March 2005

• "Telecom Officials Debate How To Regulate Their Industry," TechDaily, March 31, 2005.
  "But Randolph May, a senior fellow for the Progress and Freedom Foundation, argued that horizontal layering is not the 'place we want to be in terms of a policy framework for communications at this point in time. It would be a mistake to take an approach which everyone acknowledges is actually based on these techno-functional characteristics -- capabilities that are designed in terms of functions and technologies used -- and replace that framework with a framework that is also based on another set of techno-functional capabilities.'"
• "Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Brand X Case," Tech Law Journal, March 30, 2005.
  "Randolph May, the Director of Communications Policy Studies at the Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF), attended the oral argument. The PFF supports reversal of the 9th Circuit."
  "He was resigned when he spoke with reporters afterwards outside of the Supreme Court building. He said that 'cable cannot come away from it feeling that they have a slam dunk'. He added that now the cable industry 'may have to get its legislative strategy cranked up'."
  "He added that he thinks that Justice Scalia would follow the statute strictly, and affirm the judgment of the 9th Circuit, while Justice Breyer would likely defer to the FCC."
  "In addition, the PFF's Kyle Dixon, who previously worked for former Chairman Powell, stated in a release on March 25 that 'Consumers benefit most when companies battle to build them the most sophisticated networks possible, not when regulators let companies free-ride on existing networks... Should the FCC lose in Court or on remand to the 9th Circuit,... the result would saddle broadband with regulatory costs, uncertainties and economic distortions, further delaying real choice for consumers.'"
• "Will Cable Quell the Competition?," Wired, March 30, 2005.
  "Randolph May, senior fellow and director of communications studies at the Progress & Freedom Foundation, said it was 'puzzling' that justices didn't ask more questions about whether the FCC was best suited to tackle the definitional questions so central to the case."
  "'The cable industry and the FCC have to be a bit concerned that there wasn't more discussion about deference,' he said. "
• "P2Ps Face Supreme Test," Internet News, March 28, 2005.
  " James DeLong of the Progress and Freedom Foundation, which filed a brief in support of MGM, contends that the 9th Circuit was in error in its interpretation of substantial non-infringing uses."
  "'No one in this case argues that P2P as a technology should be banned. The issue, rather, is the business practices which the file-sharing companies are wrapping around this technology,' DeLong wrote. 'These can and should be the subject of judicial inquiry, and condemned when they create business models that can fairly be classified as deliberately dependent on infringement.'"
  "DeLong added, 'The 9th Circuit focused totally on the need to avoid any inhibition on technology, and in so doing it lost sight of the equally important consumer interest in promoting content.'"
• "Groups Make Final Calls for Favoring FCC Ruling on Cable Modems," Communications Daily, March 28, 2005.
  "Meanwhile, the Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) made an 11th hour plea for the court to 'encourage significant investment in new and existing networks by overturning a flawed circuit court decision.' Cable operators would have less reason to invest in more broadband build-outs if the Supreme Court fails to overturn the 9th Circuit's ruling, PFF Senior Fellow Kyle Dixon said: 'The Brand X case is critical to the FCC's overall policy of enhancing incentives for companies to invest in building high-speed networks.' Consumers benefit most when companies compete to build the best networks possible, not when regulators let corporations free-ride on existing networks, he said. If the FCC loses or the case is remanded to the 9th Circuit, the broadband sector would be saddled with regulatory costs, uncertainties and economic distortions, Dixon added. "
• "Tex. House Passes Telecom Bill, Bans New Municipal Wi-Fi," Communications Daily, March 25, 2005.
  "One opponent of municipal Wi-Fi networks stopped short of applauding the bill's passage Thurs. Progress & Freedom Foundation fellow Thomas Lenard, a strong private- sector network supporter, said, 'If it's so great the private sector should be anxious to do it.' He was referring to Philadelphia, Pa.'s claim that its Wi-Fi network can generate a surplus by undercutting the competition, using the surplus to bridge the digital divide. But Lenard disagreed that a state should ban municipal economic projects, as in Tex. 'if they don't have negative externalities for the rest of the state, and I don't know that this does... If the citizens of a city want to do something, even if it's a stupid idea, they should be allowed to do so.'"
• "Congress Considers Controls for Cable TV and the Internet," LA Weekly, March 24, 2005.
