The Wall Street Journal reported last Saturday about President Obama’s discomfort with the Stop Online Piracy Act. Seems even if it passes Congress, Mr. Obama will veto it.
Is the Obama Administration saying it’s more concerned about protecting content delivered by rogue web sites? If what is currently on the books was effective against infringement on American copyrights, would this legislation have been brought forward? What alternative legislation has the Obama Administration offered?
President Obama pulled a two-fer by also nominating Ajit V. Pai to the Federal Communications Commission. Mr. Pai’s resume is just as blah-ful as Ms. Rosenworcel. Like I said, just black out the names and you could be looking at 100 different lawyers within any communications law shop in D.C.
To his credit, President Obama has managed to nominate a diverse and relatively young bunch to the FCC over the past two plus years, but that doesn‘t put much shine in the cookie cutter either.
Please credit Jenner & Block’s website from which Mr. Pai’s bio is taken.
Ajit V. Pai is a partner in Jenner & Block’s Washington, D.C. office. He is a member of the Firm’s Litigation Department and its Communications Practice.
Mr. Pai has held a number of senior public sector jobs involving communications, administrative, and constitutional law. Immediately prior to joining Jenner & Block, Mr. Pai worked in the Office of the General Counsel of the Federal Communications Commission, where he served since 2007 as Deputy General Counsel, Associate General Counsel, and Special Advisor to the General Counsel. As Deputy General Counsel, Mr. Pai had supervisory responsibility for over 40 lawyers in the Administrative Law Division, handling a wide variety of regulatory and transactional matters involving the cable, Internet, wireless, media, satellite, and public safety industries, among others.
During his time with the Commission, Mr. Pai advised FCC Chairmen of both political parties and a number of current and former Commissioners. He worked with every agency bureau and office on a wide variety of rulemakings, adjudications, and administrative matters, and had significant legal and policy input on virtually every major decision the agency considered, such as Internet network management, wireless spectrum auctions, the Sirius-XM merger, and media and cable ownership questions. He also argued before and prevailed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Inc. v. FCC; was responsible for non-communications legal matters, including privacy, intellectual property, and environmental law; drafted a comprehensive revision of agency rules and procedures; and led the Commission’s response to the broadest Congressional investigation in recent history.
Holman Jenkins wrote a piece in The Wall Street Journal recommending that President Obama’s administration follow the policy path taken by President Richard Nixon over forty years ago. That path called for a more passive approach to antitrust regulation.
Mr. Jenkins sees the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit to block AT&T’s purchase of T-Mobile as not doing much for the economy much less the market for wireless services.
What’s also disappointing, in addition to failing to appreciate the notion of market disruption, is Justice’s failure to properly identify the relevant product market. They think it is mobile wireless telecommunications. It isn’t. The relevant product market is broadband access. Customers are buying these phones to primarily text, tweet, and update Facebook statuses.
Voice is secondary. And when consumers make a market for these broadband access devices and services, they make them at their local MetroPCS, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Boost, and Virgin Mobile stores …
Opponents of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger want President Obama to intervene and persuade the U.S. Department of Justice to stop the transaction.
Let me catch my breath ….okay.
I’ve tweeted before and I’ll blog again. This transaction is about law and economics, something too many of these opponents don’t seem to grasp. Heck. We just celebrated July 4th and these opponents still think we have a king.
What would be the president’s basis for intervention? If antitrust law is not violated by the transaction, do you really expect Mr. Obama to order or otherwise persuade Attorney General Holder to stop a merger?
Besides, two will be doing the tango in the review: the DOJ and the Federal Communications Commission, an last time I checked, the FCC was an independent agency.
In December 2010, the Federal Communications Commission drafted its net neutrality rules. The broadband industry, while understandably anti-regulation, ascertained that FCC chairman Julius Genachowski made an attempt at being middle-of-the-road. In addition, both President Obama and Chairman Genachowski expressed a desire to get rid of unnecessary regulations that may impede the development of business.
Oh well. It looks like the FCC is taking its time on getting rid of some of these rules. According to The Hillicon Valley, major broadband providers such as AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon wrote Mr. Obama and ratted on Mr. Genachowski, claiming that the FCC has not kept its word about getting rid of onerous regulations.
I have to agree with the industry at this stage. I did my own quick review of the FCC’s Daily Digest to see if any deregulatory actions are being considered. Hate to say it, but not a one.
Oh, there are a bunch of consumer side actions, including modifying the high-cost fund so that it can support broadband deployment, but that’s about it. Ironically, if the FCC wants to implement its national broadband plan, it will have to eliminate rules that give the industry no incentive to build out facilities.