8/16. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released report [30 pages in PDF] on August 17, 2010, titled "Broadband Performance: OBI Technical Paper No. 4".

It finds that broadband speeds continue to increase rapidly every year, that actual speeds lag advertised speeds by 50%, and that there should be a better broadband performance measure.

This paper states that "Median advertised broadband speeds in the United States increased from 800 kbps in 1997 to 7 Mbps in 2009 ... Historical speed growth indicates a doubling of speed roughly every four years for broadband technologies. Including dial-up, data indicate a doubling in speed roughly every two years for Internet access ... Importantly, this speed increase has continued as strongly in the last few years as it did with the introduction of widespread broadband in the late 1990s". (Footnotes omitted.)

It also finds that "the median actual speed consumers experienced in the first half of 2009 was roughly 3 Mbps, while the average (mean) actual speed was approximately 4 Mbps. Therefore actual download speeds experienced by U.S. consumers appear to lag advertised speeds by roughly 50%." (Parentheses in original.)

It argues that "consumers need a better, publicly agreed upon measure of broadband performance that reflects the network operation and end-user experience".

8/11. The Pew Internet and American Life Project released a public opinion survey based report [PDF] that finds that a majority of Americans do not believe that promoting broadband adoption should be an important government priority.

The report states that "By a 53%-41% margin, Americans say they do not believe that the spread of affordable broadband should be a major government priority. Contrary to what some might suspect, non-internet users are less likely than current users to say the government should place a high priority on the spread of high-speed connections."

Pew asked 2,252 adults by telephone between April 29 and May 30, 2010, the following question: "Do you think that expanding affordable highspeed internet access to everyone in the country should be a top priority for the federal government, important but a lower priority, not too important, or should it not be done?"

Pew reported that "26% of Americans say that expansion of affordable broadband access should not be attempted by government", "27% said it was ``not too important´´ a priority", "30% said it was an important priority", and "11% said it should be a top priority".

Recently, a study conducted by the FCC found that 50% of survey respondents are very satisfied, and another 41% are somewhat satisfied, with the speed of their home broadband internet access. See, June 4, 2010, report titled "Americans' perspectives on online connection speeds for home and mobile devices", and story titled "FCC Paper States Consumers are Satisfied with Broadband Speeds and Cell Phone Service" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,092, June 4, 2010.

The FCC released a staff report [376 pages in PDF] on March 15, 2010, titled "A National Broadband Plan for Our Future". It found that 95 percent of the U.S. population has access to a 4 Mbps/1 Mbps terrestrial broadband service, and 80 percent have choice of broadband offerings.

The latest Pew report, combined with the FCC's own reports, show that 95% of Americans have access to broadband, 91% of Americans with broadband are satisfied with their broadband speeds, and that broadband speeds continue to increase rapidly every year. Moreover, most of those American who don't subscribe to broadband don't think their adoption should be an important government priority.

There is a disconnect between the FCC Chairman's broadband regulation efforts, and Americans' actual access to and attitudes about broadband. Chairman Genachowski is working to impose new universal service rules, and new rules for broadband internet access providers, based in part upon his assertion that broadband adoption should be an important government priority.

Moreover, Chairman Genachowski, along with Commissioners Copps and Clyburn, voted last month to approve the FCC's latest Section 706 report [143 pages in PDF] to Congress on the "availability of advanced telecommunications capability". That report stated that advanced telecommunications capability is not being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion, and that Section 706 mandates that the FCC take immediate action to accelerate deployment by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market. The FCC shifted the focus from availability to adoption and subscribership

The FCC released that report on July 20, 2010. See, story "FCC Releases 6th Section 706 Report" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,114, July 29, 2010.

8/12. Google asserted in a release that is has not "sold out" on network neutrality, that its deal with Verizon is not a "step backwards for the open Internet", and that the deal would not "eliminate network neutrality over wireless".

Google also asserted that "No other company is working as tirelessly for an open Internet".

On August 9, 2010, Google and Verizon announced that they have reached an agreement regarding the regulation of broadband internet access service (BIAS) providers, which they urge the Congress to adopt as legislation.

See, two party proposal titled "Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal", Google statement titled "A joint policy proposal for an open Internet", and TLJ chart comparing this proposal to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) August 2005 Policy Statement and the proposed rules in the FCC's October 22, 2009, NPRM.

See, story titled "Verizon and Google Announce Legislative Proposal on Internet Regulation", and stories titled "Net Neutrality Advocates Criticize Google Verizon Pact", "More Reaction to Google Verizon Proposal", and "Commentary: Google's Net Neutrality Deal Compared to Google's Books Deal", in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,121, August 9, 2010.

