Georgia Institute of TechnologyCenter for Advanced Communications Policy
Technology SquareTechnology Square at night

Telecom/IT Policy Highlights

Volume: 5.07
July / August 2005

Contents:
Overview
Policy / Legislative Activities
Regulatory Activities
Judicial Activities
Research / Reports
Events
Newsletter Info
  • Overview

    Despite experiencing the lethargic “dog days” of summer, legislators and policymakers remained quite active during the late summer months in Washington. In particular, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was particularly busy during July and August, issuing a number of orders on issues ranging from wireline broadband Internet access to the provision of spectrum for small and rural wireless Internet service providers. Yet, the issue that engaged the FCC the most was an old one—the provision of and enforcement of rules regarding Enhanced 911 (E-911) services for Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers. If there was a theme for this summer’s activities, it was the fact that both legislators and regulators were still engaged with established issues. Take, for example, the Senate’s Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation. It held one hearing in response to last month’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in MGM Studios v. Grokster [04-480], as well as two hearings on the transition from analog to digital television service, the focus of legislation last month which sought to establish a firm deadline for the transition. Likewise, the “Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act” (S. 1504), introduced by Senators Gordon Smith (R-OR), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), and Mark Pryor (D-AR) offered another means to promote broadband Internet development in rural and underserved areas of the nation, an acknowledged focus of the Bush administration’s efforts to establish universally available broadband by 2007.

    Even with their focus on acknowledged issues of importance—digital television transition, broadband development in rural and underserved areas, and E-911 service across VoIP—legislators also dealt with new issues. Most important was the introduction of the “Universal Service for the 21st Century Act” (S. 1583) by Senators John Ensign (R-NV) and John McCain (R-AZ), which would effectively rewrite the Telecommunications Act of 1996. While lawmakers have introduced bills that have amended the Act in some way, few bills are as comprehensive and ambitious as the one proposed by Ensign and McCain. The Ensign-McCain bill is likely to be only the first salvo in what promises to become a contentious issue. As legislators such as Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, have increasingly discussed a need to revisit the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in the wake of technological, industry, and marketplace developments, Ensign and McCain’s proposed legislation may represent only the first attempt to meet those changes in the decade since the passage of the Telecommunications Act. Bills from other legislators are sure to follow in the coming months, especially after 109th Congress reconvenes for the second half of its session in September.

    In contrast to the flurry of activity within Congress and especially the FCC, the courts were relatively quiet during the past two months. With the Supreme Court’s session for the year over and its two most important telecommunications-related decisions already released, one involving broadband Internet competition and another on peer-to-peer file sharing, this judicial calm comes as little surprise. Nevertheless, an en banc (in the bench) decision by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, regarding the privacy of electronic communications as protected by the U.S. Wiretap Act, may have some far reaching implications.


    BACK TO TOP OF PAGE
  • Policy / Legislative Activities

    Issues Related to MGM v. Grokster Considered by Commerce Committee 07.28.05 – The U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation held a hearing entitled “Issues Related to MGM vs. Grokster” on July 28, 2005. The hearing to discuss was organized in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s June decision in the case MGM Studios v. Grokster [04-480], in which the Court unanimously held that distributors of software enabling individuals to share music and other files on the Internet could be found liable for violations of copyright law by individuals who use the software (see TIPH 5.06 for more details).

    Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-AK) opened the hearing with the observation that as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, “Going forward, we will have to balance the competing interests of encouraging innovative services like peer-to-peer that spearhead new services, jobs and economic growth against protecting content providers from piracy to ensure a return on investment and continued innovation in the content space.” The Commerce Committee then heard testimony from Gregory Kerber, Chairman and CEO of Wurld Media, which has developed a file-sharing platform for the secure circulation of copyright-protected media over the Internet. Kerber expressed his support for the Supreme Court’s decision, noting that it “illustrates that our system of government is working to achieve the correct balance between protecting creators of intellectual property and that of advanced technology.” In response to Chairman Stevens’s inquiry over whether any witnesses believed that Congress should address the Court’s decision with legislative action, Mitch Bainwol, Chairman and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) responded, “No. We believe the Court struck the right balance and Congress should leave well enough alone.... right now it is very clear that you have a very broad consensus. Tech companies are happy; content is happy. The Court did the right thing and they found the right balance, so let’s let it go and see how it works.” Bainwol’s position at the hearing was opposed by Adam Eisgrau, executive director of P2P United and also representing the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), who argued that the companies at issue in the Supreme Court’s decision, including Grokster, and other companies affiliated with P2P “do not take anybody’s property. They are software developers, sir. They have developed pipes, pipes in the way that the Internet is a pipe and broadband connectivity is a pipe.” Rather than prosecute the creators of peer-to-peer file sharing software, Eisgrau argued, associations such as the RIAA should join within a voluntary collective licensing model that would “look at the realities of the marketplace, not just as we hope they might be, but as they are, and maximize the potential for all copyright holders, not just the institutional ones that Mr. Bainwol represents.”

