Over at The Street, our own Bruce Mehlman writes about the election and what it could mean for tech and investment. An excerpt:
[I]n this world of technological convergence, in which companies offering Internet, video, and traditional communications services are merging (some quite literally and others through expanding their business lines), investors should know that there are some critical decisions on the horizon regarding interference in these markets or light-touch regulation. Those decisions will impact whether companies invest robustly, whether distributors of content will have the right incentives to continue innovation in that space, and many other issues. Watch the returns on Election Night – but also watch those critical appointments in regulatory agencies over the coming year to get a fuller flavor of the impact of government regulation on markets.
Earlier today, Morning Consult published an op-ed from our own Rick Boucher on the FCC’s ongoing business data services proceedings. An excerpt:
Simple economics suggests that the way to promote the most rapid deployment of the fastest business data services to the enterprises that need them is to rely on competition and the market forces that drive innovation and investment. The FCC, however, seems to start from the position that only regulation can ensure that adequate services are provided to businesses. And so the agency is seeking to set prices at a level that, while convenient for some competitors, doesn’t allow for a sufficient return on investment to stimulate broadband deployment. How this approach will spur investment and deployment is anyone’s guess; the FCC doesn’t have an answer.
Now a group of seven prominent economists has just made clear their opposition to the conclusions the agency is drawing from its plethora of regressions. In short, the economists argue that, because the FCC starts from the wrong place – the mistake that correlation implies causation – the agency, therefore, ends up at the wrong place – the idea that there is not only market power in the Ethernet market but market power that justifies price regulation. As they write, “[a]s commenters across the spectrum rightly acknowledge, the rationale for ex ante rate regulation hinges entirely on protecting customers from a dominant provider’s abuse of market power; in turn, there is no plausible argument for regulating BDS providers that lack market power.”
As the FCC continues its murky — and occasionally confounding — Business Data Services (BDS) process, seven economists have penned a letter to the Commission arguing that any imposed rate regulation on what is a truly competitive market would be a mistake and counterproductive. From said letter:
As commenters across the spectrum rightly acknowledge, the rationale for ex ante rate regulation hinges entirely on protecting customers from a dominant provider’s abuse of market power; in turn, there is no plausible argument for regulation BDS providers that lack market power. No party has suggested — let alone demonstrated — that competitive BDS providers exercise significant market power. Moreover, some of the undersigned economists have examined marketplace data regarding the current state of BDS competition and have found that such data do not support claims that incumbent LECs exercise market power broadly in the provision of BDS.
Translation: The BDS market is competitive and there is no need for across the board price regulation. Again, from the letter:
To the degree there are some BDS markets with persistent monopoly power, we agree that it could be economically justified and welfare enhancing to reduce monopoly rents in such markets to a best approximation of competitive levels, to the extent such a goal can be achieved without imposing large costs on providers and disincentivizing investment. The Commission should limit any such regulation to markets characterized by monopoly power that are unlikely to become effectively competitive in the near future. To that end, the Commission should regulate BDS rates for legacy services only in geographic BDS markets where only a single facilities-based provider is present or nearby.
Translation: If regulation is necessary, it should be implemented using a scalpel, not a hacksaw.
To read the full letter from the economists to the FCC, click here.
Over at tech site Recode, our Co-Chairman Jamal Simmons and former Co-Chairman Larry Irving have penned an op-ed on virtual reality and the need for regulators to encourage private investment in the infrastructure that supports it. An excerpt:
The future of virtual reality is bright. Investors are bullish, users are excited to consume novel entertainment and educational applications, and engineers are developing new products. While innovators create exciting hardware and content, a VR future is only possible if policymakers make the right decisions today. Virtual reality will require new and upgraded broadband networks, both wired and wireless, that will be capable of satisfying future bandwidth needs of the technology, which consumes massive amounts of data.
Policymakers need to make more spectrum available, too. People are using their iPhones and Android phones for the early versions of VR, but today’s tools will not be adequate for a fully immersive, high-definition virtual reality future. Whether it is 4K, 5K, high-definition or ultra-high definition, each next-generation technology will require retrofitting our infrastructure. It’s time to rethink, rebuild and reinvest.
