DOCSLIB.ORG

Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy: FTC Staff Report June 2007

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy: FTC Staff Report June 2007 b r o a d b a n d connect v ty compet t on pol cy ftc staff report June 2007 Federal Trade Commission DEBORAH PLATT MAJORAS Chairman PAMELA JONES HARBOUR Commissioner JON LEIBOWITZ Commissioner WILLIAM E. KOVACIC Commissioner J. THOMAS ROSCH Commissioner Brian Huseman Chief of Staff Charles H. Schneider Executive Director Jeffrey Schmidt Director, Bureau of Competition Lydia B. Parnes Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection Michael A. Salinger Director, Bureau of Economics Maureen K. Ohlhausen Director, Office of Policy Planning Jeanne Bumpus Director, Office of Congressional Relations Randolph W. Tritell Director, Office of International Affairs Nancy Ness Judy Director, Office of Public Affairs William Blumenthal General Counsel Donald S. Clark Secretary of the Commission Report Drafters and Contributors: Gregory P. Luib, Assistant Director, Office of Policy Planning Daniel J. Gilman, Attorney Advisor, Office of Policy Planning Christopher M. Grengs, Attorney Advisor, Office of Policy Planning James F. Mongoven, Deputy Assistant Director, Bureau of Competition Armando Irizarry, Bureau of Competition Mary Beth Richards, Deputy Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection Elizabeth A. Hone, Assistant Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection Robert Schoshinski, Bureau of Consumer Protection Denis A. Breen, Assistant Director, Bureau of Economics Patrick J. DeGraba, Bureau of Economics Rachel Miller Dawson, Assistant General Counsel for Legal Counsel, Office of General Counsel Lisa M. Harrison, Office of General Counsel Robert B. Mahini, Office of General Counsel Kim Vandecar, Congressional Specialist, Office of Congressional Relations Katherine Rosenberg, Office of Congressional Relations Yael Weinman, Office of International Affairs Inquiries concerning this Report should be directed to: Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Director, Office of Policy Planning (202) 326-2632 or [email protected] This Report represents the views of the FTC staff and does not necessarily represent the views of the Commission or any individual Commissioner. The Commission, however, has voted to authorize the staff to issue this Report. i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................... 1 I: THE INTERNET: HISTORICAL AND TECHNICAL BACKGROUND............................................. 13 A. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT.......................................................................................................... 13 B. MAJOR INTERNET COMPONENTS................................................................................................... 23 C. NETWORK MANAGEMENT, DATA PRIORITIZATION, AND OTHER FORMS OF DATA DISCRIMINATION 28 II: LEGAL AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENTS....................................... 37 A. FTC JURISDICTION UNDER THE FTC ACT..................................................................................... 38 B. FCC JURISDICTION UNDER THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT.............................................................. 42 C. REGULATORY AND JUDICIAL CLARIFICATION............................................................................... 43 III: ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF AND AGAINST NETWORK NEUTRALITY REGULATION..... 51 A. ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF NETWORK NEUTRALITY REGULATION................................................ 52 B. ARGUMENTS AGAINST NETWORK NEUTRALITY REGULATION...................................................... 60 IV: DISCRIMINATION, BLOCKAGE, AND VERTICAL INTEGRATION.......................................... 70 A. LAST-MILE ACCESS CONCERNS CONTINGENT ON MARKET POWER.............................................. 72 B. POTENTIAL PROBLEMS INDEPENDENT OF LAST-MILE MARKET POWER........................................ 76 C. POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF VERTICAL INTEGRATION....................................................................... 80 D. BRIEF SUMMARY AND REMAINING QUESTIONS............................................................................. 82 V: DATA PRIORITIZATION........................................................................................................................ 83 A. WHY PRIORITIZE DATA?................................................................................................................ 84 B. PRIORITIZATION VERSUS CAPACITY EXPANSION........................................................................... 86 C. TYPES AND USES OF DATA PRIORITIZATION.................................................................................. 88 D. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................. 96 VI: THE CURRENT AND FUTURE STATE OF BROADBAND COMPETITION............................... 98 A. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: DIAL-UP SERVICE............................................................................. 