    The Committee also listened to testimony from Dave Baker, Vice President of Law & Public Policy for EarthLink. In response to Stevens’s inquiry over whether ISPs should be held responsible for possible illegal activity on their networks, Baker replied “as an Internet provider we don’t know that when these bits of information flow across our servers and routers and off to other carriers and across backbones to know what that content is, much less if it is a music file, whether that has been paid for by a legal service or illegal.”

    Stevens ended the hearing by noting his own belief, in accord with the Supreme Court’s decision, that the industry responsible for the creation of peer-to-peer software had some responsibility for the prevention of illegal file sharing: “We have got to find some way to meet this concept of protecting our intellectual property.” For a copy of the hearing’s witness list and links to the testimony, please see [http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cfm?id=1594].
    [Source: U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation]

    Revision of Telecommunications Act Proposed by Senators Ensign and McCain 07.27.05 –Senators John Ensign (R-NV) and John McCain (R-AZ) have introduced the “Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act” on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Touted as a bill to “establish a market driven telecommunications marketplace, to eliminate government managed competition of existing communication service, and to provide parity between functionally equivalent services,” the proposed legislation essentially offers a revision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

    According to the bill’s findings, dramatic developments in the telecommunications industry, technology, and marketplace since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 necessitate that Congress revisit the almost decade-old legislation. In particular, the findings focus on technological changes that have permitted the development of functionally equivalent services within different sectors, thus creating inter-modal competition in the delivery of voice, Internet, and video services. Because of these technological and industry developments, the bill’s authors contend that a “new policy framework is required to allow functionally equivalent services to compete fairly.” In particular, the bill argues that the regulation based upon historical regulatory classifications not attentive to recent developments “only invite arbitrage and result in government influenced market decisions,” and as a result, “such market distortions coupled with lack of regulatory certainty is chilling investment and stalling deployment of broadband networks.” In a press conference, Ensign emphasized the deregulatory thrust of the bill: “Advances in technology have left the 1996 Telecommunications Act behind. This legislation that I am introducing…will transition us from a world of stifling government-managed competition to a consumer-controlled marketplace.”

    The central feature of Ensign and McCain’s bill is the elimination of local and state regulations in favor of more uniform national standards for the regulation of telecommunications. The bill’s proponents have argued that a patchwork of laws governing telecommunications, often in conflict with one another, have undermined telecommunications development. Another critical element of the bill is a complete overhaul of the rules and distinctions between service providers through the elimination of Title I (general status), Title II (common carrier), and Title VI (cable communications) federal status. This particular provision of the bill has received great support from the cable industry and its principal trade organization, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), who argue that the bill would finally place the cable industry on an equal regulatory footing with the telephone industry in the delivery of broadband Internet services.

    Another important (and controversial) aspect of the proposed legislation is a provision which stipulates that municipalities seeking to provide public broadband services to their constituents must first allow open bidding by private companies before initiating their own services. In response to critics who argue that the legislation would place restrictions on local governments seeking to provide a service to their constituents, Ensign replied that the deregulation he is seeking is designed to prevent municipalities from having an unfair advantage over the private sector: “If a municipal government wants to provide broadband service and other services, this bill allows them to do so if the marketplace has not provided that service. However, it is my firm belief that government cannot innovate nearly as quickly as the private sector, and so the consumer will benefit if the private sector will provide these services.”