With the election looming and the current makeup of the FCC likely nearing its end, Fred Campbell has penned a thorough look at what he describes as the FCC’s “legacy of confusion about competition.” An excerpt:
The Wheeler FCC’s repudiation of economic rigor and legal precedents is an anomaly that should end with this fall’s election. Unfortunately, Wheeler is determined to dictate the economic and engineering of several market segments before his time expires. In the few months he has remaining, Wheeler wants to:
• Dilute copyright protections for digital content, dictate retail pricing, and weaken privacy protections for consumers in the video marketplace (despite an FCC finding from just last year that this market is effectively competitive), all of which threaten to bring television’s second golden age to an end;
• Impose ineffective data regulations just on broadband Internet access providers (while leaving other big data companies untouched) that would give internet edge competitors government-sanctioned competitive advantages in the internet advertising and big data markets at the expense of consumers; and
• Impose new price regulations on business data services to reduce the investment costs of favored companies (like Sprint) at the expense of their competitors.
These last-minute proposals are inconsistent with our fundamental economic policy of promoting competition and private investment, and none of them are premised on the sound, data-driven analyses Wheeler promised.
The FCC’s regulation has been challenged by providers and others, asking for a full federal appeals court review of the previous panel decision. As BNA reported, the FCC has already asked for the deadline to respond to be extended to October 3.
Tomorrow is the 40-year anniversary of the Internet Age. On August 27, 1976, scientists from SRI International successfully sent an electronic message from a computer set up at a picnic table at a Portola Valley, California biker bar, to SRI and on through the ARPANET network to Boston.
While the U.S. has seen nearly 40 years of pro-growth internet policy, the Federal Communications Commission in 2015, unfortunately, went from promoting internet investment and innovation through an open, multi-stakeholder platform to making the internet a government utility weighed down by Title II regulation. Check out the infographic below to see the FCC’s abrupt about-face.
We recently submitted Reply Comments to the FCC’s proposed Business Data Services (BDS) policy. You can read the full comments here, but here’s some highlights:
PRICE REGULATION OF LEGACY AND ETHERNET BUSINESS DATA SERVICES WILL DETER THE INVESTMENT NECESSARY FOR UBIQUITOUS HIGH-SPEED BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT
Only the private sector can provide investment necessary for BDS deployment. As the FCC previously recognized, $350 billion of investment is needed to meet the Nation’s high-speed broadband needs. Investment capital at that level can come only from the private sector, not from government. Similarly, private investors will invest only where they can reasonably envision a positive return on their investment. Thus, to meet the growing demand for ubiquitous nationwide high-speed broadband deployment – including the BDS market – government should advance only those policies that actively promote and encourage, rather than deter, private investment.
Investment has promoted and will continue to promote real competition in the BDS market. IIA’s studies affirm how the business broadband market has evolved (and continues to evolve) far past the point at which ongoing regulation of this market can be justified. By the end of 2015, wireline competitors, including cable and CLECs, had roughly the same number of business broadband lines as the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs). CLECs seek to continue to rely on incumbents’ networks where they can, rather than employing a business strategy based on true facilities-based investment and competition.
Further Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (CLEC) investment would be easy but continues to lag. Facilities-based competition is accessible for the vast majority of buildings for which there is BDS demand. The FCC’s record highlights how 25% of buildings connected only to ILEC services with demand for BDS services are 17 feet away from the nearest competitive provider’s fiber network, 50% are 88 feet away, and 75% are within 456 feet. If CLEC providers truly wished to serve these buildings, they would have few difficulties building out nearby fiber to them. CLECs have made a business decision to ignore direct facilities-based competition and rely on other carriers’ capital investments to reach customers, rather than to adopt policies that will promote investment and thus benefit the economy as a whole.
REGULATION OF BDS IS IN NO WAY NECESSARY FOR 5G DEPLOYMENT AND WILL IN FACT HARM AND SLOW 5G DEPLOYMENT
The rapid deployment of fiber to date has occurred without the heavy hand of regulation, and there is no reason to doubt that it will continue. The robust fiber build-out to the nation’s existing macro cell towers to facilitate the transition to 4G wireless networks is an excellent barometer of how the market responds to business opportunities presented in the wireless backhaul market.