  "From the ACLU to libertarian conservatives, predictions of what the Stevens proposals mean are dire. 'I think Stevens is probably laying the groundwork for another assault on speech online,' Adam Thierer, a senior fellow at the libertarian, free-market Progress & Freedom Foundation, told CNET, the online magazine about the Internet. 'He's obviously pointing the way to other members of Congress, saying that if they want to control the media, they have to start at cable and satellite first, and then target the Internet... This foreshadows the coming debate we'll have over IP-enabled services in the video space.'"
• "The 'dotCommunist'," Chronicle of Higher Education, March 25, 2005.
  "Mr. Moglen's vision is "absolutely crazy," a kind of socialism that won't work, says James V. DeLong, a senior fellow at the Progress & Freedom Foundation, a market-oriented think tank."
  "The notion of software as a public utility is as absurd as the notion of a supermarket as a public utility, he says: 'People should just bring the food and put it there, and then everybody should just come in and take it.'"
• "BitTorrent's Heir? Credence Tool Adds Trust Element to P2P," Washington Internet Daily, March 22, 2005.
  "'What is unfortunate is that copyright holders have to seed P2P networks with decoy files to begin with,' said Patrick Ross, Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) vp-communications. 'I would invite the bright minds at Cornell to develop not software to rescue from spam any P2P user downloading unauthorized content, but instead software that could block those unauthorized downloads.'"
• "FCC Hands BellSouth A Win on Broadband Preemption," TR Daily, March 21, 2005.
  "Ray Gifford, president of The Progress & Freedom Foundation think-tank, took the opposite position."
  "'This seemed like a no-brainer for the FCC to grant,' Mr. Gifford said. 'Federal preeminence in defining the regulatory rules applying to broadband has been consistent since the Computer Inquiries and through the 1996 Act. That states so brazenly attempted to bootstrap their delegated telecommunications unbundling authority onto broadband was the only surprising factor here. This was an appropriate slap-down.'"
• "TV Violence Becomes Lawmakers' Latest Target," Boston Herald, March 17, 2005.
  "The bill exempts premium or pay-per-view services, so shows such as HBO's 'The Sopranos' might avoid regulation. But Adam Thierer, a senior fellow with the Progress and Freedom Foundation, says that just raises the question: 'How much do we have to pay to escape FCC censorship?'''
  "Thierer says the violence twist is the latest in an indecency witch hunt. 'It opens up a really disturbing regulatory Pandora's box of problems,' he says."
• "Rumor No More: Martin Wins FCC Chairman Post," Telecom Web Report, March 16, 2005.
  "Even before the champagne was uncorked, the kudos were beginning to flow from the industry. Members of The Progress & Freedom Foundation were the first to congratulate the unofficial new chairman, and they weren't exactly subtle regarding their agenda. 'First and foremost, it will be important for Martin to demonstrate an appreciation of the way technological developments and new competitive marketplace realities undermine the rationale for continued economic regulation of the telecom industry,' says Randolph May, senior fellow and director of communications policy studies. 'This appreciation should manifest itself in a willingness to assume a leadership role in explaining to Congress, the president, and the American public why we need an updated Communications Act and why the FCC itself needs to be substantially transformed.'"
• "The Grokster Dilemma," The Washington Times, March 15, 2005.
  "Grokster not only makes a profit from the rampant violations of copyrights, it also has actively encouraged such theft. 'It's not the technology that's the issue, it's the business model,' noted Jim DeLong, senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation. 'When the business model is encouraging infringement and relies on it, it's fair to hold them liable,' he added."
• "Waiting for Powell's Successor: Patience us a Virtue," Telecom Policy Report, March 9, 2005.
  "'First and foremost, a new FCC chairman - and any new commissioners, for that matter - should have an appreciation of the way technological developments, and new competitive marketplace realities undermine the rationale for continued economic regulation of the telecom industry,' says Randolph J. May, senior fellow and director of communications policy studies at the Progress & Freedom Foundation. ' This appreciation should manifest itself in a willingness to assume a leadership role in explaining to Congress, the president, and the American public why we need an updated Communications Act and why the FCC itself needs to be substantially transformed.'"
• "P2P Companies Set Stage for Supreme Court Appearance," Internet News, March 1, 2005.
  "The entertainment industry is not alone in pursuing the P2P companies. The U.S. Solicitor General, the Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF), the Business Software Alliance and the Christian Coalition of America all supported the music and movie industries by filing friends of the court briefs."