    Among the other important aspects of the proposed legislation is a “Consumer Access to Content and Applications” section, which prohibits service providers from blocking content to consumers unless it is illegal or could adversely affect the service’s operation. The bill also guarantees that consumers will have access to third-party VoIP service through a broadband provider. For a copy of the bill’s text, please see [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:s.1504.is: ].
    [Sources: Library of Congress, Associated Press, United Press International]

    Universal Service for the 21st Century Bill Introduced in the Senate 07.29.05 – On Friday, July 29, 2005, Senators Gordon Smith (R-OR), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), and Mark Pryor (D-AR) introduced the “Universal Service for the 21st Century Act” [S. 1583] on the floor of the Senate. The bill proposes the expansion of the Universal Service Fund (USF), established by the Telecommunications Acts of 1934 and 1996, used to provide telephone service to those rural and underserved areas and to facilitate the development of broadband Internet service in those same areas. Smith, Dorgan, and Pryor’s bill calls for the creation of a new account within the USF that would provide up to $500 million per year to “provide financial assistance for the deployment of broadband services to underserved areas throughout the United States.” The bill’s authors note that the USF currently provides resources only for broadband development in schools and libraries. If passed, this act would greatly expand that funding to provide for broadband development in rural and underserved areas more generally. Commenting on the basis for the proposed legislation, Sen. Dorgan noted, “We believe all Americans—rural or urban—should have access to high speed Internet service. It’s really not an option any more. It’s rapidly becoming a fact of life that in order to be competitive, business and industry simply must have it. Increasingly, individual consumers are also demanding it. Our bill would help make access to such service a reality in areas that otherwise would get left behind.”

    As noted in the June 2005 edition of TIPH (5.06), both broadband development in rural America and the ability of local governments to establish their own broadband systems and service have been a significant, and frequently contentious issue. In June, Meredith Attwell, Senior Policy Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Communications Information, NTIA, Department of Commerce, gave a speech detailing the Bush Administration’s efforts to increase broadband Internet service in rural areas through a policy of tax relief for those businesses investing in broadband infrastructure and services in underserved areas. These incentives, as well as initiatives by the Commerce Department’s Economic Development Administration (EDA) and the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development/Rural Utilities Service (RUS), are promoted as important components to the fulfillment of President Bush’s goal of universally available broadband by the year 2007. Smith and Dorgan’s bill may be viewed as another means for fulfilling that objective.

    More fundamental than providing funding for the development of rural broadband are the means proposed by the bill’s authors for achieving these ends. The “Universal Service for the 21st Century Act” cites findings that “the current structure established by the Federal Communications Commission has placed the burden of universal service support on only a limited class of carriers, causing inequities in the system, incentives to avoid contribution, and a threat to the long term sustainability of the USF.” In particular, the bill targets Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service providers, currently not required to pay into the fund. If passed, the bill would direct the FCC to examine how the number of contributors to the Universal Service Fund might be expanded so that, “to the greatest extent possible…all communications services that are capable of supporting 2-way communications be included in the assessable base for universal service support.” FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin has identified the USF as a priority. In February 2002, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Report and Order [FCC 02-43] designed to further the reform of the system for assessment and recovery of USF contributions. In particular, the FCC expressed interest in assessing carrier contributions “based on the number and capacity of connections they provide to customers, rather than on the interstate revenues they earn.” With the migration of consumers to new products and services, then Commissioner Martin observed the need for the FCC to develop new methods for assessing USF contributions in light of new entrants and increased competition in telecommunications services, wireless sector growth and technology migration, and complications to assessment posed by bundled services.

    During his introduction of the bill on the floor of the Senate, Sen. Smith noted that “the bill addresses a crisis in the structure of the USF which has threatened its long term viability. Currently the burden of universal service fund contributions is placed on a limited class of carriers…As demands on the fund increase, contributors are being asked to pay more. This tension threatens to cripple the fund.” By directing the FCC to establish a more permanent mechanism for funding the USF, Smith, Dorgan, and Pryor concluded that “our legislation will ensure that the nation’s communications infrastructure will continue to grow, and to be the robust and connected network that Americans expect and deserve.” The bill was accepted by the Senate and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for further consideration.
    [Source: Library of Congress, Associated Press]


    BACK TO TOP OF PAGE
  • Regulatory Activities

    Advanced Wireless Services Spectrum Rules Change 08.15.05 – The FCC issued its Order on Reconsideration [FCC 05-149] modifying the Commission’s October 2003 Report and Order [FCC 03-251] service rules for the Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) spectrum at 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz. The FCC, while retaining the mixture of license sizes and geography areas to receive access to the spectrum, has increased the amount of spectrum to be licensed “on a small geographic area basis (Cellular Market Areas, or CMAs)” from 10 MHz to 20 MHz. The Commission notes that this increase in spectrum allocation will provide greater o pportunities for smaller rural or regional providers to obtain access to this spectrum at the time of its auction. In addition, the FCC also ordered the provision of an additional 10 MHz of spectrum to be licensed by Economic Areas (EAs). In his statement, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin wrote that “making this large swath of spectrum available will enable carriers to provide a wide range of new and better services, including in rural areas.” He also expressed his belief that much of this spectrum to be auctioned will be used for wireless broadband services, thus bringing the Commission closer to achieving its goal of providing universal, affordable broadband access for all Americans. A copy of the Order on Consideration may be found at [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-149A1.txt].
    [Source: FCC]

