TELECOMMUNICATIONS LAW AND REGULATION

Communications 597B/CCLaw 994

Syllabus (Spring, 2011)

Instructor:

Professor Rob Frieden

102 Carnegie Building

863-7996; E-mail: rmf5@psu.edu

Class Hours: Tues./Thurs. 1:00-2:15 p.m. (258 Katz Carlisle/241 Katz UP)

Office Hours: Monday 9-11 a.m.; Wed. 9-11 a.m. and by appointment

Course Materials:

The readings for the class are available as World Wide Web links and portions of

Benjamin, Lichtman, Shelanski and Weiser, TELECOMMUNICATIONS LAW AND POLICY

(2nd

ed. 2006) and the 2010 supplement (optional as I will provide web links).

Overview

Careers in telecommunications and information processing require interdisciplinary skills

including the ability to integrate an understanding of law with policy making components that

include economics, technology management, business imperatives, the public interest, and

politics. This course aims to present, investigate, and debate ongoing or anticipated conflicts in

specific telecommunications law and policy issues. The resulting confrontations may stem from

technological innovation, real or perceived changes in the marketplace, or the imperatives of

prevailing regulatory, political, and economic philosophies. Conflict resolution often results

from persuasive advocacy, coalition building and accommodation of outsiders with new

perspectives or entrepreneurial visions, rather than solely applying legal precedent. But at other

times, even entrepreneurs, who have devised a superior product or service, fail to achieve market

success, because the regulatory process hinders, or obstructs commerce.

Course Format

We will examine and debate a series of spectrum management, broadcasting, cable

television, common carrier, Internet, resource allocation, and technology planning issues.

Students will prepare for each class by reading the assigned materials and generally taking

responsibility to understand, or pose questions about the positions of all major constituencies and

stakeholders involved. I value class participation very highly. You can bring computers into the

classroom for purposes of taking notes only.

In light of the mixed composition of students in this course, as well as the

interdisciplinary nature of the material covered, you may find yourself at both a comparative

advantage and disadvantage. I will emphasize the legal aspects, but you will find much of the

materials require an understanding of the technologies used. Law students will see elements of

administrative, antitrust, law & economics, constitutional (First Amendment) and other law

2

courses addressed in the cases we will examine. Telecommunications students already may have

reviewed some of our cases, albeit not at the level of scrutiny we will use.

Final Exam or Paper

The final, “open-book” exam for this course will examine issues we have covered

extensively in class. During the exam, you may access any written materials, notes, books, and

outlines. However you may not use any electronic device including cellphones. You may use a

computer as a word processor, but for no other purpose.

In lieu of a final exam, you can prepare and possibly present in class a paper (20-25 pages)

that examines a telecommunications or information policy issue of your choice. You must

review the recent scholarly and trade literature on the chosen paper topic. Your paper should

demonstrate a clear understanding of the primary issues at stake, and it should go further by

suggesting how to resolve problems. In preparing to write this kind of paper you should expand

your search to include case law, journal articles and World Wide Web sites.

The litmus test of a good paper will be whether it makes a contribution to the body of

knowledge on a topic, rather than merely distill what is already available. Please type your

papers. You should comply with the following schedule to ensure ample time to prepare a

worthy project:

Fifth week of classes: Propose a topic in a one paragraph abstract.

Ninth week of classes: Deliver to me an outline and bibliography of primary source materials

you will use.

Introduction to Telecom Law and Policy (Jan. 11, 13)

Assignment:

TELECOMMUNICATIONS LAW AND POLICY [hereinafter TLP] pp. 14-15, 30-37,

198-208, 437-450, 703-711 and 905-917

We begin the course by examining the legal and regulatory classification of all the

different media and services covered in the course: broadcasting, cable television, print,

telephone and the Internet. Traditionally laws and regulations, along with their judicial

interpretation, have used a “silo” based approach that assumes near mutually exclusivity, e.g.,

telecommunications service or information service) applies different regulations. For example,

broadcast regulation impacts content, industry structural and business while telephone, common

carrier regulation primarily addresses price and availability of service. Throughout the course we

will need to keep in mind the impact of technological and market convergence on service-

specific laws and regulations.