98 B. VIEWS ON THE STATE OF BROADBAND COMPETITION................................................................... 99 C. MUNICIPAL PROVISION OF WIRELESS INTERNET ACCESS.............................................................. 106 D. FEDERAL SPECTRUM POLICIES...................................................................................................... 109 E. INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS.................................................................................................... 113 VII: ANTITRUST ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL BROADBAND PROVIDER CONDUCT.................. 120 A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING THE ANTITRUST LAWS......................................................... 120 B. POTENTIAL ANTITRUST THEORIES................................................................................................. 121 ii VIII: CONSUMER PROTECTION ISSUES................................................................................................ 129 A. AN OVERVIEW OF SECTION 5 OF THE FTC ACT..................................................................................................... 129 B. APPLICABILITY OF CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS TO BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS SERVICES.. 130 C. ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO PROTECT CONSUMERS........................................................................................... 136 IX: PROPOSALS REGARDING BROADBAND CONNECTIVITY.........................................................138 A. EXISTING AGENCY OVERSIGHT..................................................................................................... 138 B. FCC POLICY STATEMENT AND MERGER CONDITIONS.................................................................. 141 C. LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS.............................................................................................................. 145 D. OTHER PROPOSALS RELATING TO BROADBAND CONNECTIVITY................................................... 147 X: SUGGESTED GUIDING PRINCIPLES.................................................................................................. 155 A. COMPETITION IN BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS SERVICES........................................................ 155 B. GROUNDS FOR PROCEEDING WITH CAUTION................................................................................. 157 C. CONTINUED AGENCY OVERSIGHT................................................................................................. 161 APPENDIX 1 – BROADBAND CONNECTIVITY COMPETITION POLICY WORKSHOP PARTICPANTS 163 APPENDIX 2 – GLOSSARY OF FREQUENTLY USED ACRONYMS................................................... 165 iii INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background The Internet1 has profoundly impacted numerous aspects of daily life for many people in the United States and is increasingly vital to the American economy. In response to recent debate relating to Internet access issues, Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras announced the formation of the Internet Access Task Force (“Task Force”) in August 2006 and invited interested parties to meet with the Task Force to discuss issues relating to Internet access generally and net neutrality2 in particular.3 The Task Force held a two-day public workshop on broadband connectivity competition policy in February 2007 (“Workshop”) to bring together consumer advocates and experts from business, government, academia, and the technology sector to explore competition and consumer protection issues relating to broadband Internet access.4 The purpose of this Report is to summarize the Task Force’s learning on broadband Internet connectivity in general and network neutrality in particular, as developed from the Workshop, meetings between the Task Force and various interested parties, and the FTC staff’s independent research. 1 As discussed in more detail in Chapter I of this Report, the term “Internet” is commonly used to refer to the decentralized, interconnected network of computer networks that allows computers to communicate with each other. Individual networks are owned and administered by a variety of organizations, such as private companies, universities, research labs, government agencies, and municipalities. 2 The terms “net neutrality” and “network neutrality” have been used to identify various policy concerns and prescriptions raised by diverse parties to the larger social discussion of broadband Internet connectivity. Typically, such terms are identified with positions that recommend, at least, some legal or regulatory restrictions on broadband Internet access services that include non-discrimination requirements above and beyond any
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2016 Ncta Intx May 16Th & 17Th
