Month: November 2013

Free Event on IP Transition In Boston Next Tuesday. Come Hear Me Preach.

, ,

Next Tuesday, December 3, the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable will hold a free event open to the public about the whole “transition of the telephone system thing” I keep going on about. As you can see from this flyer here, the event will run from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. at Suffolk University Law School. I’ll be speaking on the last panel — which is generally where the “consumer stuff” gets stuck.

 

As you can also note from the flyer, the list of speakers is practically indistinguishable from a similar event here in D.C., except the moderators are local. So if you have attended any of the various events on this subject here in D.C. in the last 6 months, you are unlikely to miss anything. On the flip side, if you are local to Boston, then you bloody well ought to show up. We’re talking about the future of your phone service.

 

Stay tuned . . .

Cell Phones On A Plane Do Not Deserve The Same Freak Out As Snakes On A Plane

, ,

So it appears people like the idea of using their tablets on planes, but not using cell phones on planes.Or, to paraphrase Samuel L. Jackson, a lot of people do not want mother——ing cellphones on these mother—–ing planes.

 

Whatever the merits of this position, however, we should not ask the FCC to use interference rules for what is plainly a social policy. To the contrary, as the Washington Post Editorial Board rightly points out, the FCC ought to have rules that acknowledge reality. Bluntly, do we really want agencies to lie to us about technology rather than simply own the social policy?

 

For those freaking out over the possibility of adding “Loud Cell Phone Talker” to the airline bestiary along with “Crying Baby Beast,” “Barfy Neighbor” and “Snoring Person That Drops The Seat In My Lap,” I discuss a few things to give you hope before you start shooting out windows to pull cell phones out of planes.

 

More below . . . .

Continue reading

Wheeler Blog Post Shifts Phone Transition Into Second Gear.

,

First a belated welcome Chairman Wheeler. I must warn you that, after Chairwoman Clyburn’s short but extremely productive tenure, you have a very tough act to follow. Mind you, I give kudos for your shrewd opening move of poaching my (now former) boss Gigi B. Sohn for your front office.

 

I will add I am delighted to see another wonky telecom blogger on the scene. Which awkward segue brings me to  Chairman Tom Wheeler’s recent blog post announcing his intent to get an Order out on the transition of the phone system by January.

 

We could characterize the time since AT&T filed their application to “begin a dialog” last year as chugging along in first gear, and this blog post definitely kicks things up into second gear. I outline what I think this means, and where I think we’re going in the next few months, below . . . .

 

Continue reading

Intellectual Property, Jewish Ethics, and Aaron Swartz

,

Last night, I participated in a panel discussion sponsored by the Jewish Study Center and the National Museum of Jewish Military History. Inspired by Aaron Swartz’s death, the panel was to discuss intellectual property in Jewish Law and Jewish Ethics.

 

I’m copying my speech below. I have elaborated a bit in this version for those not familiar with Jewish traditional sources. In particular, I need to emphasize that Jewish tradition does not regard “the sin of Sodom” as relating to sexual immorality. The “sin of Sodom” and therefore “the way of Sodom” disparaged by the Rabbis, refers to excessive love of wealth that causes cruelty and oppression (see this summary piece here). As Netaneal and Nimmer note in this article, the prohibition against behavior considered “the way of Sodom” acts to limit excessive copyright enforcement even for those who regard copyright as creating a form of property right in Jewish law. In my remarks reproduced below, I focused on the moral and ethical dimension of the prohibition on “the way of Sodom” rather than any practical application in Jewish copyright law.

 

Text below . . . .

Continue reading

AT&T/CIA Deal Violates Telemarketing Rules — So I’d Like to Opt Out.

, , , ,

It’s like getting Al Capone for tax evasion.

 

The CIA and AT&T figured out how to get around legal restrictions on giving the CIA access to domestic phone call information, but in doing so they violated a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule that protects you against telemarketing.

 

According to this story in the New York Times, the CIA paid AT&T to provide them with information on calls passing through its international telephone system. Because federal law prevents the CIA from spying inside the United States, the CIA could not legally get info on calls terminating in the U.S. because they are not eligible for any of the mammoth sized loopholes Congress has already punched in the fabric of our civil liberties. But, of course, calls from suspected foreign terrorists (aka “anyone outside the United States”) that terminate in the United States are the most interesting to the CIA.

 

So what’s a poor spy agency and a patriotic mega-Corp who understand that sometimes you have to break few privacy eggs to make a freedom omelet gonna do? According to the article, when a call originated or terminated in the United States, AT&T would “mask” the identity by revealing only some of the digits of the phone number and not the identity. The CIA could then refer this information to the FBI, which can use all those mammoth sized loopholes Congress punched in our civil liberties to get a court order and require AT&T to provide the rest of the phone number and all other relevant identifying information. Then the FBI can kick that back that information to the CIA.

 

Unfortunately for AT&T, this pretty clearly violates the Customer Proprietary Network Information rule (CPNI).  Fortunately for AT&T, it can solve this problem fairly easily by notifying customers of the possibility the CIA might ask for their phone number if they get a call from outside the country and asking customers who don’t want this exciting new service to opt out. Please start with Senator Feinstien and ask her if she wants to opt out of having her international calls monitored by the CIA. Given her legislative track record on this, I’m sure she won’t mind.

 

Some analysis of why this violates the CPNI rules below . . .

 

Continue reading