Ms. Buyer is a regular columnist for the THE BULLETIN of the Bar Association of Erie County and is a contributor to No Jitter. Previously, she has written numerous commentaries on telecommunications law for other legal and telecommunications publications including, among others, The Daily Record, Communications Convergence and Computer Telephony. Her articles cover a broad range of topics highlighting current telecommunications issues including federal and state telecommunications policy, litigation, wireless technologies, spectrum policy, FCC initiatives, and industry consolidation. Martha Buyer has also contributed to the ABA Journal Report.
Suppose we’ve been framing the questions associated with municipal--or municipally sponsored--broadband in the wrong way? Suppose the question isn’t whether or not this is a good idea (and there are volumes that have already been written on this topic), but, in fact, who will serve rural and remote areas when the private firms, for any number of good reasons (and some not-so-good reasons) won’t?
On Monday, September 9th, long-time litigants Verizon (among others) and the Federal Communications Commission met for another round in the dispute over the long running battle known as “Net Neutrality.” The two key questions at the root of the ongoing saga are whether providers of internet services can discriminate between those customers that they serve, and whether the FCC—or any entity for that matter--has the legal authority to regulate the internet.
Much of the intellectual energy in telecom policy circles has floated around the challenges posed by the concept of Net Neutrality as cases and challenges worked their way through academic, policy and judicial systems. However, this summer, much of the thoughtful discourse has moved on to the very challenging issue of Privacy which affects almost every single American (or connected global resident) in a way that’s potentially more acute and certainly more real than any discussion of Net Neutrality has ever been.
Regulatory oversight and enforcement power is essential to ensure that something beyond "market forces" shapes the broadband environment.
Mainstream publications from the New York Times and Wall Street Journal to Fortune have all published thoughtful pieces lately addressing the question of whether or not broadband should be regulated as a utility. There are those who argue that, regardless of whether such treatment is warranted or even desirable, it already exists.
Yesterday (June 25, 2014), in a rare unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested.” The key phrase in this initial sentence from the opinion is “without a warrant.” That is, in most cases, cell phones and other wireless devices may be searched for content from an arrested individual only once a warrant has been properly obtained.
Print Article