December 2012

US refuses to back U.N. treaty, saying it endorses restricting the Internet

The Obama Administration announced that it will refuse to sign a United Nations treaty under consideration at a major global telecommunications conference because of provisions that it says would give a UN stamp of approval to state censorship and regulation of the Internet and private networks.

“The United States has announced today that it cannot sign” the treaty’s provisions “in their current form,” said Terry Kramer, the U.S. ambassador to the World Conference on International Telecommunications, as the 12-day conference draws to a close. Representatives of several other of the world’s largest economies also spoke out against the treaty, causing it to collapse for all practical purposes. International Telecommunication Union officials had said earlier that the meeting, the agency’s first major review of a telecommunications agenda since 1988, was not going to be a referendum on Internet freedom. But late Dec 12, according to Administration officials, the conference chairman, Mohamed Nasser al-Ghanim, director general of the Telecommunications Regulation Authority of the United Arab Emirates, inserted a resolution in the treaty that broke open the deep divisions between the countries on Internet regulation. The U.S. delegation is concerned with measures that would give governments new authority to regulate spam on their Internet networks. U.S. officials fear that states could use that provision to monitor and silence dissidents and others under the auspices of U.N. approval. “One man’s spam is another man’s political speech,” said one administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, lacking the authority to discuss the matter on the record. The Americans also opposed expanding the definition of what the treaty covers from public telecommunications networks to any network, public or private, including Internet service providers and government systems. They also were concerned about efforts to include network security in the treaty.

ITU Secretary General Hamadoun I. Touré rejected the United States’ characterization of the treaty. “The new . . . treaty does NOT cover content issues and explicitly states in the first article that content-related issues are not covered by the treaty,” he said.

House Commerce Committee Republicans commended Ambassador Terry Kramer, Ambassador Philip Verveer and the rest of the U.S. Delegation’s decision not to sign an treaty that would expand the role for the UN on Internet issues. Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) also commended “the hard work of our talented U.S. delegation led by Ambassadors Verveer and Kramer. The U.S. government is united with many other ITU member countries, industry, and leaders in civil society across the globe in supporting a free and open Internet. The United States has made no apologies for advancing this clear position, and I applaud this Administration for defending these core principles in Dubai. Though the WCIT negotiations have concluded, we must continue to engage with other countries and international stakeholders through the multi-stakeholder process to advance our shared goal of a free and open Internet accessible to all.“

Federal Communications Commission member Robert McDowell said, “As egregious as today’s action was, many of the anti-freedom proposals were turned back - but the worst is yet to come. The United States should immediately prepare for an even more treacherous ITU treaty negotiation that will take place in 2014 in Korea. Those talks could expand the ITU’s reach even further. Accordingly, Internet freedom’s allies everywhere should more than redouble their efforts to erase the damage that was wrought today. Freedom and prosperity are at stake. Let’s never be slow to respond again. Freedom’s foes are patient and persistent incrementalists. They will never give up. Nor should we.”

Why the ITU is the wrong place to set Internet standards

The International Telecommunication Union as an organization doesn't have any direct regulatory powers. It can't fine anyone or put them in jail for defying its rules. Moreover, the proposals under discussion at Dubai, a proposal by the ITU's chairman, don't give the Geneva-based ITU Secretariat new powers. They merely declare that "member states" shall have the power to regulate the Internet to promote security, fight spam, and so forth. But the "member states" are sovereign nations.

They've been regulating the Internet for years without the ITU's blessing and are going to continue doing so regardless of what is decided at the conclusion of this week's conference. So why is there so much controversy over a treaty that will largely say governments have powers they're already wielding? A big reason is that in the Internet's consensus-based governance model, precedents and symbolism matter. The ITU can't force the world's governments to sign on to, or abide by, any treaty that's negotiated in Dubai this week. But if the world signs on to a treaty that purports to govern the Internet, it will help establish a precedent that the ITU is the appropriate forum for setting Internet standards. The Internet already has standard-setting organizations that are inclusive and transparent, inviting participation from private companies, non-profits, and others with a stake in the Internet's future. The Internet's existing consensus-based standards-setting process works well. In contrast, the ITU's deliberations are largely carried out behind closed doors, with only governments and major telecommunications incumbents invited to participate. There's no danger of a "UN takeover" of the Internet in the short term. But in the long run the ITU could emerge as a rival to the Internet's established standard-setting institutions. And that could harm the open Internet by politicizing the development of future Internet standards.

Internet turns U.N. telecoms talks into reality show

If the 1,500 delegates huddled into a Dubai conference center to thrash out a new global telecommunications treaty didn't know how it felt to be on a reality TV show, they do now.

The high-level diplomats and regulators from 150 countries have been criticized, mocked and - just occasionally - lauded by an online commentariat following proceedings at the U.N.'s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT). Predictably, many of the bloggers and tweeters have taken aim at those seeking to tame the online world, as a battle rages between the United States and its allies, which want no mention of the Internet in regulations, and a Russia-led block which is calling for a more active role for governments. But there's also criticism of the way the United Nations goes about its business, with a Wikileaks-inspired website -dubbed WCITleaks - spawned to shine a light on what it considers the conference's opaqueness.

It’s Time to Fix the Pitifully Slow, Expensive Internet Access in the US

[Commentary] Bottom line: For $30 a month, we must be able to provide high-speed internet access to every American.

