DOCSLIB.ORG

2016-10-31-Reply.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2016-10-31-Reply.Pdf TAB 1 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ALEX NGUYEN 1050 Kiely Blvd. #2608 Santa Clara, CA 95055 Proceeding No. 16-242 408-499-4239 File No. EB-16-MD-003 [email protected] Complainant, v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP & AFFILIATED ENTITIES d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS Defendant. REPLY AND LEGAL ANALYSIS October 31, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PARTIES................................................................................................................................1 II. BACKGROUND....................................................................................................................1 A. The C Block Rules and the 2012 Order and Consent Decree......................................1 B. The 2010 and 2015 Open Internet Orders..................................................................11 C. Device Providers Support LTE Band 13 for Compatibility with the Verizon Wireless Network......................................................................................................................11 D. Verizon Dominates Device Sales for Over 141 Million Subscriber Connections......12 E. Verizon Claims Its “Certification” Process Only Tests Network Connectivity..........13 F. Verizon Claims Its “Certification” Process Generally Takes Between Four and Six Weeks..........................................................................................................................17 III. VERIZON INTERFERES WITH CUSTOMERS' ABILITY TO USE THE DEVICES OF THEIR CHOICE..................................................................................................................18 A. Verizon Blocked Asus Nexus 7 Tablets for 22 Weeks................................................24 B. Verizon Blocked Third-Party Apple iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus Devices for 47 Weeks..........................................................................................................................27 C. Verizon Blocked Third-Party Motorola Nexus 6 Smartphones for 29 Weeks............28 D. Verizon Continues to Block Other Compatible Third-Party Devices.........................31 IV. VERIZON IMPOSES DISCRIMINATORY PRICING ON BRINGING YOUR OWN DEVICE...............................................................................................................................33 V. VERIZON INTERFERES WITH EDGE PROVIDERS' ABILITY TO MAKE THE DEVICES OF THEIR CHOICE AVAILABLE TO CUSTOMERS.....................................38 A. Verizon Disables (or Compels Edge Providers to Disable) FM Radio Capabilities...38 B. Verizon Disables (or Compels Apple to Disable) Embedded Apple SIMs.................40 VI. VERIZON INTERFERES WITH CUSTOMERS' ABILITY TO USE THE APPLICATIONS OF THEIR CHOICE AND EDGE PROVIDERS' ABILITY TO MAKE THE APPLICATIONS OF THEIR CHOICE AVAILABLE TO CUSTOMERS.................41 A. Verizon Disables Built-in Tethering Features and Charges an Additional $20.00/Month to Re-Enable Them.............................................................................41 B. Verizon Compelled Customers to Use FamilyBase and Blocked Samsung from Enabling Blocking Mode............................................................................................42 C. Verizon Compelled Samsung to Preload Isis Wallet and Blocked Pay with PayPal..43 D. Verizon Compelled Samsung to Preload Verizon Cloud and Blocked Samsung from Preloading Microsoft OneDrive.................................................................................45 E. Verizon Compelled Samsung to Preload Android Pay and Blocked Samsung Pay...47 F. Verizon Blocked Samsung Internet 4.0......................................................................56 G. Verizon Compelled Samsung to Preload Caller Name ID and Blocked Samsung from Integrating Whitepages...............................................................................................58 VII. VERIZON MISLEADS AND DECEIVES CUSTOMERS BY STATING THIRD-PARTY DEVICES THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH ITS NETWORK ARE NOT......................59 VIII. VERIZON OFFERS VAGUE AND SPECIOUS ALLEGATIONS (INSTEAD OF SPECIFIC EXPLANATIONS) FOR DENYING NETWORK ACCESS............................60 IX. COUNT ONE: VIOLATIONS OF 47 USC § 202(a) AND 47 CFR §§ 8.5, 8.11, AND 27.16 FOR INTERFERING WITH CUSTOMERS' ABILITY TO USE THE DEVICES OF THEIR CHOICE..................................................................................................................61 A. Verizon Denies, Limits, and Restricts the Ability of Its Customers to Use the Devices of Their Choice...........................................................................................................62 B. Verizon Blocked Non-Harmful Devices.....................................................................64 C. Blocking Third-Party Devices Limits Consumer Choice...........................................65 D. Blocking Third-Party Devices Has Anti-Competitive Effects....................................66 E. Blocking Third-Party Devices (that are the Same Models Sold by Verizon) isn't Reasonable Network Management.............................................................................67 F. Verizon Unreasonably Discriminates against Third-Party Devices............................68 G. Verizon's Claim that It Blocked Customers from Activating SIMs for Third-Party Devices to Protect Its Network Lacks Merit...............................................................68 X. COUNT TWO: VIOLATIONS OF 47 USC § 202(a) AND 47 CFR §§ 8.5, 8.11, AND 27.16 FOR IMPOSING DISCRIMINATORY PRICING ON BRINGING YOUR OWN