Recommended Reading:

3

Susan P. Crawford, Transporting Communications, 89 B.U. L. Rev. 871 (June, 2009).

Anthony E. Varona, Toward a Broadband Public Interest Standard, 61 Admin. L. Rev. 1

(Winter, 2009).

Marvin Ammori, Beyond Content Neutrality: Understanding Content-Based Promotion of

Democratic Speech, 61 Fed. Comm. L.J. 273 (March, 2009).

Jack M. Balkin, Free Speech and Press in the Digital Age, 36 PEPP. L. Rev. 427 (March, 2009).

Richard S. Whitt, Evolving Broadband Policy: Taking Adaptive Stances to Foster Optimal

Internet Platforms, 17 COMMLAW CONSPECTUS 417 (2009).

Kevin Ryan, Communications Regulation--Ripe for Reform, 17 COMMLAW CONSPECTUS

771 (2009).

For background on the impact of converging telecommunications and information

processing technologies see, e.g., International Telecommunication Union, ITU Internet Report

2006, digital.life; portions available at:

http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/publications/digitalife/index.html.

Barry M. Leiner, Vinton G. Cerf, David D. Clark, Robert E. Kahn, Leonard Kleinrock, Daniel C.

Lynch, Jon Postel, Larry G. Roberts and Stephen Wolff, A Brief History of the Internet, Internet

Society; available at: http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml.

Christopher S. Yoo, The Rise and Demise of the Technology-Specific Approach to the First

Amendment, 91 GEO. L.J. 245 (2003).

The Role of the Federal Communications Commission and Its Intellectual/Policy Drivers

(Jan. 18); no class on Jan. 20

Assignment:

TLP pp. 51-66

Recommended Reading:

TLP 2010 Supplement pp. 8-16

Rob Frieden, Adjusting the Horizontal and Vertical in Telecommunications Regulation: A

Comparison of the Traditional and a New Layered Approach, 55 FED. COMM. L.J. No. 2, 207-

250 (March, 2003).

Richard S. Whitt, A Horizontal Leap Forward: Formulating A New Communications Public

Policy Framework Based on the Network Layers Model, 56 FED. COMM. L.J. 587 (May, 2004).

4

Phillip J. Weiser, Toward a Next Generation Regulatory Strategy, 35 LOY. U. CHI. L.J. 41

(2003).

Spectrum Management (technology strategies) Jan. 25, 27

Assignments:

New America Foundation, The Citizen’s Guide to the Airwaves (2003); available at:

http://www.newamerica.net/files/airwaves.pdf

New America Foundation, J.H. Snider, The Cartoon Guide to Federal Spectrum

Policy (2005); available at:

http://www.newamerica.net/files/archive/Pub_File_1555_1.pdf

Dale N. Hatfield, Technical Underpinnings of Spectrum Management, available at:

http://www.gcbpp.org/files/Conferences/Spectrum4-25-

2008/spectrum_hatfield_slides.pdf

TLP pp. 69-77, 83-105;

Recommended Reading:

Thomas W. Hazlett, A Law & Economics Approach to Spectrum Property Rights: A Response to

Weiser and Hatfield, 15 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 975 (June, 2008).

Philip J. Weiser & Dale Hatfield, Spectrum Policy Reform and the Next Frontier of Property

Rights, 15 GEO. MASON L. REV. 549 (2008).

Jerry Brito, The Spectrum Commons in Theory and Practice, 2007 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 1

(2007).

