In his debut post at Medium, our Co-Chairman Larry Irving writes about bringing the Lifeline program into the digital age. An excerpt:
The Lifeline Program, which was extended to wireless phones in 2005, now provides phone service to 14 million people. But times have changed, and the telephone no longer is the principle tool of communication for many Americans. Broadband Internet is now a critical part of our communications infrastructure. In 2015, broadband Internet is as essential as basic telephone service was in 1985. It is time that our Lifeline policies reflect that reality.
Fortunately, members of the FCC recognize the need for updating Lifeline policies. Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel, in particular, have outlined thoughtful approaches that can help bring the Lifeline Program into the 21st Century.
Late last week, our Co-Chairman Bruce Mehlman penned an op-ed for Morning Consult on the need for the FCC to rely on data as it reforms special access. An excerpt:
For a decade, the FCC has had an effective policy of “new wires, new rules.” Relying on that policy, the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers – even though forced by the special access rules to subsidize a second network of non-competitive older technology – eagerly invested billions to roll out the faster broadband network people want to compete with cable, wireless and fiber networks. Now, some CLECs want to toss deregulation out the window, changing the rules in midstream without a formal data analysis and imperiling that needed investment.
That’s just wrong. Why would the FCC want to re-impose regulation on a competitive environment without understanding the marketplace? And what about the ILECs’ reliance on the FCC’s regulatory promise of “new rules” for new wires – does that just get washed away?
In an opinion piece for Multichannel News, our Honorary Chairman Rick Boucher makes the case for shifting Lifeline into the world of EBT:
To spur competition by encouraging a larger number of carriers to participate in the program and to give consumers the most flexible way to choose from among competing carriers, we support moving the Lifeline subsidy to an electronic benefit transfer (EBT) card.
Putting the Lifeline benefit on an EBT card and asking the states to confirm eligibility would empower consumers in the marketplace and help prevent fraud. Yet even as many states have adopted the convenience and accountability of moving government-provided benefits to an EBT card, some still resist this change for Lifeline.
They contend that EBT cards would burden certain beneficiaries, such as the elderly, disabled and rural poor, based on an incorrect assumption that the cards would have to be swiped at a retail location on a regular basis.
Let’s review how eligibility determinations and EBT cards would work in practice under a new Lifeline program.
Recently, our Co-Chairman Bruce Mehlman talked with Amir Nasr of the Morning Consult about the problems with the FCC’s pricing rules for high-grade network lines. An excerpt:
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said the rule “preserves competitive choices as the technology transitions move forward… Competitive providers rely on these inputs to serve hundreds of thousands of businesses and other enterprise customers at competitive rates, often offering customized services not offered by incumbents.”
Mehlman said some in the industry are frustrated at the FCC’s apparent shift in thinking after the agency left the matter alone for over a decade. “They promised no regulation for over 10 years, and now they’re proposing to fundamentally change the game,” he said.
FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, a Republican and outspoken adversary to the agency’s Democractic majority, decried the pricing proposal in a recent speech at the center-right American Enterprise Institute. “These regulatory roadblocks are bad for consumers, bad for infrastructure investment, and bad for our nation’s economic competitiveness,” he said.
Mehlman concurred. “As long as you have regulations on some providers, forcing them to help their competitors at regulated rates, you will have less investment because there is a meaningfully lower return,” he said.
Over at CNBC, Co-Chairman Jamal Simmons highlights the role of broadband access in closing America’s “homework gap.” An excerpt:
One way to make sure students from all backgrounds have the strongest start is by closing what Federal Communications Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel calls the “homework gap,” which impacts students in five million American households. These students from low-income families have less regular access to broadband Internet at home than their peers from wealthier households, making completing homework assignments tougher.
FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn has proposed revamping the Lifeline program as one way to help close this gap. Started during the Reagan administration, Lifeline was created to help low-income Americans get access to telephone service. As mobile phones became more ubiquitous, the George W. Bush administration expanded the program to allow Americans to choose wireless phone service under Lifeline. Today, broadband is the critical service that connects Americans to jobs, health care, entertainment and family, and the current FCC should allow the Lifeline program to evolve again.
In addition to expanding Lifeline to cover broadband, you can read IIA’s specific recommendations for modernization of the Lifeline program in the full op-ed at CNBC.