DEVICE...............................................................................................................................71 A. Verizon Disadvantages the Ability of Customers to Use the Devices of Their Choice ....................................................................................................................................72 B. The “No Blocking” Rule Prohibits Discriminatory Pricing.......................................72 C. Imposing Discriminatory Pricing on Bringing Your Own Device Has Anti- Competitive Effects....................................................................................................73 D. Verizon Unreasonably Discriminated against Bringing Your Own Device................73 E. According to Its Own Public Disclosures, Verizon Should've Applied Line Access Discounts for Customers who Brought Their Own Devices......................................73 F. Verizon's Semantic Gymnastics Don't Make Imposing Discriminatory Pricing on Bringing Your Own Device a “Permitted Incentive”..................................................74 XI. COUNT THREE: VIOLATIONS OF 47 USC § 201(b) AND 47 CFR §§ 8.5, 8.11, AND 27.16 FOR INTERFERING WITH EDGE PROVIDERS' ABILITY TO MAKE THE DEVICES OF THEIR CHOICE AVAILABLE TO CUSTOMERS.....................................75 XII. COUNT FOUR: VIOLATIONS OF 47 USC § 202(a); 47 CFR §§ 8.5, 8.11, AND 27.16; AND THE 2012 ORDER AND CONSENT DECREE FOR INTERFERING WITH CUSTOMERS' ABILITY TO USE THE APPLICATIONS OF THEIR CHOICE AND EDGE PROVIDERS' ABILITY TO MAKE THE APPLICATIONS OF THEIR CHOICE AVAILABLE TO CUSTOMERS.........................................................................................76 A. Verizon Limits Customers' Ability to Use the Devices and Applications of their Choice and Edge Providers' Ability to Develop the Devices and Applications of Their Choice...............................................................................................................77 B. Verizon Requested that Applications be Made Unavailable to Customers.................78 C. Verizon Outright Blocked Applications......................................................................79 D. Blocking Applications that Compete against Verizon-Backed Applications Limits Consumer Choice........................................................................................................79 E. Blocking Applications that Compete against Verizon-Backed Applications Has Anti- Competitive Effects....................................................................................................79 F. Verizon Stifles Adoption of Innovative Applications.................................................80 G. Verizon's Practices Are Primarily Motivated by Business Reasons...........................80 H. Tethering is a Device Feature, not a “Service” Provided by Verizon.........................80 I. Verizon Unreasonably Discriminates against Applications that Compete against Verizon-Backed Applications.....................................................................................84 J. Blocking Device Providers from Preloading Applications is Blocking.....................85 K. Even if Edge Providers Try to Offer Devices Directly to Customers, Verizon Can Still Block Them.........................................................................................................85 XIII. COUNT FIVE: VIOLATIONS OF 47 CFR § 8.3 FOR STATING DEVICES THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH ITS NETWORK ARE NOT............................................................86 XIV. COUNT SIX: VIOLATIONS OF 47 CFR §§ 8.3 AND 27.16 FOR OFFERING VAGUE AND SPECIOUS ALLEGATIONS (INSTEAD OF SPECIFIC EXPLANATIONS) FOR DENYING NETWORK ACCESS.......................................................................................86 XV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF.......................................................................................................87 A. Declare that Verizon Willfully and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Industry Perspectives on Mobile/Digital Wallets and Channel Convergence
    Mobile Payments Industry Workgroup (MPIW) December 3-4, 2014 Meeting Report Industry Perspectives on Mobile/Digital Wallets and Channel Convergence Elisa Tavilla Payment Strategies Industry Specialist Federal Reserve Bank of Boston March 2015 The author would like to thank the speakers at the December meeting and the members of the MPIW for their thoughtful comments and review of the report. The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author and do not reflect official positions of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, or the Federal Reserve System. I. Introduction The Federal Reserve Banks of Boston and Atlanta1 convened a meeting of the Mobile Payments Industry Workgroup (MPIW) on December 3-4, 2014 to discuss (1) different wallet platforms; (2) how card networks and other payment service providers manage risks associated with converging digital and mobile channels; and (3) merchant strategies around building a mobile payment and shopping experience. Panelists considered how the mobile experience is converging with ecommerce and what new risks are emerging. They discussed how EMV,2 tokenization,3 and card-not-present (CNP)4 will impact mobile/digital wallets and shared their perspectives on how to overcome risk challenges in this environment, whether through tokenization, encryption, or the use of 3D Secure.5 MPIW members also discussed how various tokenization models can be supported in the digital environment, and the pros and cons of in-app solutions from both a merchant and consumer perspective. With the broad range of technologies available in the marketplace, merchants shared perspectives on how to address the emergence of multiple wallets and the expansion of mobile/digital commerce.
