Posted on

Will Net Neutrality Compromise Net Profits?

Earlier today, Julius Genachowski, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), telegraphed the Commission’s plans to open a formal rule-making process on the issue of “net neutrality.” It’s likely the specifics regarding hearings and a timetable for any proposed rulemaking procedures will be on the agenda for the FCC’s October meeting.

While many of the major carriers – including wireless carriers who have typically been out of the fray when it comes to the Web – have argued against both the need and the wisdom of competitive regulation amongst carriers, open Internet advocates, many of whom were ardent campaign contributors and supporters of President Obama, have been aggressively pushing for regulation. Companies such as Amazon.com and Google, have long argued for rules that would prohibit carriers from denying their right to give consumers complete freedom of choice when it comes to both the content they receive and the devices they use to receive it. While not necessarily quibbling with what appears, on its face, to be a reasonable and market driven approach, opponents point out that the government stay away from intervening in yet another major marketplace – this time one, they argue, that isn’t broken. Further, and perhaps more significantly, companies such as ATT and Verizon, now joined by ATT Wireless, Verizon Wireless, Sprint (Sprint Nextel) and T-Mobile (Deutsche Telekom) argue that forcing carriers to open up their networks without corresponding economic counterbalances in place will force them to either raise consumer prices to keep up with virtually unrestricted broadband demand, but may require them to limit availability and accessibility for capacity and technological reasons. Wireless carriers may have special reasons to be concerned given current pricing models and the technological limits of current bandwidth capacity. That said, the major cable television, fiber optic and DSL-based Internet providers have long had to cope with government regulation and requirements.

Back in the days following the breakup of AT&T’s telephone monopoly (anyone remember Judge Green and his landmark 1983 rulings?), the regional and local companies spawned by carving up the nations’ previously regulated monopoly – the so-called ‘Baby Bells’ – worried about long-distance carriers (including the remaining long distance carrier, AT&T) making deals for preferential treatment over interconnections. Thus the principle of equal (“neutral”) treatment for interconnectivity arose. When cable companies started offering Internet service – previously the domain of phone-line intensive telephone companies (remember dial-up?) – they tried to convince everyone that neutrality didn’t apply to them. They carried information, and weren’t, after all, common carriers.

OK. Fast forward to the market response. Phone companies decided to get into the content business! Cable companies are offering Internet and VOIP services, telephone companies are offering entertainment, programming and information services, wireless phone services stream video content and provide messaging of news, sports scores and applications galore (oh, they do still carry voice traffic when you need to make a call).

So back to 2009 and the future. According to Commissioner Genachowski: “This is not about government regulation of the Internet,” adding that “We will do as much as we need to do, and no more, to ensure that the Internet remains an unfettered platform for competition, creativity, and entrepreneurial activity.” That said, his proposal would add a fifth principle to the FCC’s existing four that relate to the Internet. To wit, that carriers will not be permitted to be selective about the content they carry (subject, of course, to their continued ability to block illegal content) and will be required to be transparent about how they are managing the carriage of content across their networks. Violations and allegations of discriminatory practices would still be reviewed by the FCC as and when the facts of each specific case arise. You can read or download the complete statement of Commissioner Genachowski’s prepared statement today, entitled “Preserving a Free and Open Internet: A Platform for Innovation, Opportunity, and Prosperity,” right here.

Clearly if you are a small Internet application provider or software developer that has traditionally had to pay for access through a carrier, open, non-discriminatory access would prove a major boon. Then again, Internet carriers – wired and wireless – have invested huge amounts of capital in building their own proprietary networks. Since there is no evidence that there is a lack of competition, why should the government tell any of them what they should or should not carry on their networks? Indeed, since the early 1990s, when the Web evolved from a glimmer in the eye of Tim Berners-Lee, to a reality, there have been so few real complaints (and so few complaints from consumers, even as competitors bash each other about), why fix something that doesn’t appear to be or have been broken for almost two decades?