    ASL-Spanish Translation Video Relay Service Eligible for Compensation 07.14.05 – The FCC issued its Order on Reconsideration [FCC 05-139] addressing petitions that the Commission reconsider its earlier conclusion that translation from American Sign Language (ASL) to Spanish is not a telecommunications relay service eligible for compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund. In this new order, the FCC concludes that Spanish translation Video Relay Service—in which a communications assistant (CA) translates what is signed in ASL to spoken Spanish, and vice versa—is a form of telecommunications relay service eligible for compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund.

    According to the FCC, this decision will allow Spanish speakers who are deaf to communicate with others who speak only Spanish and allow them to become more fully integrated into society. Previously, a failure to compensate for ASL-to-Spanish services meant that deaf or hearing impaired Spanish speakers (especially in Puerto Rico, where Spanish is the predominant language and TRS services are covered) had ALS conversations translated into English, a language that is either not spoken or a second language for many Puerto Ricans. Another important factor behind the FCC’s decision to support ALS-Spanish Video Relay Services has been research by Gallaudet University that as many as 24.5 percent of all deaf and hearing impaired students age three and over are Latino, children from Spanish-speaking homes whose primary language is ASL. For such children, who do not learn Spanish in the special schools they attend, the only way for them to communicate with family members at home is through ASL to Spanish VRS. The FCC’s ruling seeks to meet the needs of one of the largest minority populations in the United States. Currently, there are nearly 40 million Latinos living in the United States, and that number will increase to over 60 million by 2025, representing almost 18 percent of the population.

    It is important to note that while allowing TRS Fund compensation for ALS-Spanish VRS services, the FCC did not mandate that providers offer Spanish translation VRS. A copy of the Order on Reconsideration may be found at [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-139A1.txt].
    [Source: FCC]

    Creation of Joint Federal/State VOIP Enhanced 911 Task Force 07.25.05 – FCC Chairman Kevin Martin announced the creation of a joint task force between the FCC and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) to facilitate a timely and effective enforcement of the Commission’s VOIP rules adopted on May 19, 2005. Those rules require interconnected VOIP providers to deliver all 911 calls to the caller’s local emergency operator, provide emergency operators with the call back number and location information of their customers where emergency operators are capable of receiving it, and to inform the VOIP service provider’s customers of the capabilities and limitations of their E-911 service. Staff from both the FCC and State Public Utility Commissions will serve on the Task Force, working closely with public safety representatives from both the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO) and the National Emergency Number Association (NENA). In addition to engaging issues of enforcement and compliance, the Task Force will also gather data and share information on best practices.
    [Source: FCC]

    Draft Strategic Plan for 2006-2011 Proposed by Commission 07.05.05 – The FCC presented its draft Strategic Plan for 2006-2011 on July 5, 2005. Released in compliance with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, the Strategic Plan outlines the Commission’s major goals for the next five years, as well as the means and strategies to be employed in fulfilling those goals. The Plan also discusses fiscal issues and identifies factors which might affect or otherwise complicate the FCC’s general goals and objectives. The FCC’s revised draft Strategic Plan has been released to allow for public comment and review on the strategic direction the Commission plans to take over the next five years.

    In particular, the FCC has outlined six general goals for the next five years. First, the Commission seeks to ensure that all Americans have “affordable access to robust and reliable broadband products and services,” which is to be aided by regulatory policies that “promote technological neutrality, competition, investment, and innovation to ensure that broadband service providers have sufficient incentive” to offer broadband products and services. Second, the FCC will continue to work toward increased competition in the provision of telecommunications service in the belief that such competition “should foster innovation and offer consumers reliable, meaningful choice in affordable choices.” Third, the FCC has identified the efficient and effective use of the non-federal spectrum as one of its major goals. A fourth objective of the Commission is a regulation of the media that will promote competition and diversity, as well as facilitate a transition to digital broadcasting. Fifth, the Commission has expressed its commitment to the availability of emergency communications services for public safety, health, defense, emergency personnel, and consumers in need. In particular, the FCC advocates that the nation’s “critical communications infrastructure must be reliable, interoperable, redundant, and rapidly restorable.” Finally, the FCC has outlined a goal of modernization, striving to be a “highly productive, adaptive, and innovative organization that maximizes the benefit to stakeholders, staff, and management from effective systems, processes, resources, and organizational culture.” A copy of the Revised Draft Strategic Plan is available at [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-259814A1.txt].
    [Source: FCC]