When the FCC moved forward with Title II reclassification, proponents of the regulations claimed it would lead to more investment and more competition in the cable and broadband industries. But as Dow Jones reports, that’s already being proven wrong:
In May, Cablevision Systems Corp. Chief Executive James Dolan publicly implied that his family-controlled company could be a prime acquisition candidate amid needed cable-industry consolidation.
Nobody on Wall Street or in the media world knew how seriously to take the comments, made at an industry convention. After all, the Dolans had been at the altar in the past, but price was an obstacle and it wasn’t clear if the family would part with its core asset.
Why is Dolan selling Cablevision? Among the reasons:
People familiar with the Dolans’ thinking said the price was too good to pass up, and they believe Mr. Drahi will be a good steward. Another issue: Charles “Chuck” Dolan sees certain industry developments, such as utility-style “net neutrality” regulations and cable “cord-cutting,” as negatives for the future, making it a good time to cash out, people familiar with his thinking said.
As for what the sale will mean for the industry, and consumers:
As the Dolans bow out of Cablevision, the cable industry will lose a formidable contrarian voice. Because of its family-controlled roots, Cablevision wasn’t afraid to take different paths from its larger cable peers. It was the first operator to deploy tens of thousands of outdoor Wi-Fi hotspots, allowing it to offer an alternative to cellular phone service that transmits calls over Wi-Fi. It also fought a landmark legal battle against major media companies that legalized the cloud-based digital video recorder. It took on Viacom Inc. in court to press for the right to “unbundle” TV channel packages, a case that is pending.
Exciting news for those who appreciate how vibrant and competitive today’s telecommunications market is… and perhaps even bigger news for those who don’t yet believe it.
According to this morning’s Wall Street Journal, Comcast has set up a new unit to sell data services to large businesses across the country, including (and this is the important part) outside Comcast’s regular footprint, by negotiating wholesale agreements with other cable providers to sell Comcast data services. In short, the cable guys are taking on the telco guys and setting up a new national provider to offer meaningful competition, so that national businesses would be able to choose cable as an alternative where they have been reluctant to do so before.
As the Journal notes, the new arrangement “threaten[s] the longtime status quo in the cable industry, where operators historically haven’t competed with each other for customers in the same geographic area.”
Some industry observers anticipated this move. As I wrote in the spring, an article in FierceWireless commented that cable is entering the special access market, claiming that “[t]he presence of cable operators could potentially shake up the wholesale special access space where incumbent telcos… have enjoyed a monopoly position for decades.”
Actually, I was wrong — I thought that cable might seek a more mid-market position rather than going after the largest customers, but now cable is doing just that, even more proof of the competitive nature of the market.
So the question naturally arises: if Comcast can do this, why can’t the CLECs who are pleading for continued “special access” regulation? Why can’t the CLECs challenge their own “status quo” as well? CLECs still maintain that they want to continue their current business model, forcing network providers to subsidize their antiquated, copper-based technology, for “decades” more (even though the transition to an all IP-network is supposed to happen this decade). Even worse, they now seek to expand their price regulated access to new fiber facilities built by investment not traditionally subject to regulation.
Comcast estimates the potential size of this new market at $40 billion. By any standard, that’s real money. It’s another nail in the coffin of an old uneconomic business model that is being propped up only by regulation. Why wouldn’t the CLECs want to go for that market rather than relying on a protected business model selling antiquated technology?
And isn’t it time for the FCC to note what’s happening in the marketplace?
Our Honorary Chairman Rick Boucher has penned an op-ed for The Hill laying out how Lifeline should be reformed. An excerpt:
A thoroughgoing reform is needed, one that delivers a fundamentally new program based on core principles similar to those recently announced by FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn. For example, why not start by putting the consumer in charge? Today’s program is centered around the carriers who receive the $9.25 per month Lifeline subsidy and also determine the eligibility of individuals for the program. A reformed Lifeline program should be consumer-centric, recognizing the power that consumers exercise in today’s competitive communications marketplace and building off of that recognition.
Instead of giving the subsidy to the carriers, it should be given directly to consumers who could then decide where it should be spent. To promote consumer choice, eligible individuals could be issued a “Lifeline Benefit Card,” similar to food stamp cards, which would allow them to easily apply the subsidy to broadband or basic telephone service or some combination of both. Consumers could also shop among the various service providers and submit their Lifeline Benefit Card to the one they choose. In theory, this change could be made with little increase in program costs.