    A Center for Law, 2016 NCTA INTX Technology, and Entrepreneurship ACADEMIC WORKSHOP at the University Silicon of Colorado MAY 16TH & 17TH latirons WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS Workshop Locations Yochai Benkler, Professor of Law, Harvard University Babette E. Boliek, Associate Professor, Pepperdine University School of Law Monday, May 16, 2016 Adam Candeub, Professor, Michigan State University College of Law Samberg Conference Center - MIT David Clark, Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 6th Floor, Dining Room 5 & 6 Stacey Dogan, Professor, Boston University School of Law MIT Chang Building (E52) Carolyn Gideon, Assistant Professor of International Communication and Technology 50 Memorial Drive Policy and Director of Hitachi Center for Technology and International Affairs, The Cambridge, MA 02139 Fletcher School, Tufts University Ray Gifford, Senior Fellow, Silicon Flatirons, University of Colorado Shane Greenstein, Professor, Harvard Business School Tuesday, May 17, 2016 Christiaan Hogendorn, Associate Professor of Economics, Wesleyan University Boston Convention and John B. Horrigan, Senior Researcher, Pew Research Center Expo Center Gus Hurwitz, Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska College of Law 415 Summer Street Roslyn Layton, PhD Fellow, Aalborg University Boston, MA 02210 William Lehr, Research Scientist/CSAIL, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Directions & Parking Daniel Lyons, Associate Professor, Boston College Law School Information John Mayo, Professor of Economics, Business and Public Policy, Georgetown University
    [Show full text]
  • Akamai Accelerated Network Program FAQ Akamai Accelerated Network Program Frequently Asked Questions
    Akamai Accelerated Network Program FAQ Akamai Accelerated Network Program Frequently Asked Questions Thank you for your interest in the Akamai Accelerated Network What security is there on your boxes? Program. To ensure that you have all your preliminary questions Akamai zealously guards the integrity of our servers. Of course, answered, please review this document. Your Akamai representative we cannot list the steps taken to secure the boxes, but we do have is also available to add more detail or answer additional over 6,000 servers installed in ISPs all over the world, and not one questions that may not be covered. It’s not too late to Accelerate has ever been remotely compromised. Standard security measures Your Network. are taken, such as disabling telnet access, using SSH, turning off daemons not used in production, etc. Server Installation Do you servers work behind a firewall? What do my engineers have to do during the installation? The servers are serving content just as the origin servers – Yahoo!, We ask our partners to simply install the hardware (rack mounted CNN, ESPN, Apple, etc. – would be. The origin servers are not computers and ethernet switches), connect them with the cables behind your firewall, and our servers work best if they are not provided, and finally to assign each computer an IP address and behind your firewall. default gateway. After installation what maintenance and support is Network required? Can we put servers from other content distributors in our The partner is not required to perform any regular maintenance network as well? on Akamai’s equipment.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Legal Document
    Nos. 04-277 and 04-281 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States NATIONAL CABLE &d TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Petitioners, —v.— BRAND X INTERNET SERVICES, ET AL., Respondents. (Caption continued on inside cover) ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION AND THE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NYU SCHOOL OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS JENNIFER STISA GRANICK STEVEN R. SHAPIRO STANFORD LAW SCHOOL Counsel of Record CENTER FOR INTERNET CHRISTOPHER A. HANSEN AND SOCIETY BARRY STEINHARDT CYBER LAW CLINIC AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES 559 Nathan Abbott Way UNION FOUNDATION Stanford, California 94305 125 Broad Street (650) 724-0014 New York, New York 10004 (212) 549-2500 Attorneys for Amici (Counsel continued on inside cover) FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioners, —v.— BRAND X INTERNET SERVICES, ET AL., Respondents. MARJORIE HEINS ADAM H. MORSE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NYU SCHOOL OF LAW 161 Avenue of the Americas 12th Floor New York, New York 10013 (212) 998-6730 Attorneys for Amici TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTEREST OF AMICI ...................................................................1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE.......................................................1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ......................................................3 ARGUMENT...................................................................................5 I. The FCC is Obligated to Promote Free Speech and Privacy When Classifying and Regulating Cable Internet Service........................5 II. The FCC Ruling Allows Cable Providers to Leverage Market Dominance Over the Provision of an Internet Pipeline into Control of the Market for Internet Services.........................................................................8 III Cable Broadband is the Only Internet Service Option for Many Citizens...............................13 IV.
    [Show full text]
  • The Internet As Emerging Critical Infrastructure: What Needs to Be Measured?