    [Show full text]
  • Android (Operating System) 1 Android (Operating System)
    Android (operating system) 1 Android (operating system) Android Home screen displayed by Samsung Nexus S with Google running Android 2.3 "Gingerbread" Company / developer Google Inc., Open Handset Alliance [1] Programmed in C (core), C++ (some third-party libraries), Java (UI) Working state Current [2] Source model Free and open source software (3.0 is currently in closed development) Initial release 21 October 2008 Latest stable release Tablets: [3] 3.0.1 (Honeycomb) Phones: [3] 2.3.3 (Gingerbread) / 24 February 2011 [4] Supported platforms ARM, MIPS, Power, x86 Kernel type Monolithic, modified Linux kernel Default user interface Graphical [5] License Apache 2.0, Linux kernel patches are under GPL v2 Official website [www.android.com www.android.com] Android is a software stack for mobile devices that includes an operating system, middleware and key applications.[6] [7] Google Inc. purchased the initial developer of the software, Android Inc., in 2005.[8] Android's mobile operating system is based on a modified version of the Linux kernel. Google and other members of the Open Handset Alliance collaborated on Android's development and release.[9] [10] The Android Open Source Project (AOSP) is tasked with the maintenance and further development of Android.[11] The Android operating system is the world's best-selling Smartphone platform.[12] [13] Android has a large community of developers writing applications ("apps") that extend the functionality of the devices. There are currently over 150,000 apps available for Android.[14] [15] Android Market is the online app store run by Google, though apps can also be downloaded from third-party sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Kiosk III ISO 18092 Contactless Device
    Kiosk III ISO 18092 Contactless Device The ViVOpay Kiosk III is a flexible stand-alone contactless reader comprised of a compact controller module and an RFID antenna module packaged individually giving equipment manufacturers flexibility to integrate contactless payment functionality with their host systems. The design approach allows the controller module to be easily installed within minimal footprint and effort in a customer-facing locations. The ViVOpay Kiosk III is certified with most contactless payment programs such as MasterCard® PayPass™ , ExpressPay from American ExpressSM, Visa® VCPS and Discover® DPAS. It also supports Apple Pay, Softcard, and other mobile wallets. In most cases a host system with ViVOpay Kiosk III would be enable with contactless payment functionality without the need to go through lengthy re-certification. The ViVOpay Kiosk III also supports contactless ticketing functionality such as used in most transit systems worldwide as well as NFC mobile phone payments and promotions. It’s powerful ARM processor and remote download capability allows for future scalability and updates. Operators can rest assured that the investment of today will support the developments in contactless payments of the future. Features and Benefits: Square Bezel Antenna • Contactless: Compatible with ISO 14443 Type Small Footprint for applications with A & B Mifare and ISO 18092 NFC compatible limited space or flush mounting. phones. • Applications: Retail drive-thru, ticketing machines, transit turnstiles/fare collection Contactless NFC systems, reload machines for transit system, airport self check-in, parking ticket validation/payment boxes, parking meters and many other inside and outdoor applications. Angled Bezel Antenna For a more integrated application • Flexibility: Controller module and RFID and increased tamper resistance.
