SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Summer Interns

IP-Watch interns talk about their Geneva experience in summer 2013. 2:42.

Inside Views

Submit ideas to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch!

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Latest Comments
  • So simply put, we have the NABP saying that all ph... »
  • The original Brustle decision was widely criticise... »

  • For IPW Subscribers

    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >


    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >

    US Advisory Group Looks At FCC Net Neutrality Principles As Decision Looms

    Published on 29 May 2010 @ 7:55 am

    By for Intellectual Property Watch

    A technical advisory group is working to drill down on key issues surrounding the US Federal Communications Commission’s proposed internet neutrality principles, but the agency is prepared to make a final decision in the end about how those principles are implemented, a senior FCC official said Thursday.

    FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in December requested such a group to discuss issues such as “reasonable network management,” how network providers deal with viruses and malware, denial-of-service attacks, unlawful content, congestion, quality of service, and the distinction between managed services and public internet access.

    During a Broadband Industry Practices National Town Hall Webcast Debate On Net Neutrality sponsored by Broadband US TV, TV Mainstream and National League of Cities TV, Julius Knapp, chief of the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, said service provider entities such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, as well as individuals from academia, public interest groups, and the standards community, are involved in such talks. The FCC’s suggested open internet access rules are proposed to be platform-neutral but there are some technical differences between platforms – e.g., capacity constraints with wireless networks on a spectrum-based service – that need to be considered.

    Asked whether he was optimistic that the group could voluntarily come up with solutions to these problems, Knapp said the charge for the group is not necessarily to develop a consensus.

    “It’s hard to say whether we will reach a point that everybody is seeing it the same way. And candidly, there are some different points of view,” he said. In the end, most parties may agree on certain issues, but on others, the FCC “may have to make a decision as to how things are implemented.”

    In April, a Washington, DC circuit court said the FCC did not have authority to regulate Comcast’s network management. After the Comcast decision, questions arose whether the FCC could restore its authority over broadband and internet access if it reclassified access as a telecommunications service. The FCC proposes to do this under what it refers to as its “third way.”

    The so-called “third way”, unveiled this month, is a proposed legal framework for how the FCC wants to address the Comcast decision. It would, in part: recognise only the transmission component of broadband access service as a telecommunications service; and apply certain provisions of Title II of the Communications Act that, prior to the Comcast decision, were widely believed to be within the FCC’s purview for broadband. Portions of Title II give the FCC direct authority over entities providing “telecommunications services.”

    “From the consumer’s perspective … this is really the only reasonable way to view the service,” explained FCC General Counsel Austin Schlick. “It allows the user to get where they want to go on the internet and, in addition, provides some information.”

    The FCC would keep the information (content) component unregulated but would use 1996 congressional authority given to the agency to apply common carrier rules of Title II to broadband policies regarding universal service, and privacy protections, Schlick said.

    A group of key Democratic senators and congressmen on 24 May announced that they will “start a process to develop proposals” to update the Communications Act. The first step will be to invite stakeholders to participate in a series of “bipartisan, issue-focused meetings” beginning in June. A list of topics for discussion and details will follow.

    On Thursday, stakeholder groups were asked what’s at stake as the agency debates just how much regulation should be imposed.

    “What’s really at stake here is, now that we all depend on the internet, how is it going to keep growing?” asked Harold Feld, legal director of Public Knowledge.

    He cited recent US headlines like the Wall Street financial meltdown and BP oil spills as other examples where, when left completely up to industry alone, disaster may happen.

    “When something really bad happens you need some clear rules … to make sure everybody knows what they’re getting and everybody expects to get what they paid for,” he said. With the US being critically dependent on broadband, he added, “how happy are we just rolling the dice?”

    C. Lincoln Hoewing, assistant vice president of internet and technology issues for Verizon, said industry is not saying there is no role for government, just that its role needs to be one that encourages investment and fits today’s modern technologies.

    Meanwhile, Congressional Representative Cliff Stearns, a Florida Republican, introduced a bill this month that requires the FCC to conduct a market analysis and prove a market failure exists before mandating new network regulations. Stearns called Genachowski’s decision to recognise broadband as a Title II service – allowing the FCC to impose regulations – a “partisan manoeuvre to regulate the internet.”

    “Net regulation will discourage investment and innovation precisely when we need it most, especially in light of our push to increase broadband deployment,” he added.

    That bill is being met with criticism from group such as Free Press, which called the bill a “political stunt.”

    The bill “actually includes a requirement that any future network neutrality rule be applied to all websites and internet content, not just to the physical infrastructure of broadband networks. In other words, with this bill Representative Stearns literally seeks to create a fairness doctrine for the internet,” said Free Press Research Director S. Derek Turner.

    On 26 May, Rep. Mike Doyle, a Pennsylvania Democrat, sent a letter to Genachowski regarding the “third way,” and urged the FCC to reclassify residential broadband services as Title II telecommunications services. He also said Congress should review and update the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

    Liza Porteus Viana may be reached at lizapviana@gmail.com.

     

    Comments

    1. L e x V i r t u a l i s » Архів » Нейтральність мережі says:

      [...] та актуальне дослідження нейтральності мережі опублікувала дорадча група FCC (Federal Communications Commission) — [...]


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

     

     
    Your IP address is 54.83.230.137