Confused as to how the FCC proceedings might or might not affect your business? Thinking about participating in the dialog or submitting comments to the FCC? Let Rimon help you. To stay informed, keep your mouse tuned to Legal Bytes, and if you need to know more, please feel free to call me or the Rimon attorney with whom you regularly work.

Posted on

Broadband Network for the Birds? Not So Fast.

Under normal circumstances, this post would appear in the Useless But Compelling Facts section of Legal Bytes. But although this is compelling, it is not quite useless. 

It appears that a South African IT company (Unlimited IT) was so frustrated by the level of broadband Internet service it was receiving from Telkom, that it challenged Telkom to a race with a carrier pigeon. As you might have guessed, the absence of significant competition limited Unlimited IT’s choices of providers, hence the frustration.

The challenge was a simple one. The company would send a homing carrier pigeon from Howick (on the coast) to Unlimited’s head office in Durban, and at the same time upload the data using the ISP lines with the file addressed to the same location.

So they tied a 4 gigabyte memory stick data card to Winston’s (the pigeon’s) leg and released him to hone it on "home." Well, it took good old Winston, depending on which agency you listen to, somewhere between one to two hours to make the journey of less than 60 miles. Are you ready? By the time two hours had elapsed . . . . here it comes . . . . less than 4 percent (yes, less than 4 PERCENT) of the data had made the trip to its destination. We really can’t make this up.

As reported in The Christian Science Monitor, Kevin Rolfe, head of information technology at the Unlimited Group, reported that "Winston arrived after two hours, six minutes, and 57 seconds," but "when we finally stopped the computer, about 100 megs had transferred, which is about 4 percent of the total."

So next time you think your network or the Internet servers are for the birds, let’s be a little less insulting to our fine feathered friends.

If you need to know more, please don’t call me. I can’t explain it either.

Posted on

FTC Releases Mobile Marketplace Report

Earlier today, the FTC staff issued a report concerning consumer protection issues arising in the mobile commerce marketplace. A copy of the full report, Beyond Voice, Mapping the Mobile Marketplace is available by clicking the link. The key findings in the report:

  • Cost disclosures about mobile services continue to generate consumer complaints. The FTC staff intends to monitor cost disclosures, bring law enforcement actions, and work with industry to improve self-regulatory enforcement
  • The FTC and its law enforcement partners should continue to monitor the impact on consumers of unwanted mobile text messages, malware and spyware, and take law enforcement action if and as needed
  • Although spyware and malware are not yet significant problems on mobile devices, the FTC is encouraging development of strategies to prevent or minimize their spread, since the issue is likely to magnify as consumers increasingly use mobile devices for a wider range of applications, including Internet access
  • Increasing use of smart phones to access the mobile Web presents unique privacy challenges, especially regarding children. The FTC will expedite regulatory review of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule to determine whether the rule should be modified to address changes in the mobile marketplace. This review was originally set for 2015, and will now begin in 2010 instead.

Given the numbers of wireless and mobile devices in the hands of individuals under the age of 18 (and 13), and the increasing proliferation of mobile devices, this will become a hotter topic in the months and years ahead. As if this point needed to be emphasized, it has been reported that as of January 2007—two years ago—there were approximately 800 million cars, 850 million personal computers, 1.5 billion television sets, but already 2.7 billion (yes, billion) wireless and mobile devices in use around the globe, with more than 800 million e-mail and 1.8 billion SMS text-messaging users.

The sheer numbers are staggering, and we are on top of this issue big time. Contact Joe Rosenbaum, John Feldman or Douglas Wood if you need more information or assistance.

Posted on

Court Affirms FCC’s Rule Requiring Prior “Opt-In” to Share Customer Data

A U.S. Circuit Court in the District of Columbia has upheld the FCC’s rule that requires telecommunications carriers to obtain prior “opt-in” consent from customers before disclosing their personal information to joint venture partners or independent contractors for marketing purposes. The rule, which was adopted in 2007, covers all Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) and also applies to service providers offering VoIP (Voice Over IP) services to customers. For those who don’t stay updated on what the FCC rules mean by CPNI, it includes information such as the phone numbers called by a consumer, the frequency, duration, and timing of the calls and any additional services the consumer is receiving (e.g., call waiting). Our telecommunications experts expect the FCC to enforce this rule aggressively. If you want to read the case yourself, go to National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. FCC , but if you really want to understand what it means to you, contact Robert H. Jackson or Judith L. Harris in our Washington, DC Office.