Thomas W. Hazlett and Matthew L. Spitzer, Advanced Wireless Technologies and Public Policy,

79 S. CAL. L. Rev. 595 (March, 2006).

Spectrum Management (administrative strategies) Feb. 1, 3

Assignments:

TLP pp. 67-69, 77-83, 130-142, TLP 2010 supp. 18-28, 42-56, and 28-40 or:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-260A1.pdf (¶¶1-49);

http://www.broadband.gov/plan/5-spectrum/ Secs.5.1, 5.3, 5.6); and

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-132A1.doc. (¶¶1-13, 189-225).

5

Recommended Reading:

Philip J. Weiser and Dale N. Hatfield, Policing the Spectrum Commons, 74 FORDHAM L. REV.

663 (Nov., 2005).

Thomas W. Hazlett, Spectrum Tragedies, 22 YALE J. ON REG. 242 (Summer, 2005).

Kevin Werbach, Supercommons: Toward a Unified Theory of Wireless Communication, 82 TEX.

L. REV. 863 (March, 2004).

Jeremiah Johnston, The Paradise of the Commons or Privileged Private Property: What

Direction Should the FCC Take on Spectrum Regulation?, 4 J. HIGH TECH. L. 173 (2004).

Patrick S. Ryan, Application of the Public-Trust Doctrine and Principles of Natural Resource

Management to Electromagnetic Spectrum, 10 MICH. TELECOMM. TECH. L. REV. 285

(2004).

Broadcast Regulation (economic and structural) Feb. 8

Assignments:

TLP pp. 336-345, 389-392, 403-434

Recommended Reading:

Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr. , The Irrelevant Wasteland: An Exploration of Why Red Lion Doesn't

Matter (Much) in 2008, The Crucial Importance of the Information Revolution, and the

Continuing Relevance of the Public Interest Standard in Regulating Access to Spectrum, 60

ADMIN. L. REV. 911(Fall, 2008).

Sean Michael McGuire, Media Influence and the Modern American Democracy: Why the First

Amendment Compels Regulation of Media Ownership, 4 CARDOZO PUB. L. POL'Y &

ETHICS J. 689 (Aug., 2006).

John F. Sturm, Time for Change on Media Cross-Ownership Regulation, 57 FED. COMM. L.J.

201 (2005).

C. Edwin Baker, Media Concentration: Giving up on Democracy, 54 FLA. L. REV. 839, (2002).

6

Broadcast Regulation (content) Feb. 10, 15

Assignments:

TLP pp. 208-217, 227-237, 254-266, 298-300; TLP 2010 Supp. 57-66, or FCC vs. Fox

Television Stations, 556 U.S. ___ , 129 S.Ct. 1800 (2009); available at:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-582.ZS.html

Recommended Reading:

Sandra Braman, The Ideal v. the Real in Media Localism: Regulatory Implications, 12 COMM.

L. & POL'Y 231 (Summer, 2007).

Philip M. Napoli and Sheea T. Sybblis, Access to Audiences as a First Amendment Right: Its

Relevance and Implications for Electronic Media Policy, 12 VA. J.L. & TECH 1 (Winter, 2007).

Adam Thierer, Why Regulate Broadcasting? Toward a Consistent First Amendment Standard for

the Information Age, 15 COMMLAW CONSPECTUS 431(2007).

Joshua B. Gordon, Pacifica is Dead. Long Live Pacifica: Formulating a New Argument

Structure to Preserve Government Regulation of Indecent Broadcasts, 79 S. CAL. L. REV. 1451

(Sep., 2006).

Emerging Multi-channel Video Programming Distribution Marketplace (Direct Broadcast

Satellite, Cable Television, IPTV) Feb. 17, 22

Assignments: TLP pp. 247-254, 450-463, 463-472, 514-530, 569-585;

TLP 2010 Supp. 97-110, or Alliance for Community Media v. FCC, 529 F.3d 763 (6th

Cir. 2008); available at: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0230p-06.pdf.

Recommended Reading:

Matthew S. Schwartz, A Decent Proposal: The Constitutionality of Indecency Regulation on

Cable and Direct Broadcast Satellite Services, 13 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 17 (Spr., 2007).