THE NASCENT DEVELOPMENT OF 5G TECHNOLOGY ARGUES AGAINST THE COMMISSION’S JUSTIFICATION FOR BDS REGULATION
The new 5G networks will transmit data at Gigabit speeds and will, by definition, not be able to use TDM-based megabit speeds. Thus, the regulation of legacy networks is irrelevant to future 5G deployment. The Commission simply cannot use the market-driven transition to 5G networks as justification for ex ante regulation, which would seem to steer the direction of 5G evolution rather than letting the technology evolve and markets along with it.
INVESTMENT AND DEPLOYMENT OF BROADBAND NETWORKS AND SERVICES IN RURAL AMERICA WILL SUFFER UNDER THE FCC’S PROPOSED BDS PRICE REGULATION
High-speed broadband is deployed most quickly when investors have incentives to invest in these deployments. A system that imposes price regulation and lowers profit margins for investors will not provide the necessary incentives for rapid deployment of 5G technology (or even 4G technology) to rural America.
Over at Forbes, our Honorary Chairman Rick Boucher has an op-ed on how regulating prices for business data services will only increase the digital divide. An excerpt:
It’s well understood that high-speed networks are deployed most quickly when investors can foresee a profitable rate of return on investment. Because of the unique challenges to network deployment in rural America, the need for a predictable rate of return on investment is essential for rural providers. The Commission’s proposal would impose on rural America a system that, by design, is assured to diminish new network investment. With price regulation, rural deployments would bring lower returns. With the incentive to invest removed, few companies would be willing to dedicate the capital needed to modernize rural networks. The deployment gap will widen, and the arrival of competition in the business data market will be delayed. Even if one high-speed network company proved willing to invest in the currently unserved rural market, it would immediately be saddled with de facto monopoly status and subjected to price regulation.
Under these conditions, it’s certain that few companies would make rural investments. The FCC cannot simply overlook the reality of these markets and remain true to its and the Administration’s commitment that all Americans, and all American businesses, including rural hospitals and educational institutions that are the lifeblood of many local communities, deserve and should receive the same broadband services available in metropolitan areas.
The light-touch regulatory framework of the 1996 Telecom Act set the stage for extensive internet network investment and innovation. To examine how this investment and innovation have empowered Americans to shape presidential races, we hosted “From Netscape to Snapchat: Politics in the Age of Broadband” at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland during the Republican National Convention (RNC). You can watch a video of the event below.
Over at The Street, our own Bruce Mehlman has an op-ed on Verizon’s recent about face when it comes to investment and facilities-based competition, particularly in the business data services market. An excerpt:
Since 2003 — a virtual eternity in the fast-paced world of telecom — Verizon has staunchly advocated for investment, deployment of fiber, and facilities-based competition. Verizon’s once-visionary leadership coined the phrase ‘new wires, new rules/old wires, old rules’ used by the FCC to create pro-fiber investment policies that helped spur the deployment of its modern high-speed broadband network. The “Fi” in FiOS, a central part of Verizon’s corporate strategy and broadband buildouts — stands for fiber, after all.
Yet Verizon now trumpets a deal with the competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) trade association INCOMPAS that favors price regulation in the BDS market. Why the sudden change? Some might suggest that Verizon’s proposed mergers currently pending before the FCC and other government agencies might be the reason why the company is now simply driving 55 past the speed trap giving a friendly wave to the regulatory cops.
But there’s another likely reason: In a highly regulated environment, it can be tempting to let regulators determine outcomes in markets rather than doing the hard work of competition.
The need for rate regulation requires first a determination that there is market power, meaning that the observed prices or rates are above some “proper” level, usually defined with reference to economic cost or competitive outcomes. Yet, no party has provided the Commission with convincing evidence that prices are not “just and reasonable.” Instead, the unsupported claim that BDS prices “are too damn high” pretty much sums up the economic arguments, leaving the Agency little to work with and explaining its historical reluctance to intervene.
But past is past and the current Commission under Chairman Tom Wheeler has signaled its determination to address and likely lower BDS rates. The regulatory paradigm is outlines in the BDS NPRM is to skirt the issue of evaluating market power altogether, and instead use the simple head-count of the number of competitors as proxy. This analytical substitution is without validity in economic theory and especially inapt for telecommunications markets where fixed costs are largely relative to market size.