One of the fundamental principles now being advocated by the proponents of network neutrality mandates is known as non-discrimination.

The Google Verizon proposal includes, but waters down, the principle of non-discrimination. The point that received the most criticism pertains to prioritization and "differentiated services". The Google Verizon proposal states that a BIAS provider "could offer any other additional or differentiated services. Such other services would have to be distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband Internet access service, but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services and could include traffic prioritization." However, the proposal does not define or explain the term "differentiated services".

Google's August 12 release states that "the joint proposal would allow broadband providers to offer certain specialized services to customers, services which are not part of the Internet. So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability -- so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet. Some broadband providers already offer these types of services today. The chief challenge is to let consumers benefit from these non-Internet services, without allowing them to impede on the Internet itself."

Google added that "We have a number of key protections in the proposal to protect the public Internet: First, the broadband provider must fully comply with the consumer protection and nondiscrimination standards governing its Internet access service before it could pursue any of these other online service opportunities. Second, these services must be “distinguishable in purpose and scope” from Internet access, so that they cannot over time supplant the best effort Internet. Third, the FCC retains its full capacity to monitor these various service offerings, and to intervene where necessary to ensure that robust, unfettered broadband capacity is allocated to Internet access."

8/12. Oracle filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court (NDCal) against Google alleging patent and copyright infringement.

The complaint alleges use of Java technology in Android phones. Oracle completed its acquisition of Sun Microsystems early this year. Sun developed the Java technology. Oracle acquired its proprietary rights in Java.

When Oracle announced its plans in April of 2009 to acquire Sun, it stated in a release that Java "is the most important software Oracle has ever acquired.

The complaint states that "Oracle America owns copyrights in the code, documentation, specifications, libraries, and other materials that comprise the Java platform".

Android is an operating system for mobile consumer devices that was developed by Google. See, story titled "Open Handset Alliance Announces Android and New Members" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,670, November 6, 2007.

The complaint alleges that "Android and and devices that operate Android infringe one or more claims" of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,125,447, 6,192,476, 5,966,702, 7,426,720, RE38,104, 6,910,205, and 6,061,520.

The complaint offers this explanation: "Google's Android competes with Oracle America's Java as an operating system software platform for cellular telephones and other mobile devices. The Android operating system software ``stack´´ consists of Java applications running on a Java-based object-oriented application framework, and core libraries running on a ``Dalvik´´ virtual machine (VM) that features just-in-time (JIT) compilation. Google actively distributes Android (including without limitation the Dalvik VM and the Android software development kit) and promotes its use by manufacturers of products and applications". (Parentheses in original.)

It further alleges that "One of the most important technologies Oracle acquired with Sun was the Java platform. The Java platform, which includes code and other documentation and materials, was developed by Sun and first released in 1995. The Java platform is a bundle of related programs, specifications, reference implementations, and developer tools and resources that allow a user to deploy applications written in the Java programming language on servers, desktops, mobile devices, and other devices. The Java platform is especially useful in that it insulates applications from dependencies on particular processors or operating systems. To date, the Java platform has attracted more than 6.5 million software developers. It is used in every major industry segment and has a ubiquitous presence in a wide range of computers, networks, and devices, including cellular telephones and other mobile devices. Sun's development of the Java platform resulted in many computing innovations and the issuance to Sun of a substantial number of important patents".

Oracle seeks judgment of patent and copyright infringement, injunctive relief, damages, statutory damages, and treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 for willful patent infringement.

Oracle seeks "An order that all copies made or used in violation of Oracle America's copyrights, and all means by which such copies may be reproduced, be impounded and destroyed or otherwise reasonably disposed of".

Google is represented by, among others, David Boies of the law firm of Boies Schilller & Flexner, and Michael Jacobs of Morrison & Foerster.

On March 2, 2010, Apple filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court (DDel) against High Tech Computer Corporation (HTC) and subsidiary companies alleging patent infringement. HTC is a Taiwan based company that makes mobile electronic devices, including Windows Mobile and and Google Android smart phones.

Apple choose to pursue a maker of devices that runs the Google Android operating system, while Oracle choose to pursue Google directly.

See also, story titled "Apple Sues HTC for Patent Infringement" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,055, March 4, 2010.

The Senate will not meet. It will next meet on September 13, 2010.

The House will not meet. It will next meet at 2:00 PM on September 14, 2010.

