Fans of doing away with FCC exclusivity rules are increasingly likening them to the sports blackout rule as unnecessary because making exclusivity part of retransmission consent agreements with cable operators can accomplish the same thing. The American Cable Association, Mediacom and Time Warner Cable in an ex parte filing posted Tuesday in docket 10-71 and Comptel, ITTA, NTCA and Public Knowledge in a separate ex parte filing the same day raised the analogy in making their cases for rule repeals. Legislative history doesn't support broadcaster arguments for keeping the exclusivity rules, Comptel et al. said. Though broadcasters have pointed to Senate report language from 1991 seemingly indicating lawmakers' wishes that the exclusivity rules stand, that language actually indicates the FCC "should hesitate to change its rules in a manner that would allow distant stations to export their signals to markets where a local station has bargained-for exclusivity," Comptel et al. said. That the 1992 Cable Act doesn't even mention the exclusivity rules -- to the contrary, it makes it clear it doesn't alter the Copyright Act which indicates the FCC might amend or repeal the exclusivity rules -- also is significant, ACA et al. said. Repealing the exclusivity rules wouldn't do this because such a distant station's own contractual agreements likely would ban it, the Comptel group said. The very dearth of exclusivity complaints filed by broadcasters points to the rules being unnecessary for safeguarding broadcasters' contractual exclusivity arrangements with program suppliers, the Comptel group said, saying they more likely "distort the marketplace" by giving encouraging local stations, networks and programmers to continue with the arrangements "instead of exploring new ways to deliver programming to viewers." Minus such rules, local station/network affiliation agreements and local stations' multichannel video programming distributor retrans agreements still limit cable importation of distant signals, the groups said. Minus such rules, networks and programing suppliers still have "ample recourse in the courts" to go after "rogue affiliates" that grant retrans rights to MVPDs without any authority, Comptel et al. said. Meanwhile, "it is perfectly fair" for local broadcasters to negotiate with cable operators for guarantees the MVPD will black out some or all duplicative network or syndicated programming airing on other stations it carries, as well as the means by which the cable operator would identify the programming to be blacked out and the way such disputes would be resolved other than filing a complaint with the agency, ACA et al. said. The Comptel filing recapped a meeting between representatives of the groups and staff in Commissioner Ajit Pai's office. The ACA filing covered a pair of meetings between executives from the cable interests and staff of Pai and of Commissioner Mike O'Rielly.

State commissions should require incumbent carriers to file their VoIP interconnection agreements for review, make them public and make them available for opt-in by competitors, said a white paper released by Gillan Associates and written by economist Joseph Gillan. The paper cites several instances where Verizon failed to disclose VoIP interconnection agreements with state commissions as required under Section 252 of the Telecom Act. Verizon in California revealed it has at least 11 unfiled IP agreements for the exchange of voice traffic with other competitors and wireless carriers, the paper said. The paper raises no new arguments and gets the law wrong, said a Verizon spokesman. The FCC ordered earlier this year that interconnection obligations for VoIP providers are unsettled and the commission has declined to mandate IP VoIP interconnection arrangements, the spokesman said. Gillan said the paper is a synthesis of his work from a variety of state proceedings for his clients.

State commissions should require incumbent carriers to file their VoIP interconnection agreements for review, make them public and make them available for opt-in by competitors, said a white paper released by Gillan Associates and written by economist Joseph Gillan. The paper cites several instances where Verizon failed to disclose VoIP interconnection agreements with state commissions as required under Section 252 of the Telecom Act. Verizon in California revealed it has at least 11 unfiled IP agreements for the exchange of voice traffic with other competitors and wireless carriers, the paper said. The paper raises no new arguments and gets the law wrong, said a Verizon spokesman. The FCC ordered earlier this year that interconnection obligations for VoIP providers are unsettled and the commission has declined to mandate IP VoIP interconnection arrangements, the spokesman said. Gillan said the paper is a synthesis of his work from a variety of state proceedings for his clients.

It's time for Congress to address the application of U.S. law enforcement jurisdiction on cases of foreign data storage and the applicability of issued warrants, said Internet and privacy experts Tuesday. At an American Enterprise Institute event, panelists differed on the ongoing case in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York (see 1406250084), which involves Microsoft's challenge of the U.S. government's ability to access data stored outside the country using a warrant issued in America. But panelists agreed Congress, and possibly the executive branch, should get involved and attempt to resolve some of the underlying issues raised by the case.

It's time for Congress to address the application of U.S. law enforcement jurisdiction on cases of foreign data storage and the applicability of issued warrants, said Internet and privacy experts Tuesday. At an American Enterprise Institute event, panelists differed on the ongoing case in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York (see 1406250084), which involves Microsoft's challenge of the U.S. government's ability to access data stored outside the country using a warrant issued in America. But panelists agreed Congress, and possibly the executive branch, should get involved and attempt to resolve some of the underlying issues raised by the case.

The European Commission vowed to ratchet up privacy talks with the U.S. following Tuesday's rejection by Europe's highest court of the EU-U.S. safe harbor agreement for transfer of personal data. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled safe harbor invalid and ordered the Irish data protection authority to determine whether Facebook's transfer of European subscribers' data to servers in the U.S. should be suspended on the ground that U.S. privacy protections are inadequate. The decision confirms the EC's approach in its negotiations for a new agreement, EC Vice-President Frans Timmermans said at a news conference.

The European Commission vowed to ratchet up privacy talks with the U.S. following Tuesday's rejection by Europe's highest court of the EU-U.S. safe harbor agreement for transfer of personal data. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled safe harbor invalid and ordered the Irish data protection authority to determine whether Facebook's transfer of European subscribers' data to servers in the U.S. should be suspended on the ground that U.S. privacy protections are inadequate. The decision confirms the EC's approach in its negotiations for a new agreement, EC Vice-President Frans Timmermans said at a news conference.

The U.S. and 11 other Pacific Rim nations said they reached a final deal on the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which would affect a range of e-commerce, IP and other areas of trade law. The deal will now go through a technical review before going to the U.S. Congress and other national legislatures for consideration. Although a range of industry stakeholders expressed optimism Monday about TPP, many reserved judgment until they're able to review the final text of the agreement. Members of Congress also raised skepticism Monday about TPP’s final contours. It’s unclear the extent to which TPP’s IP provisions will factor into Congress’ consideration of the deal, stakeholders told us.

At 4:30 a.m. EDT Tuesday, the European Court of Justice will issue its decision on whether the U.S.-EU safe harbor agreement should be rendered invalid. With the ruling coming so quickly after European Court of Justice Advocate General Yves Bot, citing concerns with U.S. government surveillance practices, declared the agreement invalid and recommended it be suspended (see 1509230001), some speculate the court will agree with Bot’s opinion and abolish the agreement. Others don’t think there will be any winners Tuesday and, regardless of how the court rules, they argue privacy reforms must be made. U.S. and EU consumer groups support having the agreement declared illegal and are going to issue a statement after the ruling encouraging the U.S. to enact a comprehensive privacy law that reflects the EU privacy framework.

The U.S. and 11 other Pacific Rim nations said they reached a final deal on the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which would affect a range of e-commerce, IP and other areas of trade law. The deal will now go through a technical review before going to the U.S. Congress and other national legislatures for consideration. Although a range of industry stakeholders expressed optimism Monday about TPP, many reserved judgment until they're able to review the final text of the agreement. Members of Congress also raised skepticism Monday about TPP’s final contours. It’s unclear the extent to which TPP’s IP provisions will factor into Congress’ consideration of the deal, stakeholders told us.