    [Show full text]
  • User Guide User Guide
    User Guide User Guide User GH68-42147A Printed in USA Legal Notices Warning: This product contains chemicals known ownership in the Intellectual Property is transferred to to the State of California to cause cancer and you. All applicable rights of the Intellectual Property reproductive toxicity. For more information, please call shall remain with SAMSUNG and its suppliers. 1-800-SAMSUNG (726-7864). Open Source Software Intellectual Property Some software components of this product, including but not limited to ‘PowerTOP’ and ‘e2fsprogs’, All Intellectual Property, as defined below, owned by incorporate source code covered under GNU General or which is otherwise the property of Samsung or its Public License (GPL), GNU Lesser General Public respective suppliers relating to the SAMSUNG Phone, License (LGPL), OpenSSL License, BSD License and including but not limited to, accessories, parts, or other open source licenses. To obtain the source code software relating there to (the “Phone System”), is covered under the open source licenses, please visit: proprietary to Samsung and protected under federal http://opensource.samsung.com laws, state laws, and international treaty provisions. Intellectual Property includes, but is not limited to, inventions (patentable or unpatentable), patents, trade secrets, copyrights, software, computer programs, and Disclaimer of Warranties; related documentation and other works of authorship. You may not infringe or otherwise violate the rights Exclusion of Liability secured by the Intellectual Property. Moreover, EXCEPT AS SET FORTH IN THE EXPRESS you agree that you will not (and will not attempt to) WARRANTY CONTAINED ON THE WARRANTY modify, prepare derivative works of, reverse engineer, PAGE ENCLOSED WITH THE PRODUCT, THE decompile, disassemble, or otherwise attempt to PURCHASER TAKES THE PRODUCT “AS IS”, AND create source code from the software.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pennsylvania State University the Graduate School College of Communications the RISE and FALL of GRANTLAND a Thesis in Medi
    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of Communications THE RISE AND FALL OF GRANTLAND A Thesis in Media Studies by Roger Van Scyoc © 2018 Roger Van Scyoc Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts May 2018 The thesis of Roger Van Scyoc was reviewed and approved* by the following: Russell Frank Associate Professor of Journalism Thesis Adviser Ford Risley Professor of Journalism Associate Dean for Undergraduate and Graduate Education Kevin Hagopian Senior Lecturer of Media Studies John Affleck Knight Chair in Sports Journalism and Society Matthew McAllister Professor of Media Studies Chair of Graduate Programs *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School ii ABSTRACT The day before Halloween 2015, ESPN pulled the plug on Grantland. Spooked by slumping revenues and the ghost of its ousted leader Bill Simmons, the multimedia giant axed the sports and pop culture website that helped usher in a new era of digital media. The website, named for sports writing godfather Grantland Rice, channeled the prestige of a bygone era while crystallizing the nature of its own time. Grantland’s writers infused their pieces with spry commentary, unabashed passion and droll humor. Most importantly, they knew what they were writing about. From its birth in June 2011, Grantland quickly became a hub for educated sports consumption. Grantland’s pieces entertained and edified. Often vaulting over 1,000 words, they also skewed toward a more affluent and more educated audience. The internet promoted shifts and schisms by its very nature. Popular with millennials, Grantland filled a certain niche.
    [Show full text]
  • Mobile Payment
    Telecom & Media Viewpoint Mobile payment Is this the turning point? Mobile payment has been on the agenda of numerous players across industries for more than a decade. Now, with Apple Pay and Google Wallet launched and the markets equipping themselves, mobile payment may finally take off. Is this the turning point in developed markets? Mobile payment has taken off, but not in developed cashless societies early are still in a nascent stage. In Sweden, markets – until now for example, where cash payments decreased to 22% of total transactions, mobile payments still only represented 3% of Mobile payment has taken off on a global scale, accounting for transactions as of 2014. a total of 285 billion USD in 2014 and representing 7% of global A well-known success story in developed markets is the electronic transactions. Arthur D. Little expects these figures to Starbucks mobile payment app. The app was launched in 2011 continue growing at a fast pace, exceeding 800 billion USD and counted 12 million users in 2014, which the firm claimed by 2017. accounted for about 90% of US mobile payment transactions. Figure 1: Global m-payment value forecast [2013-17, bn USD] Other prominent examples are driven by Korea Telecom in South Korea and NTT DoCoMo in Japan. Nevertheless, success stories 823 in developed markets are mostly regionally bound and specific, such that they have not been replicated or extended on a global 605 scale. 426 Nonetheless, Arthur D. Little believes a turning point for mobile payment in developed markets is more likely than ever 285 188 before.
    [Show full text]
  • Apple's Iphone and Ipad: Secure Enough for Business?
