly impede" public access to cyberspace.

Got a network neutrality complaint? Here's what to do

Pending the effective date of release for the Federal Communications Commission's new open Internet rules, anybody will be able to file a formal or informal network neutrality complaint. Here's what the FCC's Order says about this process, and how the FCC's complaint system currently works.

The FCC says its Consumer Division will soon "make available resources explaining these rules and facilitating the filing of informal complaints."

For formal complaints, there's a $200 filing fee and specific procedural, appearance, and docket filing rules. Lawyers usually get involved. The process is not for the faint of heart. The complainant must first inform the "defendant" Internet service provider in writing that they are taking this step, describe the charges, and wait for the company to provide an answer, to which the complainant can file a reply. Defendants must deliver their answer within 20 days of receiving the complaint. Replies must be filed within 10 days of receiving the broadband provider's response. "In some cases, the facts might be uncontested," the Order notes, "and the proceeding can be completed based on the pleadings. In other cases, a thorough analysis of the challenged conduct might require further factual development and briefing." Complainants should keep in mind that they bear the burden of proving some kind of violation the agency's rules, the FCC says. But the broadband provider "must answer each claim with particularity and furnish facts, supported by documentation or affidavit, demonstrating the reasonableness of the challenged practice. At that point, the complainant will have the opportunity to demonstrate that the practice is not reasonable. Should experience reveal the need to adjust the burden of proof in open Internet disputes, we will do so as appropriate."

If the FCC Had Regulated the Internet

[Commentary] In January 1993, idle regulators at the FCC belatedly discover the burgeoning world of online services. Led by CompuServe, MCI Mail, AOL, GEnie, Delphi, and Prodigy, these services have been embraced by the computer-owning public. Users "log on" to communicate via "e-mail" and "chat rooms," make online purchases and reservations, and tap information databases. Their services are "walled gardens" that don't allow the users of one service to visit or use another. The FCC declares that because these private networks use the publicly regulated telephone system, they fall under the purview of the Communications Act of 1934. The commission announces forthcoming plans to regulate the services in the "public interest, convenience, and necessity." The FCC ignores the standalone Internet because nobody but academics, scientists, and some government bodies go there. So do the online services, which don't offer Internet access.

"Regulating the Internet would make as much sense as regulating inter-office mail at Michigan State University," says the FCC chairman. "The online services are the future of cyberspace."

The online companies protest and vow to sue the FCC, but the heavily Democratic Congress moots the suits by passing new legislation giving the commission oversight of the online world. The FCC immediately determines that the lack of interoperability among the online systems harms consumers and orders that each company submit a technical framework by January 1994 under which all online companies will unify to one shared technology in the near future. The precedent for this are the technical standards that the FCC has been setting for decades for AM and FM, and for television. The online services threaten legal action again, and again Congress passes new legislation authorizing the FCC to do as it wishes. The online companies hustle to submit a technical framework. Microsoft wants in on the game, so it persuades the FCC to extend the framework deadline to July 1995.

Genachowski Ready to OK Comcast-NBCU

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski wants to give the green light to the Comcast-NBC joint venture … with conditions. Senior FCC officials revealed during a telephone press briefing Dec 23 that an order to do just that is being circulating among the other four commissioners. The order imposes certain conditions on the proposed merger; they were not spelled out during the press briefing.

Benton

Search