On Tuesday, February 17, 2009, President Barack Obama signed into law a $787 billion dollar stimulus package. $7.2 billion dollars will go towards broadband projects, with the U.S. Department of Commerce running a $4.7 billion dollar program and the remaining $2.5 billion falling under the Direction of the Department of Agriculture.
Notably, the bill stipulates that projects funded via the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) must adhere to "nondiscrimination and openness principles." Specifically, the agency must ensure that the recipients of the funding follow the FCC's 2005 Broadband Policy Statement. This statement, while deemed "advisory," set forths the Commission's 4 net neutrality principles:
• To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of
their choice.
• To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
• To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that
do not harm the network.
• To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to competition among network providers,
application and service providers, and content providers.
Some industry experts believe that this requierment was a clever way for Congress to address net neutrality issues in a "back-door" fashion. Moreover, experts disagree as to whether these provisions will really serve Congress' intended goal: to increase broadband adoption across the United States.
For more on this, please visit:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10144035-38.html?tag=mncol;txt
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Royalty Board Lowers Rates for Internet Music
On February 16, 2009 a deal was reached that will lower the rates set in 2007 by the Copyright Royalty Board for Internet radio webcasters. In its 2007 decision, the board had significantly increased the rates that these operators were required to pay artists and recording companies.
The National Association of Broadcasters and SoundExchange (a group that collects royalties) agreed to lower these rates by approximately 16 percent in 2009 an 2010. That means for every song per 1,000 listeners in 2009, a station will pay $1.50. This rate will raise to $2.50 per 1,000 listeners by 2015. Rate agreements for certain groups, including religious broadcasts and college broadcasts have yet to be negotiated.
In recent weeks, issues related to performance rights have been taking center stage on Capitol Hill. On February 4, 2009, a bipartisan bill, "The Performance Rights Act of 2009" (S. 379) was introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Bob Corker (R-TN) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA). On the House side, John Conyers (D-MI), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and others have co-sponsored H.R. 848, which was last referred to the Judiciary Committee. This proposed legislation intends to "provide parity in radio performance rights under title 17, United States Code" and would require U.S. terrestrial radio stations to pay performance royalties to various artists. The bill attempts to enhance the level of fairness in the music industry between broadcasters and artists through the establishment of new performance rights.
Because these U.S. stations do not pay artists for their music, foreign radio stations do not compensate performers when their songs are played abroad. This has negatively impacted the music industry, but opponents of the bill such as the National Association of Broadcasters, view it as an "unfair tax" on radio stations. Section 3 of the bill does carve out special treatment for smaller broadcasters, as well as non-commercial, educational and religious stations.
For more information on SoundExchange, please visit:
http://www.soundexchange.com/
For more information on the National Association of Broadcasters, please visit:
http://www.nab.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home
For the full text of H.R. 848, please visit:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-848
The National Association of Broadcasters and SoundExchange (a group that collects royalties) agreed to lower these rates by approximately 16 percent in 2009 an 2010. That means for every song per 1,000 listeners in 2009, a station will pay $1.50. This rate will raise to $2.50 per 1,000 listeners by 2015. Rate agreements for certain groups, including religious broadcasts and college broadcasts have yet to be negotiated.
In recent weeks, issues related to performance rights have been taking center stage on Capitol Hill. On February 4, 2009, a bipartisan bill, "The Performance Rights Act of 2009" (S. 379) was introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Bob Corker (R-TN) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA). On the House side, John Conyers (D-MI), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and others have co-sponsored H.R. 848, which was last referred to the Judiciary Committee. This proposed legislation intends to "provide parity in radio performance rights under title 17, United States Code" and would require U.S. terrestrial radio stations to pay performance royalties to various artists. The bill attempts to enhance the level of fairness in the music industry between broadcasters and artists through the establishment of new performance rights.
