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.
With new Californian privacy laws taking effect in the new year, enterprises are rethinking their strategy and preparing for similar state or federal regulations.
I’ve written about privacy regulation before. But on January 1, 2020, when the California Consumer Privacy Act takes effect, the importance of managing privacy for California residents and entities will take on a whole new level of seriousness.
A Few in the Big Apple Spoil the Whole Bunch. Listen to this Avaya podcast featuring Martha Buyer.
9-1-1 services in New York City took a hit this week as several members were accused of selling caller information to fake caller center that essential preyed on the most vulnerable of the callers.Targeted were individuals whose addresses reflected their locations in less affluent New York communities, and who likely were not sufficiently sophisticated to realize the scam going on. The calls went through, and first responders were dispatched. What went wrong occurred after the emergency ended and follow up began.
Fletch sits down with APN legal correspondent Martha Buyer To hear about the story, and exactly what happened.
November 9, 2019 | in E-911 This is a guest article written by Adam Bender in which he quotes Martha Buyer
A fight over states seeking to regulate interconnected VoIP could return to the Supreme Court if it reviews the 2017 FCC net neutrality repeal, some experts told us. The court last month denied certiori to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, which appealed an 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that VoIP is an information service exempt from state regulation (see 1910210059). Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch’s concurrence said their court should address in an “appropriate” case an underlying question about if federal nonregulation can pre-empt state regulation. That's seen opening a new path of attack for states.
Following the Supreme Court's decision not to hear a VoIP regulation case, states now have the potential to enact their own laws related to VoIP taxes, surcharges, and fees.
The Supreme Court decision, released on Monday, Oct. 21, not to hear an appeal of a case about whether Charter Advanced Services’ VoIP offering can be regulated by the Minnesota public utilities commission (PUC) has major implications for the communications market.
While validating much of the FCC’s Internet regulation mechanisms, pre-emption and public safety schemes didn’t pass the court’s muster.
With all the presidential drama in Washington of late, it’s often easy to overlook the fact that other government activities are unfolding along much more traditional lines. Such is the case with Net neutrality. A new (but certainly not a final) chapter in this story was released late last month when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its long-awaited decision on the appeal of the FCC’s “Restoring Internet Freedom” order (in my opinion, inappropriately named as it does anything but!).