Today, IIA delivered a filing to the FCC urging the Commission to embrace fundamental and sweeping reform as the agency moves forward in its effort to modernize the existing federal Lifeline Program.
It is our strong belief that only a “sea change” in the program’s current design will advance the goal of creating a 21st Century program capable of efficiently and effectively delivering broadband Internet technologies and meaningful opportunities to America’s low-income consumers.
“The time for bold action is now. As Commissioner Clyburn aptly noted, Lifeline reform gives us a unique opportunity to ‘rid us of antiquated constructs’ and ‘design a future-proof program that enables low-income consumers to have access to broadband services comparable to everyone else.” — IIA Honorary Chairman Rick Boucher.
Beyond making broadband an eligible Lifeline service, we urge the FCC to squarely address existing structural flaws that today hamstring the program and the Lifeline marketplace. We propose that the Commission move swiftly to adopt the following essential reforms:
1. Safeguard the Lifeline Program by taking eligibility determinations away from self-interested service providers.
In its comments, IIA enthusiastically supports the FCC’s proposal to remove the responsibility of consumer eligibility determination from Lifeline providers. IIA points out that determining eligibility for receiving benefits from a government program is an inherently governmental function; as such, eligibility determinations should not be left to service providers that may have improper economic incentives to increase enrollment.
2. Simplify and protect the Lifeline Program by vesting administration in a state agency using a “coordinated enrollment” and de-enrollment process.
IIA supports relying on state governmental agencies as the neutral entities charged with using a coordinated enrollment process to verify consumer eligibility and administer the enrollment and de-enrollment processes. Under this process, consumers determined eligible to receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP) by the State would automatically be deemed eligible to receive Lifeline assistance. IIA believes that a reformed federal Lifeline program should link eligibility determination to a single, mature assistance program – SNAP – which would increase administrative efficiency, promote participation by both consumers and service providers, and reduce the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse.
3. Empower consumers and promote dignity with a “Lifeline Benefit Card” – a direct-to-consumer benefit.
To preserve and advance the personal dignity of Lifeline beneficiaries, IIA believes that Lifeline Program benefits should be transferred directly to the consumer using a “Lifeline Benefit Card” or similar approach (e.g., coordinated enrollment taking advantage of existing SNAP EBT cards and adding the Lifeline benefit to that EBT card). Eligible consumers could use the “Lifeline Benefit Card” as a voucher to buy whichever communications service meets their needs from authorized and registered providers, whether broadband, wireline, or wireless voice service (on a stand-alone or bundled basis).
4. Incentivize voluntary participation in the Lifeline Program by cutting red tape.
IIA recommends delinking the ETC designation from the Lifeline Program so subsidy recipients receive the complete benefits of robust competition that full service provider participation could offer. Removing existing regulatory roadblocks will make it easier for service providers to participate in Lifeline and incentivize them to compete for the purchasing power of Lifeline consumers.
Over at Fierce Telecom, Sean Buckley chatted with our own Bruce Mehlman about the FCC’s current stance on legacy copper and TDM-based networks. An excerpt:
Bruce Mehlman, co-chairman of the Internet Innovation Alliance, told FierceTelecom in an interview that what’s troublesome about the regulator’s proposals is that it’s a step backwards.
He said that competitive carriers should focus more of their attention on building their own network infrastructure versus trying to leverage existing facilities built by incumbent telcos.
“There are folks that have had a decade of notice that if they wanted more advanced structure they needed to be part of the solution of building network infrastructure, but they chose business models that were based on riding investments that were made by other folks,” said Mehlman. “Everybody’s has been notice for over a decade.”
Citing the move by Google Fiber to build out a new FTTH network infrastructure supporting 1 Gbps broadband and video services, Melhman added that “it seems like a mistake to offer a ‘new wire, new rule’ incentive to get all the investment you thought you would and then to say we’re considering going to ‘new wire, old rules.’”
Over at Mobile Future, Jonathan Spalter looks at the future of wireless and finds that as mobile video consumption contines to boom, fiber-based networks will become more and more critical. As he writes:
[A] Cisco report predicts that in five years, 85 percent of Internet consumption in the United States will be from video, primarily over mobile devices. While freeing up more spectrum is critical to meet the demand for mobile Internet and video services, wireless infrastructure also requires backhaul networks with sufficient capacity to deliver these bits between a wireless tower and the Internet backbone.