    the Internet as emerging critical infrastructure: what needs to be measured? cooperative association for internet data analysis 30 november 2005 presented to lsn jet @ nsf (http://www.nitrd.gov/subcommittee/lsn/jet/) [email protected] outline of talk what is critical infrastructure top problems of Internet historical context (incongruity) what have we learned and how can we apply it? [ case study: scalability (separate talk) ] what we (all) can do to help critical infrastructure what is it? how does it get that way? what are common characteristics? is the Internet one? or will it be soon? what are the implications for public and private sectors? underlying goals: innovation, economic strength, democracy, freedom, health, science, arts, society. it really is about living in a better world... top Internet problems 16 operational internet problems • security • authentication • spam • scalable configuration management • robust scalability of routing system • compromise of e2e principle • dumb network • measurement • patch management • “normal accidents” • growth trends in traffic and user expectations • time management and prioritization of tasks • stewardship vs governance • intellectual property and digital rights • interdomain qos/emergency services • inter-provider vendor/business coordination persistently unsolved problems for 10+ years (see presentations at www.caida.org ) top Internet problems why we’re not making progress • top unsolved problems in internet operations and engineering are rooted in economics, ownership, and trust (EOT). •
    [Show full text]
  • Flooding Attacks by Exploiting Persistent Forwarding Loops
    Flooding Attacks by Exploiting Persistent Forwarding Loops Jianhong Xia, Lixin Gao and Teng Fei University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA 01003, USA Email: {jxia, lgao, tfei}@ecs.umass.edu Introduction • Routing determines forwarding paths X A Y C B Why Persistent Forwarding Loop Occurs --- Example on Neglecting Pull-up Route • Announces 18.0.0.0/16 to the Internet • Router A has default route pointing to B Internet • Router A uses 18.0.0.0/24 only BB 18.0.0.0/16 ute ult ro AA defa • Any traffic to 18.0.0.0/24 18.0.1.0~18.0.255.255 will enter a forwarding ` loop between A and B ` ` Risk of Persistent Forwarding Loops • Flooding Attacks to legitimate hosts X Traffic to X Imperiled Ra Rb Rc Addresses Traffic to Y Y Shadowed Addresses • How many shadowed addresses in the Internet? • How many imperiled addresses in the Internet? Measurement Design •Design – Balancing granularity and overhead – Samples 2 addresses in each /24 IP block • Addresses space collection – Addresses covered by RouteView table – De-aggregate prefixes to /24 prefixes • Fine-grained prefixes • Data traces – Traceroute to 5.5 million fine-grained prefixes – Measurement lasts for 3 weeks in Sep. 2005 Shadowed vs. Imperiled Addresses • Shadowed addresses/prefixes – 135,973 shadowed prefixes – 2.47% of routable addresses – Located in 5341 ASes • Imperiled addresses/prefixes – 42,887 imperiled prefixes – 0.78% of routable addresses – Located in 2117 ASes Validating Persistent Forwarding Loops • Validation from various locations – From Asia, Europe, West and East coast of US
    [Show full text]
  • Telecommunication Provider 5Linx Accessline Communications ACN Communications Services, Inc
    Telecommunication Provider 5Linx Accessline Communications ACN Communications Services, Inc. AmeriVision Communications, Inc. dba Affinity 4 and Lifeline Communications Airnex Communications, Inc. Allvoi Americatel Corporation ANPI Business, LLC fka Zone Telecom, LLC AT Conference, Inc. AT&T Corp. BA Telecom, Inc. BBG Communications, Inc. Billing Concepts, Inc. (Refered us to AT&T as provider) Birch Telcom of the West Inc. dba Birch Communications BullsEye Telecom Cbeyond Communications LLC Century Link Communications Cincinnati Bell Any Distance Consumer Cellular Convergia Cox California Telecom, LLC Cricket Communications, Inc./AT&T Mobility Earthlink Business, LLC ‐ Earthlink, LLC ‐ Earthlink, Inc. Enhanced Communications Network INC. E. / Everything Wireless First Communications Flash Wireless Globalstar USA LLC Granite Telecommunications LLC GreatCall, Inc. dba Jitterbug IBM Global Network Systems IDT Domestic Telecom inContact, Inc. Intellicall Operator Services Intelafone LLC Intermedia Voice Services I‐Wireless LDMI Telecommunications, Inc. Level 3 Communications LightYear Network Solutions Lingo, Inc Los Angeles SMSA Limited Partnership Matrix Telecom, Inc. Mitel Net Solutions Page 1 of 2 Telecommunication Provider MCI Communications Services, Inc. Mpower Communications Corp. Network Innovations New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC NTT Docomo USA Nextel of California nexVortex, Inc. Nobel Tel, LLC OnStar LLC Ooma, Inc. Opex Communications, Inc. Pacific Bell Telephone Company PAETEC Communications Payment One Corp Phone.com, Inc. Pioneer Telephone PNG Telecommunications, Inc. Primus Telecommunications Ready Wireless SBC Long Distance, LLC Securus Technologies, Inc. Sonic Telecom, LLC Sprint Communications Company, L.P. Sprint Nextel/Spectrum Sprint Telephony PCS, LP Talk America, Inc. Telscape Communications, Inc. TING Globalinx Enterprise, Inc. fka Tri‐M Communications, Inc. T‐Mobile West LLC Metro PCS California, LLC Total Call International, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • A Hedonic Model for Internet Access Service in the Consumer Price Index
    Hedonic Model for Internet Access A hedonic model for Internet access service in the Consumer Price Index A hedonic model is presented for use in making direct quality adjustments to prices for Internet access service collected for the Consumer Price Index; the Box-Cox methodology for functional form selection improves the specification of the model Brendan Williams he practice of making hedonic-based The Internet access industry price adjustments to remove the ef- fects of quality changes in goods and The first commercial services allowing users services that enter into the calculation of the to access content with their personal comput- T CPI) U.S. Consumer Price Index ( has to date ers by connecting to interhousehold networks focused primarily on indexes for consumer appeared in 1979 with the debut of Com- electronics, appliances, housing, and apparel. puServe and The Source, an online service In an effort to expand the use of hedonic ad- provider bought by Reader’s Digest soon after justments to a service-oriented area of the CPI, the service was launched. The same year also this article investigates the development and marked the beginning of Usenet, a newsgroup application of a hedonic regression model for and messaging network. Early online services making direct price adjustments for quality proliferated during the 1980s, and each al- change in the index for Internet access servic- lowed users to access a limited network, but es (known as “Internet services and electronic not the Internet. information providers,” item index SEEE03). The U.S. Government’s ARPANET is com- The analysis presented builds on past research monly cited as the beginning of what we in hedonics and makes use of a Box-Cox re- now know as the Internet.