Posted on

Better to Lose Face Than Facebook

Facebook, the very informal and ostensibly open social network, hinting at an apology for what its CEO acknowledged were “overly formal and protective” Terms of Service, did an abrupt about-face recently, retracting them and reverting to its old Terms of Service—presumably reacting to a sea of complaints from just about everyone. Complaints? Over legal terms—does anyone still read them? Well, they do, and they didn’t like what they read—particularly the part that claimed unrestricted, perpetual ownership of your personal data, even if you decide to delete your entire account and go away. 

While we respect Facebook’s right to better manage, control, and disclose to consumers how and for what purpose it treats and handles personal data, it highlights a number of things the online world continues to teach us. First, don’t assume those innocuous changes buried somewhere in terms of service, terms of use, privacy policies, codes of conduct, rules of the road, or whatever you choose to call them, aren’t being scrutinized—by consumers, by your customers, by the media and, lest we forget, by regulators and legislators. While Facebook has not admitted it was caught a bit red-faced, it is taking your feedback in a “Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities” group to which you can contribute your thoughts. For those in the know, Facebook’s population has grown to more than 175 million users—does that make it the sixth-largest country in the world? Hmm, I wonder if that country has a growing budget deficit too; we’ll have to wait for the State of the Reunion speech, when results are posted, to find out.

Posted on

Motion Picture Association of America–Shaken, Not Stirred

In what sounds like a James Bond spy caper, an MPAA executive allegedly paid a hacker $15,000 to break into a server and snatch copies of emails. The hacker accomplished the dirty deed and emailed the MPAA dozens of pages of material—ostensibly for use by the MPAA in its copyright infringement action against a company whose servers were involved in file sharing. The MPAA released a statement that “The information was obtained in a legal manner from a confidential informant who we believe obtained the information legally.”

Now a federal appeals court in California is determining if a lower court ruling should re-define online privacy protection by interpreting “intercept” under the 1968 Wiretap Act. The case, Bunnel v. Motion Picture Association of America, revolves around a ruling a year ago that held the hacker didn’t really “intercept” emails because they were in storage—not technically in transit. The lower court ruled the hacker’s “…actions did not halt the transmission of the messages to their intended recipients. As such, under well-settled case law, as well as a reading of the statute and the ordinary meaning of the word ‘intercept,’ Anderson’s acquisitions of the e-mails did not violate the Wiretap Act.” In other words, “grab copies of emails sitting on your server for a nanosecond” and it’s not wiretapping. Stay tuned!

Posted on

Investigating Online & Interactive Advertising

The U.S. Congress appears determined to investigate online advertising. Early this month, the House Energy and Commerce Committee issued a letter to more than 30 companies, and what began as an inquiry into how Internet service providers use network data to target advertising, has morphed into a fishing expedition into all kinds of interactive advertising. Most notably, and despite urging by the FTC to allow self-regulation to take hold, the Committee does not differentiate between personally identifiable information and non-identifying, anonymous data used for traffic metrics, ad insertion and other common advertising purposes. Lumping different kinds of information together could needlessly undermine marketing as it has been practiced for decades. The “tailoring” of advertising, in the Committee’s words, based on consumers’ behavior and media consumption patterns, has been at the heart of marketing for as long as marketing has been around.