    August 2, 2010 | Updated: August 4, 2010 Apple’s iPhone And iPad: Secure Enough For Business? by Andrew Jaquith for Security & Risk Professionals Making Leaders Successful Every Day For Security & Risk Professionals August 2, 2010 | Updated: August 4, 2010 Apple’s iPhone And iPad: Secure Enough For Business? Better Security Options Allow Enterprises To Finally Say “Yes” by Andrew Jaquith with Stephanie Balaouras, Ted Schadler, Benjamin Gray, and Lindsey Coit EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Apple’s iPhone and the iPad have become increasingly popular. In 2007, IT dismissed the iPhone as insecure and unsuitable for enterprises. !ree years later, the iPhone (and iPad) gives enterprises enough security options to enable them to say “yes” instead of “no.” In this report, Forrester de"nes seven security policies every enterprise should implement to keep its email and corporate information safe on Apple mobile devices, whether or not the enterprise owns them. We also de"ne additional security “high-water marks” — policies and processes you can implement — based on your risk pro"le and regulatory exposure. Finally, we acknowledge that while most enterprises can use Apple mobile devices securely, some require higher levels of authentication assurance, resistance to attack, manageability, and logging than the iPad or iPhone can provide. For these customers, Research In Motion’s BlackBerry still rules the roost. TABLE OF CONTENTS NOTES & RESOURCES 2 iPhone And iPad: “No” Is No Longer The Forrester reviewed interactions with 20 Automatic Answer enterprise customers, including seven Forrester 2 Define Your Security High-Water Mark Leadership Board members. We also reviewed documentation and tools from Apple, IBM, Seven Security Policies For Every Enterprise Microsoft, and Research In Motion.
    [Show full text]
  • HPS231 EMV Rest FIN.Indd
    October 2014 EMV and Restaurants: What you need to know Mike English Executive Director, Product Development Heartland Payment Systems © 2014 Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. All trademarks, service marks and trade names referenced in this material are the property of their respective owners. EMV and Restaurants The goal of this white paper is to educate the reader about EMV and the potential benefits of implementing an EMV solution, and to provide high-level information that will guide you to successfully implement EMV for payment acceptance. What Is EMV? EMV stands for the European MasterCard Visa consortium Today, there are more than 1.5 billion EMV cards deployed that developed new payment card technology, utilizing in more than 120 countries on four continents. “By the embedded chips. EMV is a set of standards designed to end of 2015, 70% of U.S. credit cards and 41% of U.S. debit protect debit and credit cards that are accepted at the point cards will be EMV-enabled, says Aite Group.”2 The United of sale, as well as ATM transactions. The EMV standards States will be the last developed country to migrate to EMV. were formed by Europay, MasterCard and Visa in 1993. EMV standards define the interaction at the physical, Accepting EMV at Your Location electrical, data and application levels between an integrated Restaurants are able to accept EMV cards in two ways. One circuit (IC) chip embedded in a plastic card and the point- method is to insert the EMV card into a card reader that is of-sale terminal or device that reads the IC card for integrated in the terminal or PIN pad.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenliteto Edit Master Cashless? Title Style
    Click to edit Master title style Be more profitable! Accept card & mobile payments. Your turn-key cashless & data solution. ClickCashless to edit Realities Master title style Your customers are carrying less cash. 1 in 5 don’t carry any!* *Walker Sands 2014 Future of Retail Study Over 1 billion cashless transactions in the U.S. Mobile Wallet Use is Growing Increasing 11-16% over the next several years. 27% of total workplace market sales are cashless, a 62% increase from 2 years ago.* *Vending Times Industry Research ClickIt’s all to about edit Master profitability title style • Make your vending equipment more profitable & convenient by implementing cashless • Reducing the costs of filling your equipment with integrated remote reporting ClickWith toCashless edit Master You Can title Increase style Sales! 1 You’ve Got To Take It To Make It You won’t miss the sale from a cashless customer. 2 Increase Same Machine Sales On average, the industry is seeing 15% increase in same machine sales after adding cashless. 3 Higher Priced Item Sales Cashless allows you to enhance your product offerings with higher priced (better margin) products. ClickWith Reportingto edit Master You Can title Reduce style Your Costs! • Let technology alert you when you need to visit your machine and use the rest of the time for the things you want or need to be doing • Manage your product sales and cash & cashless transactions online • See what’s selling and what isn’t from your computer or mobile device In short cutting time and expense. ClickWhy Greenliteto edit