    [Show full text]
  • Registered Businesses Sorted by End Date Based on Registered Business Locations - San Francisco
    Registered Businesses sorted by End Date Based on Registered Business Locations - San Francisco Business Account Location Id Ownership Name Number 0030032-46-001 0030032 Walgreen Co 0028703-02-001 0028703 Vericlaim Inc 1012834-11-141 0091116 Urban Land Services Of Cal 0348331-01-001 0348331 Tran Sandy Dung 0331802-01-001 0331802 Ken Chi Chuan Association 1121572-09-161 0113585 Arch Drafting Supply Inc 0161292-03-001 0161292 Fisher Marie F 0124761-06-001 0124761 Vaccaro Joseph & Maria 1243902-01-201 0306019 Shatara Suheil E 0170247-01-001 0170247 Henriquez Reinaldo 1125567-10-161 0130286 Chador Abraham & Co Inc 0189884-03-001 0189884 Mission Language & Vocl Sch 0318928-03-001 0318928 John W De Roy Chiroprac Corp 0030032-35-001 0030032 Walgreen Co 1228793-07-191 0148350 Willis John P 0310148-01-001 0310148 Blasko Peter B Et Al 0135472-01-001 0135472 Saddul Oscar Allado Md Inc 0369698-02-001 0369698 San Francisco Associates Inc 0189644-02-001 0189644 Neirro Erainya Rodgers G Etal Page 1 of 984 10/05/2021 Registered Businesses sorted by End Date Based on Registered Business Locations - San Francisco DBA Name Street Address City State Source Zipcode Walgreens #15567 845 Market St San Francisco CA 94103 Vericlaim Inc 500 Sansome St Ste 614 San Francisco CA 94111 Urban Land Services Of Cal 1170 Sacramento St 5d San Francisco CA 94108 Elizabeth Hair Studio 672 Geary St San Francisco CA 94102 Ken Chi Chuan Association 3626 Taraval St Apt 3 San Francisco CA 94116 Arch Drafting Supply Inc 10 Carolina St San Francisco CA 94103 Marie Fisher Interior
    [Show full text]
  • Legislators of Cyberspace: an Analysis of the Role Of
    SHAPING CODE Jay P. Kesan* & Rajiv C. Shah** I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 4 II. THE CASE STUDIES: THE DEVELOPMENT OF CODE WITHIN INSTITUTIONS.............................. 13 A. World Wide Web......................................................................................................... 14 1. Libwww............................................................................................................ 14 2. NCSA Mosaic .................................................................................................. 16 B. Cookies ........................................................................................................................ 21 1. Netscape’s Cookies .......................................................................................... 21 2. The IETF’s Standard for Cookies .................................................................... 24 C. Platform for Internet Content Selection....................................................................... 28 D. Apache......................................................................................................................... 34 III. LEGISLATIVE BODIES: SOCIETAL INSTITUTIONS THAT DEVELOP CODE ................................. 37 A. Universities.................................................................................................................. 38 B. Firms...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Akamai 2019 State of the Internet / Security Phishing
    Akamai Security Research: Cybercriminals Using Enterprise-Based Strategies For Phishing Kit Development And Deployment Oct 30, 2019 09:49 CET Akamai 2019 State of the Internet / Security Phishing Akamai Security Research: Cybercriminals Using Enterprise- Based Strategies For Phishing Kit Development And Deployment Malicious Actors Developing Custom Tools and Processes to Target and Leverage the World’s Largest Tech Brands and Victimize Their Users Cambridge, MA -- October 30, 2019 -- Akamai Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: AKAM) today published the Akamai 2019 State of the Internet / Security Phishing: Baiting the Hook report. The research findings indicate that cybercriminals are using enterprise-based development and deployment strategies, such as phishing as a service (PaaS), to leverage some of the world’s largest tech brands, with 42.63% of domains observed targeting Microsoft, PayPal, DHL, and Dropbox. The report details that phishing is no longer just an email-based threat, but has expanded to include social media