Dugie Standeford

Competition agreement should be part of next round of World Trade Organization (WTO) talks, European Union (EU) Competition Comr. Mario Monti said Fri. He raised issue with FCC Chmn. Powell and Dept. of Justice (DoJ) officials, he said, and planned to discuss it with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick. EU considers such accord “very important,” Monti said. As more countries create competition authorities, it would be good to include in WTO some agreement on “core principles” such as transparency, nondiscrimination between national and foreign companies, and due process, he said. Competition agreement could include concept of peer review process to ensure that laws passed by WTO members were in line with those principles, as well as some way to foster bilateral cooperation between different antitrust authorities, Monti said. It’s becoming increasingly clear, he said, that growing number of countries now back inclusion of competition framework within WTO that would support introduction and enforcement of competition laws. It’s also important to be clear on what “we do not want” in next round, he said, including having WTO review antitrust decisions made by member states’ respective regulatory bodies. Asked whether he sensed any change in U.S. opposition to competition agreement, Monti said that neither FCC nor DoJ was “particularly inclined” during his meetings to outline future U.S. policies. Other items EU intends to press for, he said, are further strengthening of bilateral cooperation in antitrust matters and global competition forum. European Commission clears “vast majority” of mergers and acquisitions in one month, Monti said, citing Boeing’s recent acquisition of Hughes’s satellite company. That speed and predictability is greatly appreciated by business community, he said.

Restrictive digital broadcasting laws are forcing Australia to focus on expanding broadband access, speakers said March 8 at Internet Industry Assn. (IIA) conference in Sydney, Australia. In panel discussion on “Bottlenecks and Big Fat Pipes: What’s Stopping Broadband?” speakers from Telstra Corp., Internet consulting firm, venture capital company and U.S. IIA said country faced several problems holding up growth of broadband. Telstra is dealing with several asynchronous ADSL challenges, Chief Technology Officer Hugh Bradlow said: (1) Compatibility “rules of the road” had to be developed with regulators. (2) Demand isn’t high because Australians love their inexpensive dial-up service. ADSL appears to be perceived as “the” technology of future, he said, but it’s just start of journey. In any case, Bradlow said, Australia’s broadband deployment isn’t being held back by price. LCH Holdings Dir. Luke Carruthers said Australia could do better than it was doing in deploying large-scale broadband. Telstra is responsible for building proper infrastructure, he said, but it’s beholden to its stockholders. Some blame for slow broadband deployment also rests on govt., he said. Moreover, Carruthers said, Australian culture doesn’t support innovation like U.S. or Israel. Australian financial markets traditionally haven’t backed broadband technology, he said, although that’s beginning to change. Bandwidth is pricey, said www.consult CEO Ramin Mazbani, and it’s necessary to figure out how to pay for it. Moreover, he said, in expanding broadband access, industry must keep in mind what technology is supposed to help users do: Not everyone cares about being online. “Let’s get real about what’s going on,” Mazbani said. USIIA Exec Dir. Dave McClure said discussion really was about residential broadband deployment, not office access, In U.S., broadband demand is “elastic,” based on price. There are also technical problems for deploying broadband. Moreover, he said, U.S. govt. policy mandating universal telephone service means that industry had to go to extraordinary lengths to provide phone lines economically to houses. That was done by multiplexing, he said, which is great for telephony but will have to be completely revamped to deliver residential broadband. Carruthers said that in Australia, large part of broadband problem arises from way other telecom companies are forced to interact with Telstra. While situation can be improved, that’s not end of story, he said. Industry must be able to provide broadband services that improve quality of peoples’ lives, which involves copyright protection, licensing and other issues, not just reshaping regulatory controls, he said.

Copyright holders claimed win Mon. when a federal appeals court refused to overturn lower court order barring Napster from facilitating transfer of copyrighted songs on Internet. “The District Court correctly recognized that a preliminary injunction against Napster’s participation in copyright infringement is not only warranted but required,” 9th U.S. Appeals Court, San Francisco, said in Feb. 12 opinion. However, 3-judge panel sent case back to U.S. Dist. Judge Marilyn Patel, San Francisco, to craft narrower injunction that would: (1) Require Napster to remove infringing material only after record labels notified it of copyrighted works available on Napster system. (2) Force Napster to actively police its service to keep out pirated music. Unanimous, 50-page decision went down line in favor of music labels and against Napster, said lawyer Russell Frackman. Decision “pretty much writes Napster’s epitaph,” said lawyer Chuck Cooper.

U.S. Internet Service Providers Alliance (USISPA) told Congress Thurs. that further deregulation of Bell companies would create more denial of service to American Internet users. Coalition, composed of 800 ISPs, was formed to “educate federal policymakers on the real risks of what the Bell companies are proposing and to warn them that further deregulation will only deepen an already growing consumer crisis,” it said. Phone monopolies are “holding the infrastructure hostage,” USISPA said, infuriating consumers who want high-speed Internet access. What’s needed is not more laws, group said, but better enforcement of those already on books.

FCC called Tues. for public input on how to implement new law that requires schools and libraries receiving federal technology dollars to block access to online child porn and other inappropriate materials. Children’s Internet Protection Act (CHIP), signed into law Dec. 21, prohibits libraries and schools from receiving discounted Internet access, Internet services and internal connection services under Sec. 254 of Communications Act unless they put Internet safety policies in place and certify that they have done so. In its Jan. 23 rulemaking (NPRM), FCC said it sought comments on several issues, including: (1) Whether agency’s conclusion that most efficient way of obtaining required certification would be to modify existing FCC form to include statement that recipient was in compliance with CHIP or that it didn’t apply. (2) Whether FCC Form 486 should be used for CHIP certification. (3) Who should make certifications. (4) When schools and libraries must certify they're in compliance. (5) Whether rules are needed to implement provisions of law that set out procedures for remedying noncompliance. CHIP has been fiercely opposed by industry and civil liberty groups as well as Clinton Administration. Comments are due 15 days after publication in Federal Register -- www.fcc..gov/e-file/ecfs.html. American Library Assn. (ALA) criticized short comment period. “It’s a very complicated issue” and the FCC has allowed only 15 days to comment, ALA Washington Office Exec. Dir. Emily Sheketoff said. Moreover, she said, schools and libraries were required to submit their applications for e-rate discount by Jan. 18. However, their spending plans had to be submitted before law was passed. Those whose plans are approved for funding in June now will have to go back and certify something that wasn’t called for in plan, Sheketoff said: “It’s a basic unfairness you don’t expect from the federal govt.”