More disturbing are presumptions that “privacy” rights are being violated by any and all forms of behavioral or targeted marketing. Advocacy groups opposed to commercial communication seek to promote an implicit, yet fundamental redefinition of personal privacy—i.e., anything that derives from peoples’ activities, no matter how distanced or anonymous. Taken to logical conclusion, any academic, commercial or journalistic observation of consumer activity could fall under regulatory restrictions under such a framework. Not surprisingly, the FTC—with its long history of regulation of advertising practices—has argued before Congress that self-regulation is likely to be an effective means of protecting consumers’ real privacy interests. According to testimony by FTC Consumer Protection Bureau Director Lydia Parnes before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation this July, the FTC is “cautiously optimistic that the privacy concerns raised by behavioral advertising can be addressed by industry self-regulation.” Nevertheless, in the letter released this month and in three previous inquiries over the past few months, both the House and the Senate seem to be searching for a rationale to regulate. Stay tuned.

Posted on

E-Mail. E-Sign. Egad!

The New York Appellate Division has ruled that an email exchange between two parties can amend a contract—even if the agreement specifically states amendments “must be in writing signed by both parties” (Arthur Stevens v. Publicis USA). Here, an employment agreement was the subject of emails between the parties. The court ruled that emails containing the name of the sender in a signature block are a “signed writing” sufficient to amend the contract! Ouch! It is not hard to imagine any email communication with all the elements of a meeting of the minds (“gee, that sounds perfect”), an intent to be bound (“I agree”) and authenticated as attributable to the parties—would fit the argument. Have you looked at your contracts lately? Your outgoing email messages? Our own Peter Raymond and John Webb argued and won this case for our client Publicis USA and have authored a Rimon Bulletin. Our ATM team is working with them to counsel clients on how best to protect themselves in light of this decision.

Posted on

New E-Discovery Rules

With file sizes growing, you would think computers that can rapidly process large files and storage capability would be all the rage. For compliance officers, record managers and lawyers, it’s retrieving the information that is the hot issue and hardly a trivial one. New Federal rules relating to civil litigation took effect at the end of last year, requiring companies involved in federal litigation to produce electronically stored information as part of the pre-trial discovery process. The new rules apply to employee e-mails, instant messages and other electronic, digitally stored information. In the event the companies are sued, legal experts say, companies will need to start worrying about everything in electronic form—from digital photos on employee cell phones to text (“SMS”) messages.

Companies need to have sound record retention and destruction of records policies to ensure compliance with regulatory record-keeping requirements and to avoid potentially massive costs of searching and retrieving information that could and should have been purged. Absent actual or an expectation of specific litigation or a subpoena requiring production of data, companies can purge their systems of information that may no longer be relevant or necessary to their business operations. As the cost of storage has come down, however, companies routinely store information and don’t bother to delete unnecessary information—because it’s easy and affordable to simply keep everything!

The opposite is also an issue. Communication between lawyers and technology folks is less than perfect. A lawsuit arrives, but no one tells data management or systems. Tapes and disks continue to be routinely erased or written-over, with corresponding loss of data. Lots of companies don’t have policies and don’t know what information they have, where it is stored, and who may have, have kept or destroyed copies of information in electronic form. Lack of information is a weakness for lawyers. If you remember the adage, “never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to,” imagine how a litigator for the company will feel blindsided by records she was unaware of or cited by a court for destroying records he didn’t know his client had.

Why pay attention? Because by exercising preventive care, you can avoid potentially huge legal and operational expenses. By crafting and enforcing compliant and well-thought-out record retention and destruction policies, you can avoid high-priced lawyers sorting through email messages about the staff luncheon, and the pitfalls associated with a “smoking gun” needlessly showing up in that pesky lawsuit. Call us. The ATM Legal Team can help!

Posted on

The Truth Shall Set You Free: Deception Gives Rise to Personal Liability

A court has held an individual personally liable to the tune of $17 million for deceptive mail solicitations because of his exercise of control over companies that mailed solicitations, his review of some of these solicitations, and his personal knowledge of customer complaints. If a person is directly involved in the act, has the authority to control them, knew of material misrepresentations or was recklessly indifferent to the truth, or knew there was a high probability of fraud and intentionally avoided the truth, that person can be held personally liable under Section 5 of the FTC Act.