Deploying that fiber-based infrastructure will take a substantial amount of investment, and as Spalter points out, regulators have — so far — encouraged that investment:
The FCC in 2007 and 2008 decided to forbear from regulating the Ethernet services companies like AT&T and CenturyLink provide, and it predicted competition would increase even further without heavy-handed regulation. Through its Enterprise Broadband Orders the FCC expressly concluded that the market for packet-switched broadband services was “highly competitive” and recognized that the demand for such services was sufficient to incentivize deployment and entry by competitors absent regulation.
As Spalter notes, competition for Ethernet-based special access services has “skyrocketed” since the FCC’s Enterprise Broadband Order. But that hasn’t stopped some companies from urging the FCC to wield a heavier regulatory hammer. Spalter again:
[F]or all of their complaining that the government needs to intervene in the market and lower just their costs of doing business (a refrain these carriers bring to the spectrum set aside and roaming debates as well), national carriers like Sprint and T-Mobile, as well as smaller regional ones have managed to operate their networks and succeed in the marketplace over the past decade without greater government involvement, often as the low cost provider. There is no justification to increase regulation of legacy special access services when the backhaul marketplace is functioning perfectly well on its own, producing remarkable investment, a stream of new competitors and increasing consumer value.
Put another way, what companies like Sprint and T-Mobile are seeking is a form of corporate welfare; a bailout from the government that will only ding their competitors. It’s not exactly the spirit of competition, but you can’t really blame them for trying.
But unfortunately, as Spalter notes, the FCC may be listening to the unfounded complaints:
Competition in the special access market has flourished due to the bipartisan hands-off approach taken by Chairmen of both parties for over a decade. It defies logic for the FCC to continue spending so much energy attempting to regulate legacy services like DS1 and DS3 special access connections provided by incumbent carriers. The Commission should accept the success of its deregulatory approach in which unregulated entities have stepped up, as expected, to create a highly competitive special access market.
If we want to encourage more fiber deployment — and keep our wireless economy humming — let’s hope the FCC is listening to sensible arguments from the likes of Spalter rather than the unfounded complaints of a few companies.
That above quote, in response to the FCC’s latest vote, was echoed by both AT&T Vice President Frank Simone and US Telecom Senior Vice President Jon Banks. From Simone’s blog post reacting to the order:
“The FCC cannot call on the industry to invest in more fiber deployment, raise the bar for what qualifies as a broadband service and then make it more difficult to retire services that do not even qualify as broadband. We share the Commission’s goal to protect consumers as this revolutionary technological movement continues. But requiring carriers to prolong the use of and maintain an outdated infrastructure is not the way to go about doing that.”
USTelecom members have been investing billions of dollars every year to deliver modern broadband services that far surpass the capabilities of older networks to businesses and consumers across the country… These investments to deliver better, faster, more reliable modern services make up the essential compact between providers and customers. We are concerned that today’s FCC Orders handicap delivering on this compact in the name of keeping a regulatory structure under which Fax machines provide a communication service of such importance that they must be preserved.
Giving a select group of competitors, which continue to rely on the copper telephone network due to their failure to invest in their own advanced networks, the ability to influence copper retirement plans creates harmful market incentives that ultimately favor some providers over others, and runs contrary to the Administration and FCC’s National Broadband Plan goal of modernizing our nation’s communications networks for the benefit of the American consumer.
Following the FCC’s tech transition vote, IIA released the following statement:
The FCC today missed a unique opportunity to accelerate the nation’s transition toward an IP future.
With less than five percent of Americans relying exclusively on traditional, copper-line plain old telephone service (POTS), and three out of four communications users having already transitioned onto IP-based services, setting ‘rules of the road’ to protect consumers and advance these modern services is appropriate, welcomed, and timely.
Today’s FCC decision, however, takes an unnecessary and harmful detour to the past. Instead of focusing exclusively on how to accelerate IP-based broadband network investment, deployment and consumer adoption, the Commission has chosen to micromanage life support for the fading wireline copper network.
The agency’s action translates into burdensome rules that create greater obstacles to retiring antiquated 20th century copper-based telephone equipment. By impeding the retirement of outdated technology, the FCC’s requirements will divert resources necessary to invest in the upgrade toward new, next-generation, high-speed broadband Internet networks.