As the FCC continues its special access agenda, its use of flawed data is not escaping notice. The latest to voice their concerns about the Commission’s current course are nine senators — eight democrats, one independent — representing rural communities. From a letter these lawmakers sent to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler on August 1:
We appreciate the Commission’s goal with the FNPRM to incentivize telecommunications providers to build and invest in networks while enhancing competition among the various providers of business data services. As you work toward a final rule, it is especially important for rural states like ours that the Commission use all the available data, including the data submitted earlier this year by the major cable operators, to both measure competitive markets accurately and ensure that the regulations for noncompetitive markets are based on the real cost to provide service.
The bipartisan letter was put together by Senator Jon Tester (D-Mont.), who was joined by Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Angus King Jr. (I-Maine), and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc).
The smart folks at Light Reading have kicked off a four-part series analyzing the Cable industry’s performance and opportunities in serving the business market. If you’re the type who enjoys wonking out on telecommunications complexities, you’ll want to check the series out.
The first part of the series, “How Cable Means Business About Business,” examines cable company entry into the business data services market. The data it presents makes clear how companies such as Comcast and Time Warner (now part of Charter Communications) have made significant inroads in the commercial communications service market. As this chart from the article shows, Comcast’s business market strategy appears focused on medium-sized business customers.
And Time Warner Cable (now owned by Charter Communications) has seen year over year revenue growth in the commercial service market:
So what’s the big deal about these charts? Why is cable’s growth in commercial services relevant? It’s important because the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is poised to impose new price regulations on existing antiquated copper-based networks as well as new fiber facilities and services that serve business customers. The FCC justifies this regulatory overreach on the perceived lack of competition in the marketplace.
In doing so, however, the Commission appears to be turning a blind eye to the true competitive nature of the commercial services market. As we’ve noted before, in crafting new price regulation, the FCC is relying on dated, incomplete and deeply flawed data. The FCC’s market data is not only nearly three years old, it also fails to capture the robust entry and success of cable in this market.
Imposing heavy handed price regulation on this rapidly changing market could create long-term incentives that ultimately lower capital investment, lessen facilities-based competition, and harm consumer for businesses in urban and rural markets across the nation.
Broadband network investment vital to 21st century economic growth and job development should not be put at risk, it’s not too late for the FCC to pause and consider these new data points before rushing to judgment.
Consumer internet privacy: Leaving the back door unlocked
By Rick Boucher
The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) asymmetric approach to internet privacy is likely to create a false sense of security among web users. Despite stringent FCC privacy regulation of internet service providers (ISPs), consumers’ information will enjoy little protection when they are interacting on social media sites, shopping online or surfing the web.
The recent Senate hearing on Internet privacy that featured FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and Commissioner Ajit Pai, along with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairwoman Edith Ramirez and Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen, underscored that the FCC’s approach to internet privacy — singling out ISPs while leaving the privacy practices of edge providers essentially unregulated — is unbalanced.
By analogy, compare internet privacy to protecting a house. Wheeler’s proposal only locks the front door to guard against ISP privacy violations, while keeping the back door wide open for edge providers, such as social media and e-commerce companies.
And that’s happening as the internet ecosystem shifts radically toward the ability of edge providers to make the greater use of consumer information. A recently released study demonstrates that the expanded use of end-to-end encryption renders ISPs incapable of accessing most data that moves across their networks. Meanwhile, edge providers have complete access to information about their users, and they have sophisticated processes for monetizing it.
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) suggested a viable alternative that would be better for consumers: keeping both doors locked and assuring uniform privacy protections by both ISPs and edge providers. According to Franken, “Should they [consumers] choose to leave information with companies, they need to know this information is safeguarded to the greatest degree possible. Telecommunications providers and edge providers like Google need to ensure their customers have more information [on] the data being collected from them and if it is sold to third parties.”
The FCC claims it lacks authority over edge providers. The FTC regulates privacy through its “unfair trade practice” authority, under which enforcement only occurs when companies fail to deliver the privacy protections they promise. Neither agency can require edge providers to extend the privacy protections that Franken envisions. His goal could only be achieved if Congress conveys broader regulatory authority on one agency or the other.