Robert W. Crandall, J. Gregory Sidak, and Hal J. Singer, Does Video Delivered Over a

Telephone Network Require a Cable Franchise?, 59 FED. COMM. L.J. 251 (March, 2007).

William D. Rahm, Watching Over the Web: A Substantive Equality Regime for Broadband

Applications, 24 YALE J. on REG. 1 (Winter, 2007).

Telephony Regulation--Tech primer, history, AT&T Divestiture Feb. 24

Assignments:

TLP pp. 713-724, 724-739

7

Telephony Regulation—Rate regulation, incentive regulation and universal service

March 1

Assignment:

TLP pp. 747-769

Recommended Reading:

Howard A. Shelanski, Adjusting Regulation to Competition: Toward a New Model for U.S.

Telecommunications Policy, 24 YALE J. REG. 55 (Winter, 2007).

Jonathan E. Nuechterlein & Philip J. Weiser, DIGITAL CROSSROADS 99-108 (2005).

Telephony Regulation-- Telecommunications Act of 1996—initiatives and failures,

promoting local exchange competition, interconnection and network unbundling

March 3, 15

Assignments: TLP pp. 787-789, 799-825, 828-848, 771-781

Recommended Reading:

Gerald W. Brock, Interconnection Policy and Technological Progress, 58 FED. COMM. L.J.

445 (June, 2006).

Robert C. Atkinson, Telecom Regulation for the 21st Century: Avoiding Gridlock, Adapting to

Change, 4 J. TELECOMM. & HIGH TECH. L. 379 (Spr., 2006).

Telephony Regulation—Universal Service reform, impact of Voice over the Internet

Protocol telephony March 17

Assignments: TLP pp. 863-881, 1028-1047, TLP 2010 supp. 233-244, 244-251

or review: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/03/051069P.pdf;

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/06-1276a.pdf.

Recommended Reading:

For technical background on how VoIP works see Intel, White Paper, IP Telephony Basics,

available at: http://www.intel.com/network/csp/resources/white_papers/4070web.htm; Susan

Spradley and Alan Stoddard, Tutorial on Technical Challenges Associated with the Evolution to

VoIP, Power Point Presentation, available at: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/tutorial/9-22-03_voip-

final_slides_only.ppt.

Linda A. Rushnak, Is Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) Subject to Regulation Under the

Telecommunications Act of 1996? 17 Albany L.J. Sci,. & TECH. 213 (2007).

8

Rob Frieden, Killing With Kindness: Fatal Flaws in the $6.5 Billion Universal Service Funding

Mission and What Should be Done to Narrow the Digital Divide, 24 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT.

L. J., No. 2, 447 (2006).

Milton L. Mueller, Jr., Universal Service: Competition, Interconnection, and Monopoly in the

Making of the American Telephone System (1997). Mark C. Del Bianco, Voices Past: The

Present and Future of VoIP Regulation, 14 COMMLAW CONSPECTUS 365 (2006).

Amy L. Leisinger, If It Looks Like a Duck: The Need for Regulatory Parity in VoIP Telephony,

45 WASHBURN L.J. 585 (Spring, 2006).

Jerry Ellig and Alastair Walling, Regulatory Status of VoIP in the Post-Brand X World, 23

SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 89 (No. 2006)

Stimulating Access to Affordable Broadband Service March 22

Assignment:

National Broadband Plan, Executive Summary, available at:

http://www.broadband.gov/plan/executive-summary/; TLP 2010 Suppl. 185-192, or

review National Broadband Plan, Ch. 8, available at:

http://www.broadband.gov/plan/8-availability/

Recommended Reading:

9

Internet Regulation—which regulatory model applies? March 24

Assignments: TLP pp. 927-935

Recommended Reading:

Kevin Werbach, The Centripetal Network: How the Internet Holds Itself Together, and the

Forces Tearing It Apart, 42 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 343 (Dec. 2008).

