The revised International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) that emerged last week from the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) may have contained “poison pills” on the Internet and other controversial issues, but that does not mean the U.S. should stop advocating for its vision on such issues, said Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. WCIT delegation, Wednesday during an Internet Society event. “There’s a bigger discussion here about the benefits of the Internet that will carry the day I believe fundamentally,” he said in his first public comments since WCIT concluded Friday. “It is a long game that has to be played. We need to see the commercial benefits, the human benefits, et cetera."
The revised International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) that emerged last week from the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) may have contained “poison pills” on the Internet and other controversial issues, but that does not mean the U.S. should stop advocating for its vision on such issues, said Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. WCIT delegation, Wednesday during an Internet Society event. “There’s a bigger discussion here about the benefits of the Internet that will carry the day I believe fundamentally,” he said in his first public comments since WCIT concluded Friday. “It is a long game that has to be played. We need to see the commercial benefits, the human benefits, et cetera."
Sprint Nextel’s successful bid to buy full ownership of Clearwire is unlikely to face a tough time winning regulatory approval, industry legal experts told us. Sprint, which already owned 51 percent of Clearwire, said Monday that Clearwire’s other shareholders had unanimously agreed to sell Sprint their 49 percent stake for $2.2 billion. That deal represented an improvement from the $2.1 billion Sprint offered last week (CD Dec 14 p15).
Sprint Nextel’s successful bid to buy full ownership of Clearwire is unlikely to face a tough time winning regulatory approval, industry legal experts told us. Sprint, which already owned 51 percent of Clearwire, said Monday that Clearwire’s other shareholders had unanimously agreed to sell Sprint their 49 percent stake for $2.2 billion. Sprint said it believes the purchase gives it a unique opportunity to maximize the value of Clearwire’s 2.5 GHz spectrum and use it to increase Sprint’s network capacity. “We believe this transaction, particularly when leveraged with our SoftBank relationship, is further validation of our strategy and allows Sprint to control its network destiny,” said Sprint CEO Dan Hesse in a joint statement with Clearwire (http://xrl.us/bn6wrv). Sprint’s successful bid for Clearwire came more than two months after SoftBank bought 70 percent ownership of the carrier for $20.1 billion. As with SoftBank, Sprint’s deal with Clearwire is unlikely to encounter any significant regulatory issues, said Andrew Schwartzman, a public-interest communications lawyer. The FCC’s approval process on the Sprint-Clearwire deal should be “fairly perfunctory,” said Steve Goodman, a partner with the law firm Butzel Long who previously worked at the FCC and as an attorney on antitrust and regulatory issues at Comsat. Sprint’s existing 51 percent ownership of Clearwire is particularly important, because a shift to full control is unlikely to be seen as creating adverse effects on competition, Goodman told us, noting that the two “were already basically working in parallel/partnership.” The Clearwire purchase should also get approval from federal regulators because it strengthens Sprint’s position against No. 1 carrier Verizon Wireless and No. 2 carrier AT&T, allowing more competition in the marketplace, a regulatory analyst told us. Michael Copps, a former FCC commissioner who is opposed to further carrier consolidation, disagreed, saying the consolidation implications in the Sprint-Clearwire deal merit FCC scrutiny. “If I was still on the commission, I'd be taking a good hard look at it,” he said.
Most of the eligible delegations at the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) signed on to the revised International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) Friday in Dubai during a ceremony to close out the conference, but a significant number of nations outright refused to endorse the controversial treaty or were still consulting with their national governments. Of the 144 nations with signing rights in the ITU, 89 signed onto the ITRs Friday. An additional 55 “may sign later,” the ITU said, but that figure includes the U.S., Australia, Canada, the U.K. and others that have outright committed to not sign the document (http://xrl.us/bn6iov). The figure also includes the nations consulting with their governments, including the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy and Poland. The EU condemned the attachment of a non-binding Internet governance resolution to the ITRs (see separate item in this issue). That resolution was one of several provisions included in the revised ITRs that prompted the U.S. decision not to sign (WID Dec 14 p1).
Most of the eligible delegations at the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) signed on to the revised International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) Friday in Dubai during a ceremony to close out the conference, but a significant number of nations outright refused to endorse the controversial treaty or were still consulting with their national governments. Of the 144 nations with signing rights in the ITU, 89 signed onto the ITRs Friday. An additional 55 “may sign later,” the ITU said, but that figure includes the U.S., Australia, Canada, the U.K. and others that have outright committed to not sign the document (http://xrl.us/bn6iov). The figure also includes the nations consulting with their governments, including the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy and Poland. The EU condemned the attachment of a non-binding Internet governance resolution to the ITRs (see separate item in this issue). That resolution was one of several provisions included in the revised ITRs that prompted the U.S. decision not to sign (CD Dec 14 p1).
The U.S. will not sign on to the revised International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) adopted at Thursday’s session of the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), said U.S. delegation head Terry Kramer Thursday. Delegations from Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark and the U.K. also immediately said their nations would not sign the treaty-level document. Delegations from Costa Rica, Kenya, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Qatar, Sweden and Poland also expressed concerns about the revised ITRs, but wanted to consult with their national governments before deciding whether to sign. Egypt’s delegation also said it was concerned about the revised ITRs, but its position on signing the document was not immediately clear from its statement following the document’s adoption. Nations that already support the amended ITRs are expected to sign the treaty Friday in Dubai. The amended treaty will take effect Jan. 1, 2015.
The U.S. will not sign on to the revised International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) adopted at Thursday’s session of the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), said U.S. delegation head Terry Kramer Thursday. Delegations from Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark and the United Kingdom also immediately said their nations would not sign the treaty-level document. Delegations from Costa Rica, Kenya, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Qatar, Sweden and Poland also expressed concerns about the revised ITRs, but wanted to consult with their national governments before deciding whether to sign. Egypt’s delegation also said it was concerned about the revised ITRs, but its position on signing the document was not immediately clear from its statement following the document’s adoption. Nations that already support the amended ITRs are expected to sign the treaty Friday in Dubai. The amended treaty will take effect Jan. 1, 2015.
It’s time for government agencies to “think very seriously” about patent assertion entities’ (PAEs) activities and how they impact society, FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said Monday during a joint FTC/Department of Justice workshop. The agencies held the workshop as part of an ongoing effort to determine the effect of PAEs and determine whether the government needs to employ new methods to minimize what they see as harm caused by PAEs. High-quality intellectual property rights are crucial to U.S. innovation, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) chief economist said. PAE-generated lawsuits are eating up a growing chunk of some technology companies’ legal budgets, several high-tech executives said, as a PAE executive said the model helps some patent developers get paid.
It’s time for government agencies to “think very seriously” about patent assertion entities’ (PAEs) activities and how they impact society, FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said Monday during a joint FTC/Department of Justice workshop. The agencies held the workshop as part of an ongoing effort to determine the effect of PAEs and determine whether the government needs to employ new methods to minimize what they see as harm caused by PAEs. High-quality intellectual property rights are crucial to U.S. innovation, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) chief economist said. PAE-generated lawsuits are eating up a growing chunk of some technology companies’ legal budgets, several high-tech executives said, as a PAE executive said the model helps some patent developers get paid.