October 2005

• "Telecom Reform, FCC's Role Debated," TR Daily, October 31, 2005.
  "Meanwhile, the group working on the Progress & Freedom Foundation's telecom reform project, which it calls the Digital Age Communications Act, 'is split between having the FCC deal with all complaints of unfair competition or whether states should adjudicate them,' said panelist Randolph May, PFF senior fellow and director of communications policy studies."
• "Agencies," Washington Internet Daily, October 26, 2005.
  "Former FTC Comr. Orson Swindle will lead a new Internet security project at the Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF), the group said Tues. During his tenure at the FTC, which ended this summer (WID May 27 p3), Swindle focused on privacy, security and industry self- regulation. 'An agreed-upon set of private-sector best practices would go a long way toward providing consumers with better security,' Swindle said. PFF will hold its first Internet Security Summit this spring."
• "Writers Side With Google in Scrap," Wired, October 25, 2005.
  "Others have mixed feelings about the service. James DeLong, who heads the Center for the Study of Digital Property at the Progress & Freedom Foundation, a property-rights-oriented think tank, says Google's system seems most appropriate for out-of-print books. 'There's a huge backlog of stuff from 1923 to 1995,' he said. 'Getting anybody to look at them is a really formidable task.'
  "For books less than 10 years old, however, DeLong prefers the opt-in approach adopted by the Open Content Alliance, a project backed by Yahoo and several libraries in which copyright owners must explicitly ask to have their work included in a searchable online archive."
• "First Do No Harm," Townhall.com, October 25, 2005.
  "Adam Thierer, a telecommunications analyst at the free-market-oriented Progress and Freedom Foundation is worried about what's happening in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
  "The principal House committee working on the rewrite of the '96 Act issued a 'working draft' which Thierer warned may be moving in precisely the wrong direction: 'This is not deregulation, this is expanded regulation. This is not 'Hands Off the Net;' this is 'Hands All Over the Net.'
  "To illustrate his point, he analyzed the draft for how many times the legal directive 'shall' appears in the working draft. Thierer's conclusion: 'Search for the word 'shall' in the document [and you will] get a stunning 151 hits. Now, admittedly, not every use of the term 'shall' in the bill is followed by a pro-regulatory proposal. Regrettably, however, most are.'"
• "PFF Blends Local Role Into Federal-State Telecom Proposal," Telecom Policy Report, October 24, 2005.
  "As part of its effort to influence the U.S. Congress on telecom reform with model legislation, the Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) think tank has issued a second draft proposal on a framework for federal and state regulation of communications, revamping some of the jurisdictional and preemption language of its legal posture and adding work on the role of local officials in a future regulatory scheme.
  "Release 2.0 from PFF's Federal-State Framework Working Group devotes about 40 pages to clarifying the role of states in rate regulation; providing two options for competition policy; setting limits on states in regulating social obligations; and positing the appropriate role of local officials in rights-of-way (ROW), franchising, municipal services/network and tax imposition issues."
• "PFF Revises DACA Report to Include Revamped Reg Roles for Locals, States," TR Daily, October 21, 2005.
  "'Thoughtful communications reform requires that we strike a balance between safeguarding core government interests - such as protecting consumers and managing rights-of-way - and ensuring that government does not thwart competition inadvertently,' said PFF Senior Fellow Kyle Dixon, the working group's co-chairman. 'The revised proposal contributes more fodder to a debate that remains critical to bringing consumers better choices in telephone, video, and broadband services.'"
• "Telecom Notes," Communications Daily, October 21, 2005.
  "State regulators could set basic telephone rates for residential consumers but would be preempted from any other rate regulation under a model proposed by a Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) working group. The federal- state working group, one of several in PFF's Digital Age Communications Act (DACA) project (CD June 20 p4), revised an earlier report to clarify such things as state rate- setting authority. The group also recommended 2 models for adjudicating disputes: (1) The FCC would have sole authority or (2) would be able to delegate "unfair competition" adjudication to state regulators."
• "Telecom," Washington Internet Daily, October 20, 2005.