    Elimination of Mandated Sharing Requirement on Wireline Internet Services 08.05.05 – The FCC adopted a Report and Order [FCC 05-150] designed to place wireline broadband Internet service, most commonly delivered through digital subscriber line (DSL) on “an equal regulatory footing” with cable modem service, currently the market leader in the delivery of broadband Internet. In particular, the FCC concluded that wireline broadband Internet services are defined as “information services functionally integrated with a telecommunications component.” This new rule eliminates previous FCC rules that imposed facilities-sharing requirements on telephone companies which provided broadband Internet services, and meant that telephone companies providing broadband Internet service via DSL had to offer competitors discounted access to their telephone networks. Broadband Internet service through cable companies has been classified as an “information service,” while Internet service offered through wireline means had previously been subject to common-carrier regulation. The new rules adopted by the FCC are consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the consolidated cases NCTA v. Brand X and FCC v. Brand X, in which the court ruled that the FCC had the authority to classify cable broadband as an “information service” instead of a “telecommunications service” under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (see TIPH 5.06). The Report and Order adopted by the FCC ensures that wireline broadband Internet service offered by telephone companies will also be classified as an “information service.” Just as the Supreme Court’s decision meant that cable operators were not required to give access to rival third-party ISPs, the latest decision by the FCC may mean that telephone companies will no longer be required to do so also, given the reclassification of wireline broadband Internet service from a “telecommunications service” to an “information service.” According to an FCC press release regarding the Report and Order, “Consistent regulatory treatment of competing broadband platforms will enable potential investors in broadband network platforms to make market-based, rather than regulation-driven, investment and deployment decisions….the Commission eliminated this transmission component sharing requirement, created over the past three decades under very different technological and market conditions, finding it caused vendors to delay development and deployment of innovations to consumers.”

    The FCC also issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, seeking comment on whether the Commission should “develop a framework for consumer protection in the broadband age” which will provide consumer protection from all providers of broadband Internet access, regardless of the technology being used to provide that service. While adopted, the Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking have yet to be formally released. A link to the FCC’s press release regarding the Report and Order may be found at [ http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260433A1.txt].
    [Source: FCC]


    BACK TO TOP OF PAGE
  • Judicial Activities

    Wiretap Act Applies to E-mails in Electronic Storage 08.11.05 – The United States 1st Circuit Court of Appeals issued an en banc ruling in U.S. v. Councilman [03-1383], a case involving the Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act, and issues pertaining to unauthorized access of e-mail. Reversing an earlier decision by the Court of Appeals, the ruling made by all members of the court, in a 5-2 decision, holds that the federal Wiretap Act applies to e-mails in electronic transient storage, and thus outlaws their unauthorized interception. The case involves Bradford Councilman, an executive for Interloc, Inc., a now-defunct company that ran an online listing service for rare and out-of-print books. In 1998, Councilman allegedly directed employees of his company to intercept e-mails from Amazon.com to its subscriber book dealers. A system administrator for Interloc modified the procmail application used to send mail from Amazon.com; copies of the e-mails were created and made available to Interloc. Interloc employees read the e-mails sent by Amazon to Interloc subscribers, in the hope that Interloc might gain an advantage over Amazon by offering those same customers appealing counter-offers.

    For his supposed activities, a grand jury indicted Councilman in 2001 for violating the U.S. Wiretap Act. Councilman argued that, under the law, e-mail messages were not “electronic communications,” as the application intercepted the electronic correspondence while stored in the memory of a computer, not when it was traveling across the network. A federal district court agreed with Councilman’s interpretation, and dismissed the case brought against him by the U.S. Department of Justice. The Justice Department appealed the district court’s ruling, but the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston also rejected the claims of the Justice Department that Councilman acted illegally.