Because these U.S. stations do not pay artists for their music, foreign radio stations do not compensate performers when their songs are played abroad. This has negatively impacted the music industry, but opponents of the bill such as the National Association of Broadcasters, view it as an "unfair tax" on radio stations. Section 3 of the bill does carve out special treatment for smaller broadcasters, as well as non-commercial, educational and religious stations.
For more information on SoundExchange, please visit:
http://www.soundexchange.com/
For more information on the National Association of Broadcasters, please visit:
http://www.nab.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home
For the full text of H.R. 848, please visit:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-848
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Asleep at the "Switch": Did I Miss the DTV Transition?
True: I wanted to call this article “I want my DTV” but a quick search on Google revealed that I am not so clever. The Wall Street Journal had already published that exact headline in yesterday’s online opinion section.
You can read WSJ’s article at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123482718276095125.html
False: The DTV transition occurred on February 17, 2009. Congress passed legislation (S. 352) to delay the transition until June 12, 2009. While some stations have moved forward and made the transition, the remaining stations are poised to do so sometime between March 14 and June 12, 2009. The FCC reports that approximately 220 stations stopped broadcasting in analog prior to Tuesday, and about 421 stations completed the transition by Midnight on Tuesday, for a total of 641 stations having made the transition. Needless to say, the various switch dates have led to consumer confusion. The FCC has released some recent news with these details, as well as the call volume on this issue on their consumer help line.
These materials can be found at:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288530A1.pdf
and
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288641A1.pdf
Let’s Face It: digital television sounds cool, and once the transition is complete consumers will benefit from the new technology while the FCC also frees up some valuable spectrum. Part of being a member of the new, "technologically-driven generation on the rise" makes the notion of improved picture quality and multicasting capabilities an exciting new feature for me. However, many consumers who are not as tech savvy have experienced a myriad of problems related to a lack of reliable information and a scarcity of resources needed to make the DTV transition a smooth one.
Moving Forward: The FCC has recently ramped up its advertising of the DTV transition (Congress moved forward and switched the date anyway, because Congress can do that), but more must still be done to ensure that all consumers understand what they actually need. The FCC's news updates have, in fact, been helpful. For this transition to work, consumers need to be given accurate information, and the government needs to make sure that converter box coupons and other necessary resources are available—something that a mere date switch cannot fix. Despite how long consumers waited to cash in their coupons, in a country focused on connecting everyone to broadband, no one in “TV-land” should be left in the dark.
For more on the DTV transition, please visit:
http://www.fcc.gov/
and
http://www.dtv.gov/
You can read WSJ’s article at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123482718276095125.html
False: The DTV transition occurred on February 17, 2009. Congress passed legislation (S. 352) to delay the transition until June 12, 2009. While some stations have moved forward and made the transition, the remaining stations are poised to do so sometime between March 14 and June 12, 2009. The FCC reports that approximately 220 stations stopped broadcasting in analog prior to Tuesday, and about 421 stations completed the transition by Midnight on Tuesday, for a total of 641 stations having made the transition. Needless to say, the various switch dates have led to consumer confusion. The FCC has released some recent news with these details, as well as the call volume on this issue on their consumer help line.
These materials can be found at:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288530A1.pdf
and
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288641A1.pdf
Let’s Face It: digital television sounds cool, and once the transition is complete consumers will benefit from the new technology while the FCC also frees up some valuable spectrum. Part of being a member of the new, "technologically-driven generation on the rise" makes the notion of improved picture quality and multicasting capabilities an exciting new feature for me. However, many consumers who are not as tech savvy have experienced a myriad of problems related to a lack of reliable information and a scarcity of resources needed to make the DTV transition a smooth one.
Moving Forward: The FCC has recently ramped up its advertising of the DTV transition (Congress moved forward and switched the date anyway, because Congress can do that), but more must still be done to ensure that all consumers understand what they actually need. The FCC's news updates have, in fact, been helpful. For this transition to work, consumers need to be given accurate information, and the government needs to make sure that converter box coupons and other necessary resources are available—something that a mere date switch cannot fix. Despite how long consumers waited to cash in their coupons, in a country focused on connecting everyone to broadband, no one in “TV-land” should be left in the dark.