Jonathan Zittrain, A History of Online Gatekeeping, 19 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 253 (Spring,

2006).

Kevin Werbach, The Federal Computer Commission, 84 N.C. L. REV. 1 (Dec., 2005).

Jonathan Zittrain, Internet Points of Control, 44 B.C. L. REV. 653 (2003).

Advanced Services Regulation—scope of Title I “ancillary jurisdiction”; regulation of

information services, regulatory asymmetry, further problems with silo regulation, impact

of technological and marketplace convergence March 29, April 5

Assignments: TLP pp. 955-972, 990-1007

Recommended Reading:

Daniel F. Spulber & Christopher S. Yoo, Rethinking Broadband Internet Access, 22 HARV. J.L.

& TECH. 1 (Fall, 2008).

Ryan K. Mullady, Regulatory Disparity: The Constitutional Implications of Communications

Regulations That Prevent Competitive Neutrality, 2 U. PITT. J. TECH. L. & POL’Y 4 (Spring,

2007).

Howard A. Shelanski, Adjusting Regulation to Competition: Toward a New Model for U.S.

Telecommunications Policy.” 24 YALE JOURNAL ON REGULATION 55 (Winter 2007).

International Telecommunication Union, What Rules for IP-enabled NGN?, Workshop (March

23-24 2006); web site materials available at: http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/ngn/event-march-

2006.phtml.

Rob Frieden, What Do Pizza Delivery and Information Services Have in Common? Lessons

From Recent Judicial and Regulatory Struggles with Convergence, 32 RUTGERS COMPT. &

TECH. L.J., No. 2, 247 (2006).

J. Steven Rich, Brand X and the Wirline Broadband Report and Order: The Beginning of the

End of the Distinction Between Title I and Title II Services, 58 FED. COMM. L.J., No. 2, 221

(April, 2006).

10

Class Nineteen: Network Neutrality April 7, 12

Assignments: TLP pp. 1012-1028, Appropriate Framework for Broadband

Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities. Policy Statement, 20 FCC Rcd. 14986 (2005);

available at: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-151A1.pdf;

TLP 2010 supp. 215-219 or review: http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/201004/08-

1291-1238302.pdf; Preserving the Open Internet, GN Docket No. 09-191, Report and Order (rel.

Dec. 23, 2010); available at: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-

201A1.doc

Recommended Reading:

Jennifer L. Newman, Keeping the Internet Neutral: Net Neutrality and Its Role in Protecting

Political Expression on the Internet, 31 HASTINGS COMM. & ENT L.J. 153 (Fall, 2008).

Sascha D. Meinrath &Victor W. Pickard, Transcending Net Neutrality: Ten Steps Toward an

Open Internet, 6 J. Internet L. 1, No. 12 (Dec. 2008).

Philip J. Weiser, The Next Frontier For Network Neutrality, 60 Admin. L. Rev. 273 (Spring,

2008).

Moran Yemini, Mandated Network Neutrality And The First Amendment: Lessons From Turner

And a New Approach, 13 Va. J.L. & Tech 1 (Winter, 2008).

Rob Frieden, Network Neutrality or Bias?--Handicapping the Odds for a Tiered and Branded

Internet, 29 HASTINGS COMM. & ENT. L.J. 171 (Winter, 2007).

Rob Frieden, Internet 3.0: Identifying Problems and Solutions to the Network Neutrality Debate,

1 INT’L J. COMMS. (2007); available at: http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/view/160/86.

Brett Frischmann & Barbara van Schewick, Yoo’s Frame and What It Ignores: Network

Neutrality and the Economics of an Information Superhighway, 47 JURIMETRICS J.

(forthcoming); available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014691.