    [Show full text]
  • AT&T Inc. Financial Review 2014
    AT&T Inc. Financial Review 2014 Selected Financial and Operating Data 10 Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations 11 Consolidated Financial Statements 42 Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements 47 Report of Management 76 Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 77 Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm on Internal Control over Financial Reporting 78 Board of Directors 79 Executive Officers 80 AT&T INC. | 9 Selected Financial and Operating Data Dollars in millions except per share amounts At December 31 and for the year ended: 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Financial Data Operating revenues $132,447 $128,752 $127,434 $126,723 $124,280 Operating expenses $120,701 $ 98,273 $114,437 $117,505 $104,707 Operating income $ 11,746 $ 30,479 $ 12,997 $ 9,218 $ 19,573 Interest expense $ 3,613 $ 3,940 $ 3,444 $ 3,535 $ 2,994 Equity in net income of affiliates $ 175 $ 642 $ 752 $ 784 $ 762 Other income – net $ 1,652 $ 596 $ 134 $ 249 $ 897 Income tax expense (benefit) $ 3,442 $ 9,224 $ 2,900 $ 2,532 $ (1,162) Net Income $ 6,518 $ 18,553 $ 7,539 $ 4,184 $ 20,179 Less: Net Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interest $ (294) $ (304) $ (275) $ (240) $ (315) Net Income Attributable to AT&T $ 6,224 $ 18,249 $ 7,264 $ 3,944 $ 19,864 Earnings Per Common Share: Net Income Attributable to AT&T $ 1.19 $ 3.39 $ 1.25 $ 0.66 $ 3.36 Earnings Per Common Share – Assuming Dilution: Net Income Attributable to AT&T $ 1.19 $ 3.39 $ 1.25 $ 0.66 $ 3.35 Total assets $292,829 $277,787 $272,315 $270,442
    [Show full text]
  • Weekly Wireless Report WEEK ENDING February 27, 2015
    Weekly Wireless Report WEEK ENDING February 27, 2015 INSIDE THIS ISSUE: This Week’s Stories FCC Adopts Historic Internet Rules THIS WEEK’S STORIES February 27, 2015 FCC Adopts Historic Internet The FCC has passed a historic measure to more strictly regulate the Internet. Rules The new rules, based on the principles of "net neutrality," act to provide equal opportunity for Internet PRODUCTS & SERVICES speeds and access to websites. Swiss Watch Makers The central question was whether network owners -- like Comcast or Time Warner Cable -- can Announce An Activity Tracking discriminate what runs on their cables. The FCC's answer on Thursday was: No. System Designed To Hide The Democratic-led commission approved 3-to-2, split along party lines, to assert extra government Inside Fancy Watches authority over the Internet. YouTube Has A New App Just Now for the wild claims on both sides: "We saved the Internet!" or "We've destroyed it with government For Kids bureaucracy!" EMERGING TECHNOLOGY Don't believe the hype. Take a deep breath. It's a long, tricky road ahead. PhotoMath Brings Its Awesome Math Equation The FCC rules won't be official until maybe summertime. Then major telecom companies will challenge Solving App To Android new rules in court. A judge might put the rules on hold. The next president, if Republican, could let this fizzle away. Comcast Hints At Wi-Fi-Based Mobile Service Following That's why, in the near term, nothing changes. No, Netflix won't suddenly stream any faster. No, AT&T Cablevision's Freewheel and Comcast won't abruptly stop laying down high-speed fiber cables in your neighborhood as Entrance retaliation.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a "Digital Transfer Doctrine"? the First Sale Doctrine in the Digital
    Copyright 2015 by Sarah Reis Printed in U.S.A. Vol. 109, No. 1 Notes and Comments TOWARD A “DIGITAL TRANSFER DOCTRINE”? THE FIRST SALE DOCTRINE IN THE DIGITAL ERA Sarah Reis ABSTRACT—The first sale doctrine in copyright law allows a person who owns a copy of a copyrighted work to sell, lend, or give away the copy to someone else. An owner of a copy of a copyrighted work can take advantage of the first sale doctrine, but a licensee cannot. In today’s digital environment, people are increasingly purchasing digital music files and e-books instead of CDs and physical books. Customers often mistakenly believe they become owners of the digital content they purchase when in actuality they merely become licensees most of the time. Licensing agreements impose use restrictions on digital content. As licensees, customers are unable to invoke the first sale doctrine and legally resell or transfer their digital content to others. This Note explores the feasibility of applying the first sale doctrine to digital content and concludes that a better solution would be to operate a digital secondary marketplace outside the scope of the first sale doctrine. This solution is referred to as a “digital transfer doctrine.” A digital secondary marketplace that provides a portion of revenues from secondary sales to the copyright holders most effectively balances the interests of both consumers and copyright holders. AUTHOR—J.D. Candidate, Northwestern University School of Law, 2015; B.A., University of Wisconsin, 2009. I would like to thank Professor Andrew Koppelman for his suggestions and the Northwestern University Law Review editors and staff members.
    [Show full text]