Also better for consumers would be to keep both doors unlocked. It’s not ideal, but at least consumers would be aware that all of their personal data on the Internet, irrespective of the device, platform or service used, is susceptible to being tracked and utilized.
Each approach has strengths and weaknesses. The first approach would offer a consistent and enforceable set of consumer rights and expectations. However, Pai thinks the doors-unlocked approach would be better for investment and continued digital innovation.
If and until Congress acts to require edge providers to respect consumer privacy, the only way to assure parity of treatment across the ecosystem and give consumers clear privacy expectations is to rely entirely on the FTC to lightly oversee privacy for both ISPs and edge providers. As Ohlhausen said, the FTC’s approach, “which has been incremental and technology neutral, has allowed us to be flexible as technology changes.” It’s probably the best we can do under current law. Singling out one segment of the internet ecosystem for special and more onerous treatment is flawed policy.
Our Honorary Chairman Rick Boucher recently had an op-ed on Special Access services published by Bloomberg BNA. An excerpt:
Existing FCC regulations effectively necessitate that telephone companies maintain two networks—one that is modern and fiber-based offering fast Ethernet services and the old one based on copper technology. New fiber networks are currently unregulated, while the FCC mandates that competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) be given access to incumbent telephone company copper links at deeply discounted rates.
The FCC now seeks not only to keep existing regulations on the old copper-based services, but also extend government-mandated access and price regulation to new fiber-based services in geographic locations the agency deems to be uncompetitive.
The FCC’s plan, however, relies on deeply flawed and badly outdated data used to determine whether markets are competitive.
The Federal Communications Commission has been extremely active as of late, and this rush to regulate has not been without its headaches. Case in point: The Commission’s proceeding in relation to Special Access services (Business Data Services (BDS).
Specifically, the recent release of peer reviewed responses to a third-party economist study commissioned by the FCC for the Special Access proceeding. Inexplicably, the FCC decided to release these peer reviewed responses on the very day that comments were due on the FCC’s Special Access Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, even though these responses were in the agency’s possession since late April.
This surprise last minute dump of critical information is bad enough, but what makes the headache a potential migraine for interested parties is the fact that the peer review responses make clear that the data the FCC relied upon to propose new regulations on business services is flawed. As Hal Singer notes on his website:
As revealed in the peer review, the flaws in the underlying economic work that undergirds the proposed regulation of BDS (previously called “special access” services) are potentially fatal, rendering the analysis useless as the basis for the agency’s proposed regulations.
The fact that the FCC’s data is so severely flawed — even useless — is critical information that should have been made known to commenting parties before they submitted their comments. The FCC’s decision to sit on this data until after comments were filed represents a breach of trust between regulators and the public. Moving forward to adopt new regulations in light of now useless data would compound that breach and signal a potential political motive to achieve a certain policy goal. Here’s Singer again:
In seeming disregard to these significant criticisms, the FCC presses forward with its radical proposal, which would subject both telcos (incumbents) and facilities-based entrants (cable companies) to price controls. None of the economic statements released by the staff this week credibly addresses the critical errors reviewed here. Peer review is great in theory, but if doesn’t cause the Commission to alter its approach, then what good is it?
The simple solution for this mess is for the FCC to immediately extend the reply comment deadline for their BDS NPRM. This would give all interested parties and Congress an opportunity to review and provide input on the peer review study and the related economic statements. After all, billions in broadband investment dollars are potentially at stake. Let’s hope the FCC is listening.
Maxime Bernier, one of the candidates for leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, has just given a speech in which he set out ways to achieve real competition in the telecom sector. And one of the things he proposes is actually to phase out the role of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) as telecom regulator.
Bernier is a telecom and regulatory expert. He was Minister for Industry in Stephen Harper’s Conservative government and led the deregulation of local telephone markets after cable companies and wireless had transformed the telecom landscape. In short, Bernier recognized that there was “obviously more and more competition,” and he acted on it. In the face of opposition both from those who favored continued regulation and the Canadian regulator itself, the market was deregulated and competition flourished.
So why is Bernier so anxious to act now? It all goes back to his time in government. Ten years ago, he had set out a Policy Direction to the CRTC, which instructed, in his words, “the CRTC to rely on market forces to the maximum extent feasible within the scope of the Telecommunications Act” as a “solution” to its “control freak mindset.”