Giving a select group of competitors, which continue to rely on the copper telephone network due to their failure to invest in their own advanced networks, the ability to influence copper retirement plans creates harmful market incentives that ultimately favor some providers over others, and runs contrary to the Administration and FCC’s National Broadband Plan goal of modernizing our nation’s communications networks for the benefit of the American consumer.
Today’s consumers want the benefits of high-speed, reliable IP-based networks, and there is no turning back. Americans stream millions of hours of video content, stay in touch with friends and family in video chats daily, and are integrating online learning into their lives at a rapid pace. The new world we have entered relies on these services and untold others that we can’t predict today. It’s important for industry and the FCC to give consumers more access to the benefits on the horizon—with common sense rules—and not hold on to the sentiments of the past.
IIA supports a wired network transition that makes IP-based networks and services more widely available and improves the quality of life for all Americans. We believe the Commission should embrace initiatives that speed the nation toward an IP-based future, and revisit and reject those that unnecessarily anchor us to the past.”
With the FCC swinging a large regulatory hammer these days, Fred Campbell of Forbes takes a close look at the Commission’s conditions for the recent merger of AT&T and DIRECTV. What he finds is another example of the FCC going rogue with regulation. An excerpt:
The merger’s pricing condition is retail rate regulation, but it’s far worse than what “was done in the pre-broadband days.” In old-fashioned rate-making cases, the FCC is required to justify the rate it imposes. The merger order “doesn’t even make a cursory attempt to explain how it arrived at this $10 price point” or why price regulation should apply to AT&T only and not its competitors.
What rules violation or competitive harm did the referee cite for throwing the retail rate regulation flag at AT&T only? None. The FCC penalized AT&T because it can. Unfortunately, no referee exists to throw a flag when the FCC discriminates against companies in a merger proceeding.
Campbell’s conclusion is that Congress needs to apply more oversight on FCC decisions:
The integrity of any game depends on the credibility of its officiating. That’s why the NFL watches its referees to make sure they are abiding by the rules too. When fans can’t trust officials to make a fair call, the league needs to reign in its referees. With the FCC, that task belongs to Congress.
Our Co-Chairman Bruce Mehlman has a piece in Bloomberg BNA on regulation the FCC is considering as America transitions to all Internet-based networks. An excerpt:
The nation’s historic transition away from the copper wire toward a modern Internet Protocol-based (“IP”) communication system represents a critical technological leap forward. The United States aims to complete this transition by 2020; indeed, the impetus for this effort actually first came from FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, then in his role as head of an advisory board on technology transition.
This transition will ultimately bring consumers new technology, billions of dollars in new infrastructure, and faster and better broadband services and applications. Today, test trials for the transition are underway in Alabama and Florida to work out technical issues and ensure superior service quality for consumers.
Recently, however, Chairman Wheeler publicly outlined his proposed next steps for the IP transition that include applying old monopoly-style telephone rules to favor and advance certain carriers’ business models. Applying such rules to IP-based broadband communications networks of the future would benefit companies that serve businesses, yet provide little to no benefit to the average consumer.
Specifically, in response to the supposed need to “preserve competition in the enterprise market,” the FCC plans to require that “replacement services be offered to competitive providers at rates, terms and conditions that are reasonably comparable to those of the legacy services.”
Our Honorary Chairman Rick Boucher talked with Jeff Hawn of RCR Wireless News for an article on Title II and net neutrality. In the article, Boucher argues that Congress needs to recognize the principles of net neutrality, but that Title II is simply an outdated fit when it comes to regulating broadband. An excerpt:
Boucher’s viewpoint is supported by a recent Georgetown study co-authored by Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute and Robert Shapiro of the Georgetown Center for Business Policy.
In the study, they write that Title II regulation is “likely to increase costs and regulatory hurdles for providers. Introducing substantial, new regulation of the businesses that provide much of the Internet’s infrastructure and content could not only raise the cost and price of most Internet communications, it also could reduce the efficiency of most network arrangements that depend on Internet platforms, devalue the investments made in those platforms or based on them, and force many organizations to reorient their enterprises in ways that would minimize the costs of the regulation rather than maximizing efficient operations.”
“The uncertainty of Title II will likely cool the willingness of ISPs to make investments in their infrastructure, the net effect of which is that we won’t get the broadband build-out we otherwise would,” Boucher added. “Additionally, companies will be more cautious with new innovations. Essentially Title II hits the slow-down button and it’s the American consumer who will suffer.”