  "The Supreme Court's Kelo v. New London ruling had broad implications for both physical and intellectual property (IP), Progress & Freedom Foundation's Jim DeLong told a House subcommittee on trade and consumer protection. He said the high court and Congress need to reject a distinction between personal and property rights. The Supreme Court's June decision gave local govt. authority to take private land by eminent domain and give it to developers. While the Kelo ruling caused a public uproar, there's a long history of misuse of eminent domain and regulatory power grabs, DeLong said."
  "With his testimony, DeLong entered into the record a paper he wrote that draws a direct connection between real and IP rights. A bill (HR-1201) pending before Congress would take property 'from a bunch of A's and give it to a bunch of B's, only without paying a cent to the A's. And it, too, relies on a test composed of sanctimonious verbiage that could be failed only by the deeply stupid,' he said in the paper."
• "Legislation Can't Keep Pace With Technology," CNN.com, October 18, 2005.
  "Some observers suggest a new communications act ought to be enacted, especially to change the way the FCC regulates the market.
  "The FCC ought to become more like the Federal Trade Commission and only intervene when the consumer is threatened by the market, argued Randolph J. May in a July 2005 article for CNET.
  "'Under the new competition-based standard, the FCC's focus would shift to protecting consumers, rather than competitors, which too often in the past has been its preoccupation,' wrote May of the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a self-described 'market-oriented' think tank."
• "Emergency Alert System Becomes Focal Point Of Feud," TechDaily, October 13, 2005.
  "But Clear Channel CEO Mark Mays said last week that satellite radio companies should be barred from broadcasting local emergency information. "They are not allowed to broadcast local news and information," Mays said at an Oct. 3 luncheon of the Progress and Freedom Foundation."
• "PFF has Transcript of Competition Forum," BPL Today, October 10, 2005.
  "'In a digital era of increased competition among services and across platforms, the existing communications regulatory model based on controlling monolpoly power is no longer relevant,' said the Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) last week in announcing the availability of the transcript of a competition forum the group held June 17th.
  "The public workshop gave members of PFF's Digital Age Communications Act (DACA) a chance to get feedback on a new regulatory framework for the FCC from the group's regulatory framework working group."
• "FCC to Examine Cable Attribution," Communications Daily, October 6, 2005.
  "'Martin understands the lessons that Powell taught us in that regard,' said Adam Thierer of the Progress & Freedom Foundation. PFF said in an FCC filing that there shouldn't be cable ownership limits. 'It is politically more expedient and practical in all likelihood to take each issue individually and see what you can get done,' he said: 'The Hill doesn't have an appetite for this, but the FCC doesn't really have a choice, the court case has basically forced their hand.'"
• "Clear Channel Seeks Latitude," The Atlanta Journall-Constitution, October 5, 2005.
  "Clear Channel Communications Inc., the world's largest radio broadcaster, called on Congress to ease restrictions on station ownership to help it compete with satellite and Internet-based rivals. Congress should increase limits to 10 outlets from eight in markets where 60 or more stations operate and to 12 from eight in markets with 75 or more stations, Clear Channel Chief Executive Officer Mark Mays said in a speech to the Progress and Freedom Foundation in Washington."
• "Clear Channel Wants Owner Limits Eased," San Antonio Express-News, October 5, 2005.
  "'Free radio is struggling. The cost of competing with new technologies and increased listener choice is staggering and profits are down,' Mays said Monday in a speech to the Progress and Freedom Foundation. 'Specifically, free radio needs Congress to relax outdated restrictions on our operations,' he said."
• "Clear Channel Renews Bid to Ease Ownership Limits," Reuters, October 3, 2005.
  "'Free radio is struggling. The cost of competing with new technologies and increased listener choice is staggering and profits are down,' Mays said at a speech to the Progress and Freedom Foundation."
  "'Specifically free radio needs Congress to relax outdated restrictions on our operations,' he said. 'Free radio is not asking for much more room.'"
• "Courts," Tech Daily, October 3, 2005.
  "The Progress & Freedom Foundation and a group of intellectual property professors, among others, have urged the high court to tackle the issues in KSR International v. Teleflex."