Back to old ways
What happened? “I, and many others at the time thought that it would force the CRTC to change its ways, to become more flexible and adapt to the new competitive reality. We were wrong. The CRTC seemed to take the Policy Direction seriously for a few years. And then it reverted back to its old ways.”
And from this, Bernier draws a conclusion about regulation and regulators: “Those whose task it is to regulate this industry tend to be behind the curve. They don’t want to let go of their regulatory control. Meanwhile, the industry has actually moved on, with new innovations.” That’s exactly right. And it applies just as much here as there.
Now if the CRTC can behave this way in a parliamentary system, in which it is supposed to follow the directions of Parliament, imagine the vast discretion our own Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has in a system where it is an independent regulatory body.
Implementing policies that ignore the marketplace
Why should Americans care? Because the issues that Bernier cites as examples of a regulatory mindset are the same ones we face here, notably with broadband, wireless and the nature of competition itself. In each case, the regulator opted for policies that ignored the marketplace, put its hand on the scale and favored policies that restrict investment. In auctions, restrictions on bidding intended to dictate market outcomes led to misallocation and under-utilization (as some of the spectrum sold in 2007 for public safety is still not being used and other parts took seven years to finally see service after sale in secondary markets).
So whether it’s broadband, wireless auctions or the nature of competition itself, the issues are similar on both sides of the 49th parallel. Regulators too often seek to ignore marketplace realities. In the U.S., we are witnessing it today with the FCC’s heavy-handed proposed regulations in areas such as special access, privacy and the video marketplace, among others.
Regulators only want to protect their own power
What Bernier writes of the CRTC could equally be said of the FCC: “As the industry evolves, the CRTC finds new reasons to continue to regulate it, in order to justify its existence. In doing so, it is not protecting consumers, it is only protecting its own power. The telecom industry is a mature and competitive industry, and it should be treated as such. It’s not a playground for bureaucrats.”
Both Americans and Canadians are better off with greater access to modern, fast telecommunications services, when the regulator lets the market work, encourages real competition, and investment, and keeps its hand off the scale. In fact, again quoting Bernier: “Interventionist policies that are meant to bring more competition actually do the opposite. Competitive markets don’t need government intervention to work. They only need to be free.”
In a new article for Forbes, Fred Campbell, director of Tech Knowledge and former head of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), brings to light yet another example of regulatory overreach, compliments of the FCC. The Commission intends to marry broadband with…batteries? In short, broadband providers would be required to redesign cable and DSL modems to have bigger backup batteries that would allow web surfing for up to 8 hours during a power outage – IF you also have backup power for your computer and/or other devices that you use to access the web.
As Campbell points out, the Commission’s thought process might as well have been born in the 20th century and doesn’t make sense for a number of reasons. Here are the top three:
First, this directive would take choice out of the hands of consumers. Forget having a say about whether or how you want to implement a backup power solution.
Second, it’s unnecessary. A power outage doesn’t prevent mobile devices from being used to connect during an emergency, from calling 911 to texting friends and family. In real-world testing, a mobile phone can run for at least 35 hours with low and mixed usage. And, as Campbell describes, if you use your broadband modem to make phone calls, the FCC’s rules already require your broadband provider to offer you a backup power battery for voice calls – that 97% of Comcast XFINITY voice service customers decline, by the way.
Third, consumers – despite demonstrating (through an extremely low take-rate) little interest in backup power for broadband – will be forced to foot the bill for this extravagance in the end…for your “protection.” Big Brother knows best?
Head on over to Forbes and read Campbell’s full piece for more details about why the FCC’s reasoning on backup battery power for broadband doesn’t add up.
AGREEMENT BETWEEN USER AND Internet Innovation Alliance
The Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site is comprised of various Web pages operated by Internet Innovation Alliance.
The Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site is offered to you conditioned on your acceptance without modification of the terms, conditions, and notices contained herein. Your use of the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site constitutes your agreement to all such terms, conditions, and notices.
Internet Innovation Alliance reserves the right to change the terms, conditions, and notices under which the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site is offered, including but not limited to the charges associated with the use of the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site.