A recent Georgetown University Study by Kevin Hassett and Robert Shapiro confirms that the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) decision to subject Internet Service Providers (“ISPs) to “Title II” public utility regulation will “have significant adverse effects on future investment in the Internet.”
The study highlights how new regulation can have a “destructive, negative effect” if capital investment is delayed as a result of the need to resolve new market uncertainty. It notes how the history of FCC regulation of Internet companies has been surprisingly uniform and consistent. Whether under a Democratic or Republican Administration, the historical arc of broadband regulation gravitated toward a light-touch deregulatory approach that treated the Internet as an information service rather than a heavily-regulated telephone common carrier service.
Such treatment of broadband as an information service allowed the pace of Internet adoption to rapidly exceed that of the personal computer or dial-up Internet service. Technological advances and competition accelerated broadband uptake by lowering its “average, quality-adjusted price” that further accelerated its uptake. By contrast, studies have detailed how common carrier regulation inhibited competition for consumers and businesses, and discouraged and slowed innovation in telephone service.
Consumers now, however, bear the risks of the FCC’s decision to reverse course and impose new regulations on ISPs that today provide much of the Internet’s infrastructure and content. Such regulation could ultimately result in increased costs and price for Internet service beyond new universal service fees. Moreover, the Georgetown study notes how the regulatory path toward Title II may result in reduced efficiency of key network arrangements that depend on the Internet platform. Reduced efficiency could have the long-term negative effect of devaluing the investments made in those platforms or based on them and thus trigger many in the Internet ecosystem to minimize the costs of regulation rather than maximize efficient operations.
In addition, the study identifies scholarship that quantifies the negative potential impact of telecommunications regulation on broadband investment. For example, the ban on “paid priority” arrangements could affect telemedicine applications and cost the economy $100 million per year by 2019. More generally, Title II regulation of ISPs could reduce their “future wireline investments by between 17.8 percent and 31.7 percent per year, and their future total wireline and wireless investments by between 12.8 percent and 20.8 percent per year.”
The study’s authors also raise helpful international comparisons to better understand the imminent consequences of Title II regulation on broadband investment. Specifically, they note the “large negative effects on investment” if our nation’s regulatory model were moved closer to the heavy-handed regulations that governed Europe’s communications landscape in the first decade of the 21st century.
Finally, the Georgetown study’s most sobering point is how the “negative effects of uncertainty” resulting from the FCC’s sudden policy shift and on-going litigation may actually understate the harm of reduced broadband investment.
In light of this additional evidence and the potential harm to broadband and consumers, the Internet Innovation Alliance again emphasizes its support for a bipartisan legislative solution to promote an Open Internet without overly burdensome Title II Common Carrier Regulations for 21st Century broadband.
Last week, we held a discussion in Washington DC on how regulators can help — rather than hinder — the broadband economy. The featured speaker at this event was FCC Commissioner Mike O’Rielly, who delivered his vision for how the FCC and other regulatory bodies should fulfill their vital role in the face of the fast-moving technology. An excerpt from Commission O’Rielly’s speech:
As regulators consider proposals that would impact the Internet or the deployment of broadband, thoughtful analysis should be done prior to enactment to consider whether the costs and burdens imposed are greater than the benefits of acting. Given the amazing positives to be gained from an Internet free and open from government intrusion — or at least significant government intervention — there should be a universal requirement for quantifiable data under a cost-benefit analysis regime. It seems universally accepted that there are direct and indirect costs to every burden placed on Internet activities. It should be our duty to show the detailed costs and benefits of every proposal, not hypothetical claims that give short shrift to statutory requirements to do an actual analysis. If a regulator involved in some capacity with the Internet cannot accept this basic premise, maybe they are in the wrong line of work.
Let me also take a moment to provide a few other premises that most people who operate in this space accept: Internet-related taxes depress deployment and adoption; costs of regulations are ultimately passed onto consumers; and the structure of the Internet will produce some type of reaction to undermine any imposed regulation. If these premises are accepted, and they have proven to betrue time and time again, it means that regulators need to be extremely cautious in acting or risk decreasing deployment, or raising prices — and all for naught.
You can read Commissioner O’Rielly’s full remarks — and watch a video of the event, which also featured Stuart N. Brotman of the Brookings Institution, James Reid from TIA, Susan Bitter Smith of the Arizona Corporation Commission, and our own Bruce Mehlman — by clicking here.
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.