and mobile devices, creating a wide- reaching problem that touches all industries. This evolving method continues to morph into different techniques, one of which being business email compromise (BEC) attacks. According to the FBI, BEC attacks resulted in worldwide losses of more than $12 billionbetween October 2013 and May 2018. “Phishing is a long-term problem that we expect will have adversaries continuously going after consumers and businesses alike until personalized awareness training programs and layered defense techniques are put in place,” said Martin McKeay, Editorial Director of the State of the Internet/Security report for Akamai. The report shows that cybercriminals are targeting top global brands and their users across various industries through highly-organized and sophisticated phishing kit operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C
    Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band ) ET Docket No. 18-295 ) Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band ) GN Docket No. 17-183 Spectrum Between 3.7 and 24 GHz ) OPPOSITION OF NCTA – THE INTERNET & TELEVISION ASSOCIATION TO PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION Rick Chessen Neal Goldberg Danielle J. Piñeres NCTA – The Internet & Television Association 25 Massachusetts Avenue, NW – Suite 100 Washington, DC 20001-1431 (202) 222-2445 July 29, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 2 I. THE COMMISSION BASED ITS DECISION TO PERMIT UNLICENSED USE IN THE 6 GHZ BAND ON THOROUGH CONSIDERATION OF THE RECORD AND SOUND TECHNICAL ANALYSIS AND ACCORDINGLY ADOPTED APPROPRIATE PROTECTION MEASURES ........................................ 4 A. The Commission Should Reject FWCC’s Claims that It Failed to Take Sufficient Action to Protect Incumbents Against Harmful Interference ..................... 5 B. FWCC Proposes Burdensome Measures to Address Its Harmful Interference Concerns that the Commission Already Considered and Properly Rejected and that Are neither Necessary nor in the Public Interest ................................................. 10 i. The Commission Correctly Decided Not to Codify an Unnecessary Activity Limit for LPI Devices ........................................................................... 11 ii. The Commission Considered and Declined to Mandate Testing Before
    [Show full text]
  • Brief for Plaintiff-Appellant Akamai Technologies, Inc
    I]1111IIIIIIIIIIIIIJllJIfllIIIJJIIIttIHJillIJllllIJlllIlJJJFIIflMMIIJillIlJJIIIJ USFC2009-1372-10 {466256B 1-3FB1-4D3A-A6D4-9850D2 B04CA5 } {117249}{54-110705:110649}{062011} APPELLANT'S BRIEF 2009-1372,-1380,-1416,-1417 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, and THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Plaintiff-Appellant, V° LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC., Defendant-Cross Appellant. App_l's_from"_" __ the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in case nos. 06-CV-11109 and 06-CV-11585, Judge Rya W. Zobel. PRINCIPAL BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ON REHEARING EN BANC Of Counsel: DONALD R. DUNNER KARA F. STOLL ROBERT S, FRANK, JR, FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, CHOATE, HALL&STEWARTLLP GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP Two lntem_ionalPlace 901 New York Avenue, NW Boston, MA02110 Washington, DC 20001-4413 (202) 408-4000 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant The Massachusetts Institute of Technology JENNIFER S. SWAN F1NNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETr & DUNNER, LLP 3300 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94304-1203 (650) 849-6676 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant June 20, 2011 Akamai Technologies, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST Counsel for Akamai Technologies, Inc. certifies the following: 1. The full name of every party or amicus represented by Counsel is: Akamai Technologies, Inc. 2. The name of the real party in interest represented by me is: None ° All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent or more of the stock of the party represented by me are: None o The names of all law finns and the partners or associates that appeared for the party or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this Court are: Donald R.
    [Show full text]