Barbara van Schewick, Towards an Economic Framework for Network Neutrality Regulation, 5

J. ON TELECOM. & HIGH TECH. L. 329 (Winter, 2007)

T. Randolph Beard, George S. Ford, Thomas M. Koutsky & Lawrence J. Spiwak, Network

Neutrality and Industry Structure, 29 HASTINGS COMM. & ENT. L.J. 149 (Winter, 2007).

Edward W. Felten, Nuts And Bolts Of Network Neutrality, Practicing Law Institute, 24th Annual

Institute on Telecommunications Policy & Regulation, 887 PLI/PAT 317 (Dec. 2006).

Bill D. Herman, Opening Bottlenecks: On Behalf Of Mandated Network Neutrality, 59 FED.

COMM. L.J. 103 (Dec., 2006).

J. Gregory Sidak, A Consumer-Welfare Approach to Network Neutrality Regulation of the

11

Internet, 2 J. COMPETITION L. & ECON. 349 (Sep. 2006).

Christopher S. Yoo, Network Neutrality and the Economics of Congestion, 94 GEO. L.J. 1847

(2006).

Craig McTaggart, Was The Internet Ever Neutral?, paper presented at the 34th Research

Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy, George Mason University

School of Law, Arlington, Virginia (rev. Sep. 30, 2006); available at:

http://web.si.umich.edu/tprc/papers/2006/593/mctaggart-tprc06rev.pdf.

Christopher S. Yoo, Beyond Network Neutrality, 19 HARV. J. L. & TECH. 1, (2005).

Tim Wu, Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination, 2 J. TELECOM & HIGH TECH L.

141 (2005); available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=388863.

Adam Thierer, Are ‘Dumb Pipe’ Mandates Smart Public Policy? Vertical Integration, Net

Neutrality, and the Network Layers Model, 3 J. TELECOM. & HIGH TECH. L. 275 (2005).

Christopher S. Yoo, Would Mandating Broadband Network Neutrality Help or Hurt

Competition? A Comment on the End-to-End Debate, 3 J. on TELECOM. & HIGH TECH. L.

23, 51 (2004).

Mark A. Lemley and Lawrence Lessig, The End of End-to-End: Preserving the Architecture of

the Internet in the Broadband Era, 48 UCLA L. Rev. 925 (2001).

Telecommunications Merger Review April 14

Assignments: TLP pp. 1055-1078; TLP 2010 supp. 259-271 or

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269275A1.pdf; see also,

http://www.cybertelecom.org/docs/attbsconditions.htm; TLP 2009 supp. 234-237, or

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/March/08_at_226.html.

Recommended Reading:

Jim Chen, The Echoes of Forgotten Footfalls: Telecommunications Mergers at the Dawn of the

Digital Millennium, 43 HOUSTON L. Rev. 1311 (Spr. 2007).

The Role (if any) of Antitrust Enforcement in Telecommunications April 19

Assignments: TLP pp. 1091-1096; Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline Comms., Inc. 129 S.Ct.

1109 (2009); available at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/summary/opinion/us-supreme-

court/2009/02/25/162057.html

Recommended Reading:

Philip J. Weiser, Reexamining the Legacy of Dual Regulation: Reforming Dual Merger Review

12

by the DOJ and the FCC, 61 Fed. Comm. L.J. 167 (Dec. 2008).

Timothy J. Brennan, Essential Facilities and Trinko: Should Antitrust and Regulation be

Combined?, 61 FED. COMM. L.J. 133 (Dec. 2008).

Adam Candeub, Trinko and Re-Grounding the Refusal to Deal Doctrine, 66 U. PITT. L. REV.

821 (Summer, 2005).

Howard A. Shelanski, Antitrust Law as Mass Media Regulation: Can Merger Standards Protect

The Public Interest?, 94 CAL. L. REV. 371 (March, 2006).

Joseph Farrell & Philip J. Weiser, Modularity, Vertical Integration, and Open Access Policies:

Towards a Convergence of Antitrust and Regulation in the Internet Age, 17 HARV. L. & TECH.

85 (2003).

Wrap Up April 21