Marvin Ammori

I have a lot of thoughts about the potential merger, which I hope to share when time permits.  For now–I agree with people like Tim Wu and Josh Silver that the government should block the merger.

A Bloomberg story by Todd Shields, which I’ll share here, included a few of my thoughts.

Today, I figured I’d catalog some of the recent press hits for the UNL Space & Telecom Program, a program with which I am affiliated as a law professor at the U-Nebraska College of Law.

We had a stellar conference last week in DC, which resulted in at least six news stories.

Four of them were in the Washington Post and the Post online, and pertained to statements and ideas mentioned in a Keynote Conversation at our conference, on Thursday Nov. 19, between Andrew McLaughlin of the White House and Tim Wu of Columbia Law School.  Numbers 2 and 3 mention the conference by name: (1, 2, 3, and 4).

The Hill covered the keynote opening address by Alec Ross, of the State Department.

I wrote a Huffington Post story about an issue in these stories.

Broadband Census also covered the conference.

Outside the conference, this month, my thoughts were featured both in the Post (about set top boxes) and the Hill (on online shopping and policy).

Apparently, the first Monday after Black Friday is a big online shopping day, as Americans go back to work … and shop online.  Whether CyberMonday is hype or not for retailers, it’s a good day to celebrate Internet openness.

For years, a debate has raged in DC over whether phone and cable companies should be allowed to block, discriminate against, or otherwise interfere with users’ access to everything online.  The millions of people and hundreds of groups favoring Internet openness advocate for a network neutrality law, ensuring this openness.  Many favor net neutrality because of free speech concerns.

But let’s not forget that an open Internet supports American business.  Any company, or person, can sell any products online without permission.  Any person can go to any site–not one with a special deal with the phone or cable company–to buy any gift for any loved one.

It’s for business reasons that net neutrality proponents include Amazon, EBay, Sony, Google, and Expedia. It’s why top venture capitalists argue that, in the 21st Century, investment in new businesses and entrepreneurs–and therefore job growth–rests on net neutrality.

So enjoy the open Internet today–and maybe interrupt your CyberMonday shopping for a moment of work for net neutrality–whatever your day job…

Last week, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Law’s Space & Telecomm Program organized a conference in DC.

Discussions at the conference about  free speech, diplomacy, and foreign policy have resulted in quite a bit of press.  Government speakers mentioned the obvious: that if we don’t protect Internet freedom at home–from public or private gatekeepers–then we undermine our strength abroad in arguing for Internet freedom and for citizens’ increased access to participatory technology tools.

The Hill and Washington Post reported on some statements at the conference, and the Post covered the follow-up debates.

I wrote a post at the Huffington Post about the principle of network neutrality and its influence on our diplomacy and foreign policy objectives.

In addition to prompting this healthy public discussion, we at UNL were fortunate to have an exceptional lineup of influential speakers over two days and were excited that our LLM students could join us–and that an alum, who is now a legal advisor in the U.S. Air Force JAG on cyberwarfare law, was able to present.

Not many hints in the record, but hopefully the confirmation means good things.  I wrote a post about this over at HuffPost.

A CBC article about today’s hearing covered our panel.  The Chairman of Canada’s CRTC seems very bright, thoughtful, and careful, and we received some good questions from members of the CRTC.

I testify on a panel before the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission on Internet issues and network neutrality on Tuesday.

Just want to highlight a study from a few weeks back, since this issue comes up to often.

As you already know, the study concludes,  phone and cable carriers continue to raise your rates on Internet access.  Phone and cable companies also complain that you use the Internet too much so they have to block, slow down, or charge you even more for the online software you love.  But, it turns out, as is the case in high-tech industries, their costs are going down.  Technology gets better, so producer costs go down, and so consumer prices should go down with them.  In fact, abroad, broadband prices went down around the world by 37%, according to the study, while increasing here.  What’s the matter with US?

It’s not technology but policy and market structure.  The study shows that areas with more competitors benefit from lower prices–competitors have to charge less, rather than soak up fat profits.  As their own costs fall, the carriers have to pass those savings onto consumers or be killed in the market.  In the US, thanks to FCC “deregulation” under the Bush administration, we have little competition, high prices, and threats to network neutrality, rather than high-speed, open, competitive offerings.  The magic of the unfettered, concentrated market.

The FTC wants to know how phone and cable companies are using tools to monitor Internet traffic, called deep packet inspection or DPI.  DPI has been used secretly to block Internet applications in the US, spy for advertisers in the US, and crack down on dissent in Iran and China.

My last post was about Obama’s cybersecurity speech and report last Friday.

I wanted to follow up on Obama’s commitment to network neutrality, in that speech.  That quote again (and I won’t get sick of quoting the President’s support for net neutrality): “I remain firmly committed to net neutrality so we can keep the Internet as it should be — open and free.”

This is in a speech about cyberwarfare and cybersecurity, a speech that also included these lines:

And this is also a matter of public safety and national security.  We count on computer networks to deliver our oil and gas, our power and our water.  …

Our technological advantage is a key to America’s military dominance.

How can security be compatible with network neutrality?

Easily.  There is nothing in network neutrality suggesting that security must be sacrificed.  Security is a red herring, introduced those few companies (AT&T, Comcast, etc.) opposing network neutrality.  They have other red herrings.  In fact, an FCC hearing at Stanford last year featured (and dismissed) red herrings–copyright filtering, child safety–none of which are incompatible with network neutrality.

At root, carriers are saying that the Internet can’t provide… security … certainty … that the carriers themselves can uniquely provide such security.  I believe the Internet–through applications on the Internet, created by innovative people using the Internet–can meet these challenges.  We needn’t turn to the carriers–carriers whose track record of innovation pales to that of the open Internet’s competitive landscape–to provide key security.  We needn’t deputize carriers to be private enforcers.

At any rate, as a professor who teaches cyberwarfare law (teaching, in fact, 40 minutes from Strategic Command) and a longtime advocate for network neutrality, I was happy to see our President not get distracted by a red herring when so much is at stake in Internet policy, for our security and for our democracy.