    The decision in the failed appeal was delivered by a panel of three judges, which normally decides on such matters. However, in a second appeal, the Justice Department persuaded all seven of the judges to hear the case, in what is known called an en banc ruling. En banc decisions are given in those cases so controversial as to necessitate that all justices hear the case rather than a usual three judge panel. The court’s decision overturned the original rulings of the District Court and Court of Appeals. In a 5-2 decision, the full Court of Appeals determined that Councilman can be tried under the federal wiretap law, noting that the defendant’s “interpretation of the Wiretap Act is inconsistent with Congress’s intent.” Specifically, Councilman argued that when an electronic message enters a computer, it can no longer be considered an “electronic communication” under the Wiretap Act. Further, he argued that Congress considered communications by computer less of a priority than communications by wire, owing to lower expectations of privacy in the use of electronic mail.

    The full appellate court disagreed, however, and handed down a decision that broadly interpreted Congress’s intentions in drafting the Wiretap Act. The majority opinion noted that Congress’s purpose in creating the legislation governing “electronic communications” under the Wiretap Act was to “enlarge the privacy protections for stored data under the Wiretap Act, not to exclude email messages stored during transmission from those strong protections.” Moreover, the appellate court maintained that Congress added provisions for electronic communications to the law in order to protect voicemail, not to undermine protections for e-mail. As such, the Court’s interpretation of the Wiretap Act holds that “the term ‘electronic communication’ includes transient electronic storage that is intrinsic to the communication process for such communications…hence, that interception of an e-mail message in such storage is an offense under the Wiretap Act.” Overturning both the District Court and first Appeals Court decisions in favor of Councilman, the en banc decision of the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals means the case will now be sent back to the District Court for trial. However, Councilman may appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. A copy of the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals’s decision may be found at [http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/].
    [Sources: 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, Associated Press, Boston Globe]


    BACK TO TOP OF PAGE
  • Research / Reports

    High Speed Connections to the Internet Increased by 34 Percent in 2004 07.07.05 – The FCC released new data on high-speed Internet connections in the United States. According the Commission’s report “High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of December 31, 2004”, in 2004, high-speed lines (those connections delivering services in excess of 200 kilobits per second in at least one direction) serving both residential and business subscribers increased by 34 percent, to 37.9 million lines. When considering only residential and small business subscribers, the increase is even more impressive, with an increase by 36 percent in 2004 to 35.3 million lines. Of those new high-speed lines added, the FCC notes that asymmetric digital subscriber lines (ADSL) increased by 45 percent, to 13.8 million lines; high-speed coaxial cable connections (cable modem) increased by 30 percent, to 21.4 million; satellite and terrestrial wireless communications increased by 50 percent, to 0.7 million; and fiber or powerline connections increased by 16 percent, to 0.5 million. In addition, the FCC report also noted that advanced services lines (those connections delivering services in excess of 200 kilobits per second in both directions) of all types increased by 42 percent, to 28.9 million, during 2004. About 26.4 million of those 28.9 million lines serve residential and small business customers.

    The FCC’s report also stresses the considerable geographic coverage of high-speed Internet service. At least one high-speed subscriber could be found in 95 percent of the nation’s zip codes, and the Commission’s analysis indicates that 99 percent of the American population lives in those zip codes. A copy of the FCC Report, “High-Speed Services for Internet Access,” and data may be obtained in Portable Document Format at [http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/hspd0705.pdf].
    [Source: FCC]


    BACK TO TOP OF PAGE
  • Events

    State Science and Technology Institute to Hold Annual Conference in Atlanta The State Science and Technology Institute (SSTI), a national nonprofit organization dedicated to encouraging economic development through science and technology, will hold its 9th annual conference in Atlanta, Georgia on October 19-21, 2005. The event will feature workshops and seminars on topics such as commercializing innovations from universities, improving entrepreneurial assistance and research grants, national innovation policy, and increasing access to risk capital. BellSouth Chairman and CEO Duane Ackerman will deliver a keynote address. For information and registration details, see [http://www.ssti.org/conference05.htm].
    [Source: SSTI]


    BACK TO TOP OF PAGE
  • Newsletter Info

    Center for Advanced Communications Policy
    Telecom/IT Policy Highlights Volume 5.07
    July 2005
    Nathan Moon, Editor
    Lynzee Head, Editor in Chief

    Telecom/IT Policy Highlights presents legislative, regulatory, legal, and other items of interest pertinent to information, telecommunications, and related technology policy and research. For additional information regarding the information provided in this report, or if there are newsworthy items that should be included in future editions, please contact ,Graduate Research Assistant, or , Research Scientist.