1:30 - 4:00 PM. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host a panel discussion titled "Allocating Educational Spectrum". The speakers will be Richard Bennett (ITIF), Jim Johnston, and Noelle Ellerson (Association of School Administrators). The ITIF will webcast this event. This event is free and open to the public. See, notice and registration page. Location: ITIF, Suite 610a, 1101 K St., NW.

6:00 - 9:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a panel discussion titled "Part 1: Software Patent Primer: Acquisition, Exploitation, Enforcement and Defense". The speakers will be Stephen Parker (Westerman, Hattori), Brian Rosenbloom (Figg Ernst), Martin Zoltick (Rothwell Figg). The price to attend ranges from $89 to $129. Reporters are barred from attending most DC Bar events. This event qualifies for CLE credits. See, notice. For more information, call 202-626-3488. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, 1101 K St., NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) regarding its draft SP 800-130 [88 pages in PDF] titled "A Framework for Designing Cryptographic Key Management Systems".

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding amending its satellite television significantly viewed rules to implement Section 203 of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (STELA). The FCC adopted this NPRM on July 22, 2010, and released the text [27 pages in PDF] on July 23, 2010. It is FCC 10-130 in MB Docket No. 10-148. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 28, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 144, at Pages 44198-44209.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Inquiry (NOI) [25 pages in PDF] regarding its video relay service (VRS) rules. The FCC adopted this NOI on June 8, 2010, and released the text on June 28, 2010. This NOI is FCC 10-111 in CG Docket No. 10-51. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 19, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 137, at Pages 41863-41866.

6:00 - 9:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a panel discussion titled "Part 2: Software Patent Primer: Acquisition, Exploitation, Enforcement and Defense". The speakers will be Stephen Parker (Westerman, Hattori), Brian Rosenbloom (Figg Ernst), Martin Zoltick (Rothwell Figg). The price to attend ranges from $89 to $129. Reporters are barred from attending most DC Bar events. This event qualifies for CLE credits. See, notice. For more information, call 202-626-3488. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, 1101 K St., NW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding revising its Part 17 rules regarding the construction, marking, and lighting of antenna structures. The FCC adopted this NPRM on April 12, 2010, and released the text [54 pages in PDF] on April 20, 2010. It is FCC 10-53 in WT Docket No. 10-88. Federal Register, May 21, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 98, at Pages 28517-28540.

Deadline to submit comments to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) regarding its proposed three track patent examination system. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 4, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 107, at Pages 31763-31768. See also, story titled "USPTO Proposes Three Track Patent Examination System" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,092, June 4, 2010.

Deadline to submit comments to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) regarding its "interim final rules" amending the Rules of Practice in Trademark Cases to implement the Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendment Act of 2010. President Obama signed this Act, S 2968 [LOC | WW], into law on March 17, 2010. It is Public Law 111-146. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 24, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 121, at Pages 35973-35977.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding license renewals, discontinuance of operations, geographic partitioning, and spectrum disaggregation for certain Wireless Radio Services. The FCC adopted this NPRM on May 20, 2010, and released the text [71 pages in PDF] on May 25, 2010. It is FCC 10-86 in WT Docket No. 10-112. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 7, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 129, at Pages 38959-38974.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. Day two of a two day conference titled "Homeland Security 2020: The Future of Defending the Homeland" hosted by the Heritage Foundation. Day two is titled "Science and Technology". See, notice. Location: Heritage, 214 Massachusetts Ave., NE.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and Further NPRM [36 pages in PDF] regarding "prescribing a point to point predictive model for determining the ability of individual locations to receive an over the air digital television broadcast signal at the intensity level needed for service through the use of an antenna" (NPRM), and "determining eligibility of satellite subscribers for receiving distant network signals from their satellite TV provider using on-location testing/measurements" (FNPRM). The NPRM is required by the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (STELA), which the Congress enacted in May. See, story titled "Obama Signs Satellite TV Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,089, May 28, 2010. The FCC adopted and released this item on July 28, 2010. It is FCC 10-133 in ET Docket Nos. 10-152 and 06-94. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 4, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 149, at Pages 46885-46894.

Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and a subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year for a single recipient. There are discounts for subscribers with multiple recipients.

Free one month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free subscriptions are available for journalists, federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and executive branch. The TLJ web site is free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert are not published in the web site until two months after writing.

For information about subscriptions, see subscription information page.

Tech Law Journal now accepts credit card payments. See, TLJ credit card payments page.

TLJ is published by David Carney
Contact: 202-364-8882.
carney at techlawjournal dot com
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998-2010 David Carney. All rights reserved.