For more on the DTV transition, please visit:
http://www.fcc.gov/
and
http://www.dtv.gov/
Saturday, February 14, 2009
USPTO Hosts Roundtable on Deferred Examinations
On February 12, 2009 I attended a roundtable at the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO" or "PTO") that focused on how to successfully implement a process for deferred patent examinations. The event featured an impressive group of participants, including Arti Rai, of Duke University School of Law, Nancy Link, of the USPTO, Herb Wamsley of the Intellectual Property Owners Association, and Richard Wilder of Microsoft. Several other USPTO representatives contributed to the discussion, which was kicked off by Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the USPTO, John Doll. John Whealan, Associate Dean for Intellectual Property Law Studies at The George Washington University Law School moderated a thoughtful discussion, which examined past efforts to create a deferred examination system, and contrasted how such a system would coexist with the continuing examination process and provisional applications.
The PTO does not currently have a proposal or a plan ready for consideration, and the roundtable served as a useful way to engage the public with PTO representatives in order to examine the relevant issues, identify challenges, and envision potential provisions for a deferred examination system. Additionally, speakers evaluated the success of similar systems enacted by foreign countries, and discussed the benefits and drawbacks both domestically and internationally. Notably, the panelists listed a reduced burden on the PTO, greater speed in the application process, a higher quality of applications, and the ability of inventors to focus resources on R&D as expected benefits. The drawbacks identified included submarine concerns/claim creep issues and potential "blue sky filings."
For more on the USPTO's policies regarding patents, please visit:
http://www.uspto.gov/
The PTO does not currently have a proposal or a plan ready for consideration, and the roundtable served as a useful way to engage the public with PTO representatives in order to examine the relevant issues, identify challenges, and envision potential provisions for a deferred examination system. Additionally, speakers evaluated the success of similar systems enacted by foreign countries, and discussed the benefits and drawbacks both domestically and internationally. Notably, the panelists listed a reduced burden on the PTO, greater speed in the application process, a higher quality of applications, and the ability of inventors to focus resources on R&D as expected benefits. The drawbacks identified included submarine concerns/claim creep issues and potential "blue sky filings."
For more on the USPTO's policies regarding patents, please visit:
http://www.uspto.gov/
Friday, February 13, 2009
Framework for an African Information Economy
On February 11, 2009 I attended a discussion hosted by Qorvis that focused on how the public and private sectors could work together to bring Africa into the global economy. The speakers explained some of their personal experiences in Africa, and examined the potential challenges that would impact an initiative similar to the Clinton Administration's "Framework for Global Ecommerce." The event was extremely informative, and you can watch each individual presentation on Qorvis' website (please see the below link).
One presentation was based on a new book by Vijay Mahajan entitled: Africa Rising: How 900 Million African Consumers Offer More Than You Think. Throughout the book, Mahajan prescribes the following actions for individuals interested in the African market:
For a summary and webcast of this event, please visit:
http://www.qorvis.com/an_influential_firm/news/event_details/09-02-11-framework.html
For a summary of Vijay Mahajan's book, please visit:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0132339420/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=2741448837&ref=pd_sl_730dctofye_e#reader
One presentation was based on a new book by Vijay Mahajan entitled: Africa Rising: How 900 Million African Consumers Offer More Than You Think. Throughout the book, Mahajan prescribes the following actions for individuals interested in the African market:
- Recognize that Africa is richer than you think
- Aim for Africa Two
- Find opportunities to organize the market
- Develop strategies for the most useful market in the world
- Understand that Africa is not a "media dark" continent
- Recognize the hidden strength of the African diaspora
- Build Ubuntu markets
For a summary and webcast of this event, please visit:
http://www.qorvis.com/an_influential_firm/news/event_details/09-02-11-framework.html
For a summary of Vijay Mahajan's book, please visit:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0132339420/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=2741448837&ref=pd_sl_730dctofye_e#reader
Broadband 2009
On Tuesday, February 10, 2009, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) hosted a panel discussion to examine broadband's role in the economy and the economic stimulus package. One particular area the panelists analyzed was the benefit of a rural subsidy for broadband. The debate over how to expand broadband to underserved rural areas is a complicated one, and a real strategy will require careful crafting; the current stimulus package may not be the best vehicle for such a complex undertaking. Additionally, whether or not a subsidy will solve the problem is debatable.
