Marvin Ammori

On net neutrality, the FCC has all the political cover it could ever want–the President himself, Senator Rockefeller, Congressman Ed Markey, technology companies and other companies in our economy, and notable citizen groups on both sides of the aisle (though even more that tend to be aligned with his party, for whatever that’s worth). Add to that: it’s the right thing. Net neutrality the right thing for our democracy, economy, and global competitiveness. And Americans support an open Internet.

I don’t understand why an independent agency needs so much “cover” to do the right thing. (The Republican FCC had a different philosophy on cover, and got a lot done.) But, if cover is what this FCC wants, cover is what this FCC has had, since the beginning of the Genachowski Chairmanship.

Today, the FCC wakes up with even more of this precious cover. After the Republicans rejected Chairman Waxman’s proposed net neutrality, the Chairman issued an unambiguous, strong endorsement of reclassification and of the FCC adopting net neutrality protections: “If our efforts to find bipartisan consensus fail, the FCC should move forward under Title II.”

News stories are saying the obvious after Congressman Waxman endorsed reclassification yesterday: “Analyst: Waxman endorsement could give Genachowski political cover.”

The move by the powerful chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee gives political cover to the FCC to move forward with “reclassification” of Internet services, which could place cable- and telephone-company broadband businesses under certain telephone strictures.

If the upcoming mid-term election goes as planned, the FCC may have less “political cover” soon. (If that’s how cover works.)

So we should take Chairman Waxman’s move as a powerful statement for the FCC to act promptly. If the FCC acts, and acts decisively for consumers, the FCC’s  past year of net neutrality debate may no longer be viewed as it has been in the press: as weak, dithering behavior by senior FCC officials. It’ll likely be viewed instead as politically fortuitous tactics getting us to this point, where all legislative options are exhausted, and Chairman Genachowski’s hand is unbeatable. (Or, as unbeatable as it can be in DC, where there are winners and losers from rules, and the potential losers fight to the end.)

To use a poker metaphor: it would no longer look as if the Chairman was just folding his cards over and over because he was bad at the game and afraid to play. If he acts now, oddly, it would look as if he knew he needed a royal flush to beat The House (The House is also known as AT&T). It would seem as if the Chairman was reading his opponents all along, trying to find creative ways to make everyone a winner (which was impossible), then playing out the hands to line everything up to protect consumers, and waiting to strike with a royal flush. (Unless he folds or dithers now; then the first reading is the obvious one.) Now he has a royal flush. He could redeem the past year of folding. He can beat the house. Time to play the hand.

Waxman supports reclassification.

This makes sense. After the Comcast case and congressional failure, there’s no other option. That simple.

Chairman Genachowski should act immediately.  All options are exhausted and he needs to fulfill his own pledges, and the president’s, and protect an open Internet.

The Washington Post quotes me today in a story about “cord-cutting.” This is a term used by cable companies to refer to people canceling their cable TV subscriptions and watching their favorite shows through the Internet. This could cost the cable companies a lot of money in cable TV subscriptions.

Cord-cutting is enabled, some think, by people being able to watch TV through devices like AppleTV and Roku, which rely on Internet connections to stream high-quality video onto a big screen in the living room.

The story quotes some of my views and links to a paper I wrote on the topic:

Marvin Ammori, a consumer advocate and professor of communications law at the University of Nebraska, said that even though better content options are available today, cable and telecom firms will be loath to make the best content available online for free. Content firms aren’t getting as much advertising revenue online as they are through fees and advertising from cable firms.

And, in a paper he wrote about “TV Everywhere,” a cable industry strategy to offer content only to broadband and cable subscribers, Ammori said consumers will be reluctant to take up new offerings online.

I have two more thoughts on the day’s news.

First, I think the deal between Hulu (which provides TV content online) and Roku (an inexpensive device allowing you to watch it on your TV) will be good for consumers, whether or not it leads to cord-cutting.

Second, I should note that, whatever the real threat of cord-cutting, cable companies have been frightened of cord-cutting since the dawn of high-speed Internet services.  Time Warner Cable’s CEO made this point recently:

He also noted that Time Warner Cable is not just turning a blind eye to the threat posed by cord cutting. “History is full of corporate managements who were living high on the hog and something came … and they didn’t see it, and all the sudden the world changed,” he said. “We are not in that mode; we pay a lot of attention to this. In fact, pretty much from the day we launched broadband, which is in 1996, we’ve been focused on: ‘Would this become a way that video was transmitted?'”

If that sounds like yesterday’s technology fearing disruptive innovators, that’s what it is. But, f Time Warner Cable responds by innovating in its own right, rather than engaging in anti-competitive actions, consumers would be better off. And I’m guessing, so would Time Warner Cable.

BBC story here:

An Iranian court has sentenced a prominent Iranian-Canadian blogger to more than 19 years in jail, rights groups and Iranian media say.

Hossein Derakhshan was charged with “propagating against the regime” and “co-operating with hostile states”.

He was arrested on a 2008 visit to the country.

He is credited with launching Iran’s blogging revolution. Originally critical of the government, he later supported President Ahmadinejad.

Or a summary of at least the declassified portions.

This is produced by our friends at the Federalist Society–you know, the “conservative American Constitution Society.” (Or vice versa.)

Abstract:

This brief paper summarizes recently declassified provisions of the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative, and the efforts across the federal government to protect the integrity of our nation’s information and communications infrastructure, as of April 2010.

Tim Wu, speaking about Net Neutrality, Verizon/Google, and other big thoughts. Thanks BoingBoing.

I’m confused about something and welcome someone to unconfuse me…

Last month, the United Arab Emirates announced the intention to ban Blackberry data usage because the UAE couldn’t monitor people using Blackberry connections:

The basic dispute involves BlackBerry’s use of satellites rather than domestic routers to send e-mail and text-message data, which makes it harder for a law-enforcement agency or other outside party to monitor. Also, the company encrypts the data and can’t even access it itself.

At the time, the U.S. State Department said the ban would set a “dangerous precedent.”

Today, however, the New York Times reports that federal officials want legislation with the same effect the UAE sought–to monitor all traffic.

Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications — including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct “peer to peer” messaging like Skype — to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages.

Now, there are differences–I would be unsurprised if the US laws (at least on the books) require more legal process for monitoring than do the UAE laws.

But another difference is probably the important one–that was them, this is us. As we grapple with new technologies, and their work through their impact on privacy and security, we should aim for consistency. I see how our officials’ first instinct is to think the UAE’s motives oppose freedom and privacy, while ours merely  ensure security. I’m sure the UAE officials have a different instinct. Unless I’m missing something, we could look hypocritical, something we see here in the open Internet debate, and wisely recognized by senior officials.

Celebrate the Web tomorrow.

Celebrate the Web’s openness on Facebook. Celebrate #onewebday on Twitter.

One. Web. Day. Thanks Susan.

Jack Goldsmith, at LawFare, recommended four essays, on issues like use of force, attribution, cyber command, and general Internet governance and security. Looking forward to reading them.

Josh Silver of Free Press notes the FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski, has wasted a year on empty net neutrality promises. Genachowski’s chairmanship has been unbelievably pathetic and disappointing. He has no major accomplishments of any kind. His net neutrality activity consists of nothing more than big promises and flowery press releases followed by repeated shows of moral and political cowardice.

Free Press also issued this report, listing the empty promises and inaction.