LINKS TO THIRD PARTY SITES
The Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site may contain links to other Web Sites (“Linked Sites”). The Linked Sites are not under the control of Internet Innovation Alliance and Internet Innovation Alliance is not responsible for the contents of any Linked Site, including without limitation any link contained in a Linked Site, or any changes or updates to a Linked Site. Internet Innovation Alliance is not responsible for webcasting or any other form of transmission received from any Linked Site. Internet Innovation Alliance is providing these links to you only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement by Internet Innovation Alliance of the site or any association with its operators.
NO UNLAWFUL OR PROHIBITED USE
As a condition of your use of the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site, you warrant to Internet Innovation Alliance that you will not use the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site for any purpose that is unlawful or prohibited by these terms, conditions, and notices. You may not use the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site in any manner which could damage, disable, overburden, or impair the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site or interfere with any other party’s use and enjoyment of the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site. You may not obtain or attempt to obtain any materials or information through any means not intentionally made available or provided for through the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Sites.
USE OF COMMUNICATION SERVICES
The Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site may contain bulletin board services, chat areas, news groups, forums, communities, personal web pages, calendars, and/or other message or communication facilities designed to enable you to communicate with the public at large or with a group (collectively, “Communication Services”), you agree to use the Communication Services only to post, send and receive messages and material that are proper and related to the particular Communication Service. By way of example, and not as a limitation, you agree that when using a Communication Service, you will not:
Defame, abuse, harass, stalk, threaten or otherwise violate the legal rights (such as rights of privacy and publicity) of others.
Publish, post, upload, distribute or disseminate any inappropriate, profane, defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent or unlawful topic, name, material or information.
Upload files that contain software or other material protected by intellectual property laws (or by rights of privacy of publicity) unless you own or control the rights thereto or have received all necessary consents.
Upload files that contain viruses, corrupted files, or any other similar software or programs that may damage the operation of another’s computer.
Advertise or offer to sell or buy any goods or services for any business purpose, unless such Communication Service specifically allows such messages.
Conduct or forward surveys, contests, pyramid schemes or chain letters.
Download any file posted by another user of a Communication Service that you know, or reasonably should know, cannot be legally distributed in such manner.
Falsify or delete any author attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other material contained in a file that is uploaded.
Restrict or inhibit any other user from using and enjoying the Communication Services.
Violate any code of conduct or other guidelines which may be applicable for any particular Communication Service.
Harvest or otherwise collect information about others, including e-mail addresses, without their consent.
Violate any applicable laws or regulations.
Internet Innovation Alliance has no obligation to monitor the Communication Services. However, Internet Innovation Alliance reserves the right to review materials posted to a Communication Service and to remove any materials in its sole discretion. Internet Innovation Alliance reserves the right to terminate your access to any or all of the Communication Services at any time without notice for any reason whatsoever.
Internet Innovation Alliance reserves the right at all times to disclose any information as necessary to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or governmental request, or to edit, refuse to post or to remove any information or materials, in whole or in part, in Internet Innovation Alliance’s sole discretion.
Always use caution when giving out any personally identifying information about yourself or your children in any Communication Service. Internet Innovation Alliance does not control or endorse the content, messages or information found in any Communication Service and, therefore, Internet Innovation Alliance specifically disclaims any liability with regard to the Communication Services and any actions resulting from your participation in any Communication Service. Managers and hosts are not authorized Internet Innovation Alliance spokespersons, and their views do not necessarily reflect those of Internet Innovation Alliance.
Materials uploaded to a Communication Service may be subject to posted limitations on usage, reproduction and/or dissemination. You are responsible for adhering to such limitations if you download the materials.
MATERIALS PROVIDED TO Internet Innovation Alliance OR POSTED AT ANY Internet Innovation Alliance WEB SITE
Internet Innovation Alliance does not claim ownership of the materials you provide to Internet Innovation Alliance (including feedback and suggestions) or post, upload, input or submit to any Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site or its associated services (collectively “Submissions”). However, by posting, uploading, inputting, providing or submitting your Submission you are granting Internet Innovation Alliance, its affiliated companies and necessary sublicensees permission to use your Submission in connection with the operation of their Internet businesses including, without limitation, the rights to: copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, translate and reformat your Submission; and to publish your name in connection with your Submission.