There are many questions we should ask moving forward: will subsidizing broadband in rural areas really benefit those individuals the government intends to benefit? Are the levels of poverty greater in rural areas than in urban areas? At the end of the day, a public-private partnership may offer more attractive benefits, and we should seriously consider this as a part of a national broadband strategy.
The "broadband problem" is one that even the past Administration claimed it would fix-- under the Bush Administration, the catch phrase was "Broadband by 2007." The Obama Administration has a unique opportunity to tackle this problem that some believe has compromised our position as the global leader in technology. Increasing the United States' global ranking will take more than the typical focus on a fix from the "last mile." The connection to the actual Internet backbone cannot be ignored, and a deeper look at the role of competition in the market wouldn't hurt.
A summary of the AEI event can be found at:
http://www.aei.org/events/filter.all,eventID.1881/summary.asp
A Report on Broadband Use by Rural Small Businesses can be found at:
http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs269tot.pdf
Testimony from Connected Nation on their public-private partnership initiative can be found at:
http://www.house.gov/smbiz/hearings/05-09-07-sub-broadband/testimony-05-09-07-connect-kentucky.pdf
There are many questions we should ask moving forward: will subsidizing broadband in rural areas really benefit those individuals the government intends to benefit? Are the levels of poverty greater in rural areas than in urban areas? At the end of the day, a public-private partnership may offer more attractive benefits, and we should seriously consider this as a part of a national broadband strategy.
The "broadband problem" is one that even the past Administration claimed it would fix-- under the Bush Administration, the catch phrase was "Broadband by 2007." The Obama Administration has a unique opportunity to tackle this problem that some believe has compromised our position as the global leader in technology. Increasing the United States' global ranking will take more than the typical focus on a fix from the "last mile." The connection to the actual Internet backbone cannot be ignored, and a deeper look at the role of competition in the market wouldn't hurt.
A summary of the AEI event can be found at:
http://www.aei.org/events/filter.all,eventID.1881/summary.asp
A Report on Broadband Use by Rural Small Businesses can be found at:
http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs269tot.pdf
Testimony from Connected Nation on their public-private partnership initiative can be found at:
http://www.house.gov/smbiz/hearings/05-09-07-sub-broadband/testimony-05-09-07-connect-kentucky.pdf
Welcome to Technocratically Correct
Like many others, I have decided to start a blawg to initiate discussion on legal developments in my fields of interest and to share scholarship and new ideas. As an active telecom/IP attorney, and an LL.M. student focusing on intellectual property law, I have developed a need for a forum for some of my thoughts with regard to telecommunications, patent, copyright and trademark law. Yesterday (February 12, 2009) marked my two-year anniversary as a public sector attorney, and I thought it represented an appropriate time to take on this project. The title, while a bit tongue-in-cheek, represents my desire to focus on substance and "outside thinking" with each post. I hope that a wide variety of commenters will become engaged, including students, engineers, attorneys, economists, and anyone else interested in sharing their own opinion. I also hope that this blawg will eventually serve as a useful resource on telecommunications and intellectual property law. In no way are any of my comments meant to represent the views of the government agency that I work for, they represent my own personal views. I look forward to your comments and I hope that you enjoy Technocratically Correct.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