This fiber connection service should include voice, data, and basic broadcast channels at speeds that meet global standards. It’s embarrassing that one of the most innovative nations in the world can’t do this. And if private providers don’t want to do it, local and federal government needs to undertake this infrastructure investment. We need to build fiber rings around every U.S. town and city. Yet we’re moving in the opposite direction. Both Verizon and AT&T have refused to take subsidies from the Federal Communications Commission aimed at ensuring rural service. The reason? They’re worried about regulatory oversight that might follow from taking the money, and they’d rather focus on wireless. More troubling, though, is the perspective – espoused by the giant telecommunications companies – that it’s “our wires, our rules”.

Seattle is latest city to go around ISPs to get a gigabit network

Seattle has teamed up with Gigabit Squared, a startup that wants to invest $200 million in building gigabit broadband networks in six college towns around the country, to build a gigabit network.

Seattle, which has its own city-owned dark fiber network, and Gigabit Squared have signed a Memorandum of Understanding and a Letter of Intent that will allow Gigabit Squared to begin raising the capital needed to conduct engineering work and to build out the demonstration fiber network. There are three parts to the network, a fiber-to-home element that will reach 50,000 homes in 12 Seattle neighborhoods. The network will also take advantage of point-to-point wireless, which companies such as WebPass are using, as well as offer some kind of mobile broadband service as well.
This will be Gigabit Squared’s second fiber commitment under an arrangement it has with the Gig.U project headed by Blair Levin. Levin, who led the efforts to write the National Broadband Plan, formed Gig.U to make sure the U.S. maintains a competitive edge in broadband infrastructure. His idea is to build gigabit networks in U.S. college towns so students and researchers can keep up with the broadband speeds that other countries are developing. Gigabit Squared’s first commitment was in Chicago, which it announced in October.

"Leadership in the 21st century global information economy requires leadership in broadband networks, which is why Congress provided $4 billion to NTIA to invest in broadband projects nationwide," said Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling. "Seattle’s announcement today will give it a strategic bandwidth advantage, and we look forward to watching the city leverage its innovation-ripe environment for economic growth."

Coalition Says Lifting Ban on Media Consolidation Hits Hard on Minority Ownership

Minority-owned media remains “excruciatingly low,” and lifting a ban on companies owning newspapers and television stations in the same market would only make matters worse, civil-rights groups and political leaders argue. On Dec 10, several prominent minority members of the House were among 44 signatories on a letter urging a full study of the impact that lifting the ban might have on minority media ownership.

Among the signers:

Civil-rights icon Rep. John Lewis (D-GA).
Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO).
Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chairman Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-TX).
Cochairmen of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Reps. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Raul Grijalva (D-AZ).

“While local broadcast media remain an important source of information for our constituents, these outlets often do not reflect the diversity of the communities they serve,” the letter said. “Women and people of color historically held very few licenses for radio and television stations, and these numbers remain shockingly low.”

Why it still matters that FCC may loosen media ownership rules

In a world with hundreds of cable channels and thousands of websites, it must sound as quaint as talk about VHS players and Walkmans to worry about how many media outlets any one company gets to own. But even in a media landscape with countless options, the nation's biggest media companies also control our biggest TV stations, radio outlets and online destinations, wielding an influence that can be magnified far beyond the actual platforms they own.

In the Tampa Bay market, just three companies — Clear Channel, CBS Radio and Cox Radio — own 20 radio stations, including the top 16 outlets reaching more than 80 percent of people listening in November's ratings period. And some of media's biggest websites, from the Huffington Post to the Drudge Report, are built around "aggregating" stories already reported by other news outlets, allowing the New York Times or Wall Street Journal to echo across a wider swath of the Internet than you might imagine.

Senate Judiciary Committee approves Franken's location privacy bill

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted in favor of Sen. Al Franken's (D-MN) Location Privacy Protection Act.

The bill would require companies to get a customer's consent before collecting or sharing mobile location data. It would also ban mobile applications that secretly monitor the user's location — a feature that Sen Franken said allows for stalking and enables domestic violence. Sen Franken noted that many apps already ask for users' permission before tracking them, but he said his bill is necessary to ensure that the practice is mandatory. Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT), Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) did not attend the markup, but registered dissenting votes. Sen Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the panel's ranking Republican, said he still has concerns with the bill, but he agreed to move it forward. Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) also said they have some concerns with the language of the bill, but they said they would work with Sen Franken to improve the legislation. Sen Franken said he already worked on his bill for a year and a half, and added that he held extensive conversations with industry groups. But he said he would work with the other senators to address their concerns.

Jury says Apple iPhone violated three patents, damages unclear

A jury found that Apple's iPhone infringed three patents owned by holding company MobileMedia Ideas, though damages have not yet been determined. The verdict was delivered after a week-long trial in Delaware federal court, said Larry Horn, chief executive of MobileMedia. The three patents, which cover features like camera phone technology, were acquired from Nokia and Sony Corp in 2010, Horn said. Those two companies hold a minority interest in MobileMedia, he said. The trial only concerned liability, and a damages proceeding has not yet been scheduled, Horn said.

Apple, LG Electronics Defeat Alcatel-Lucent Patent Claims

Apple and LG Electronics didn’t infringe an Alcatel-Lucent unit’s patents for electronic devices including phones and computers, a jury said. The verdict came after a trial that began Nov. 27 in federal court in San Diego over a 2010 lawsuit by the Paris- based company’s Multimedia Patent Trust accusing Apple and LG Electronics of copying video-compression technology that allows data to be sent more efficiently over communications media, including the Internet and satellites, or stored on DVDs and Blu-Ray disks. The trust claimed its patents were infringed by products including multiple versions of Apple’s iPhone, iPod, iPad and MacBook, as well as LG Electronics’ Chocolate Touch VX8575, Bliss UX700, Touch AX8575, Lotus Elite LX610, Mystique UN610 and Samba LG8575.

Benton

Search