No compensation will be paid with respect to the use of your Submission, as provided herein. Internet Innovation Alliance is under no obligation to post or use any Submission you may provide and may remove any Submission at any time in Internet Innovation Alliance’s sole discretion.
By posting, uploading, inputting, providing or submitting your Submission you warrant and represent that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to your Submission as described in this section including, without limitation, all the rights necessary for you to provide, post, upload, input or submit the Submissions.
THE INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, AND SERVICES INCLUDED IN OR AVAILABLE THROUGH THE Internet Innovation Alliance WEB SITE MAY INCLUDE INACCURACIES OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS. CHANGES ARE PERIODICALLY ADDED TO THE INFORMATION HEREIN. Internet Innovation Alliance AND/OR ITS SUPPLIERS MAY MAKE IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR CHANGES IN THE Internet Innovation Alliance WEB SITE AT ANY TIME. ADVICE RECEIVED VIA THE Internet Innovation Alliance WEB SITE SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR PERSONAL, MEDICAL, LEGAL OR FINANCIAL DECISIONS AND YOU SHOULD CONSULT AN APPROPRIATE PROFESSIONAL FOR SPECIFIC ADVICE TAILORED TO YOUR SITUATION.
Internet Innovation Alliance AND/OR ITS SUPPLIERS MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE SUITABILITY, RELIABILITY, AVAILABILITY, TIMELINESS, AND ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND RELATED GRAPHICS CONTAINED ON THE Internet Innovation Alliance WEB SITE FOR ANY PURPOSE. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, ALL SUCH INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND RELATED GRAPHICS ARE PROVIDED “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF ANY KIND. Internet Innovation Alliance AND/OR ITS SUPPLIERS HEREBY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS WITH REGARD TO THIS INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND RELATED GRAPHICS, INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT.
Internet Innovation Alliance reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to terminate your access to the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site and the related services or any portion thereof at any time, without notice. GENERAL To the maximum extent permitted by law, this agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Washington, U.S.A. and you hereby consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of courts in King County, Washington, U.S.A. in all disputes arising out of or relating to the use of the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site. Use of the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site is unauthorized in any jurisdiction that does not give effect to all provisions of these terms and conditions, including without limitation this paragraph. You agree that no joint venture, partnership, employment, or agency relationship exists between you and Internet Innovation Alliance as a result of this agreement or use of the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site. Internet Innovation Alliance’s performance of this agreement is subject to existing laws and legal process, and nothing contained in this agreement is in derogation of Internet Innovation Alliance’s right to comply with governmental, court and law enforcement requests or requirements relating to your use of the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site or information provided to or gathered by Internet Innovation Alliance with respect to such use. If any part of this agreement is determined to be invalid or unenforceable pursuant to applicable law including, but not limited to, the warranty disclaimers and liability limitations set forth above, then the invalid or unenforceable provision will be deemed superseded by a valid, enforceable provision that most closely matches the intent of the original provision and the remainder of the agreement shall continue in effect. Unless otherwise specified herein, this agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the user and Internet Innovation Alliance with respect to the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site and it supersedes all prior or contemporaneous communications and proposals, whether electronic, oral or written, between the user and Internet Innovation Alliance with respect to the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site. A printed version of this agreement and of any notice given in electronic form shall be admissible in judicial or administrative proceedings based upon or relating to this agreement to the same extent an d subject to the same conditions as other business documents and records originally generated and maintained in printed form. It is the express wish to the parties that this agreement and all related documents be drawn up in English.
COPYRIGHT AND TRADEMARK NOTICES:
All contents of the Internet Innovation Alliance Web Site are: and/or its suppliers. All rights reserved.
The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.
The example companies, organizations, products, people and events depicted herein are fictitious. No association with any real company, organization, product, person, or event is intended or should be inferred.
Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved.
NOTICES AND PROCEDURE FOR MAKING CLAIMS OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
Pursuant to Title 17, United States Code, Section 512(c)(2), notifications of claimed copyright infringement under United States copyright law should be sent to Service Provider’s Designated Agent. ALL INQUIRIES NOT RELEVANT TO THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURE WILL RECEIVE NO RESPONSE. See Notice and Procedure for Making Claims of Copyright Infringement.