Policymakers should “reject the spectrum nihilism” that says there’s no spectrum left that could be cleared for licensed use, said a Tuesday paper by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. “Advances in compression technologies have enabled the clearing of bands that have now become valuable tent poles of the wireless marketplace,” the paper said: “Both private and government spectrum users should therefore invest in compression technologies. This can be incentivized by making clear that licensees that manage to clear a currently encumbered band would be able to reap the profits of selling or using its capacity.” Federal networks should be examined to see if they could operate more efficiently using commercial spectrum, ITIF said: “Current efforts to evaluate DOD uses of the lower 3 GHz band should not simply find ways to squeeze in 5G networks around current DOD services. The department should also try to migrate services onto those 5G networks that can provide the same reliability and security while internalizing interference externalities that would otherwise cause clashing protocols to diminish the overall capacity and efficiency of the band.” Joe Kane, director-broadband and spectrum policy, wrote the paper.

Policymakers should “reject the spectrum nihilism” that says there’s no spectrum left that could be cleared for licensed use, said a Tuesday paper by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. “Advances in compression technologies have enabled the clearing of bands that have now become valuable tent poles of the wireless marketplace,” the paper said: “Both private and government spectrum users should therefore invest in compression technologies. This can be incentivized by making clear that licensees that manage to clear a currently encumbered band would be able to reap the profits of selling or using its capacity.” Federal networks should be examined to see if they could operate more efficiently using commercial spectrum, ITIF said: “Current efforts to evaluate DOD uses of the lower 3 GHz band should not simply find ways to squeeze in 5G networks around current DOD services. The department should also try to migrate services onto those 5G networks that can provide the same reliability and security while internalizing interference externalities that would otherwise cause clashing protocols to diminish the overall capacity and efficiency of the band.” Joe Kane, director-broadband and spectrum policy, wrote the paper.

Industry and consumer advocacy organizations disagreed on the severity of digital discrimination and on potential solutions, in comments posted Tuesday in docket 22-69. The FCC sought comments on how to combat digital discrimination as required by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The law directed the FCC to adopt rules that prevent discrimination based on income, race, ethnicity, color, religion or national origin.

Industry groups pressed NTIA to give states maximum flexibility in awarding the billions of forthcoming dollars from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, as the agency prepares to roll out program rules for the broadband equity, access and deployment (BEAD) and middle-mile programs, in comments we reviewed (see 2202070053). The agency made most of the more than 750 comments it received available Wednesday.

Website blocking has been shown around the world to be "a fair, effective, and proportionate tool" for tackling pirate sites, and the U.S. needs to follow suit with a legal route for rightsholders to get ISPs to block websites involved in mass dissemination of copyright-infringing content, said the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Wednesday. Since Congress failed in 2012 to pass the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act, 33 nations have adopted laws letting rightsholders obtain injunctions requiring ISPs to block access to pirate sites "and the Internet continues to flourish," ITIF said. It said those nations have shown that SOPA/PIPA-era criticisms "simply do not hold up to scrutiny" and that website blocking "is a fair, effective, and proportionate tool to target sites involved in the mass, illegal dissemination of copyrighted content and that it does not undermine human rights, free speech, or net neutrality."

Website blocking has been shown around the world to be "a fair, effective, and proportionate tool" for tackling pirate sites, and the U.S. needs to follow suit with a legal route for rightsholders to get ISPs to block websites involved in mass dissemination of copyright-infringing content, said the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Wednesday. Since Congress failed in 2012 to pass the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act, 33 nations have adopted laws letting rightsholders obtain injunctions requiring ISPs to block access to pirate sites "and the Internet continues to flourish," ITIF said. It said those nations have shown that SOPA/PIPA-era criticisms "simply do not hold up to scrutiny" and that website blocking "is a fair, effective, and proportionate tool to target sites involved in the mass, illegal dissemination of copyrighted content and that it does not undermine human rights, free speech, or net neutrality."

A hypothetical 50-state privacy law patchwork could cost more than $1 trillion over 10 years, estimated an Information Technology and Innovation Foundation report Monday. California, Virginia and Colorado have comprehensive privacy laws; 15-plus states are considering bills this year (see 2201120021). ITIF estimated California’s privacy law will cost $78 billion annually. The think tank modeled a scenario where all 50 states enacted privacy laws over 15 years, and the report assumes “not all states would implement identical laws and early adopters would likely favor stricter policies, whereas laggard states would expectedly favor less-stringent consumer privacy laws.” ITIF’s “intention is to estimate the costs if the U.S. continues down this path of state-led privacy laws” and isn’t “trying (or claiming) to predict the future in terms of what states might do,” emailed ITIF Vice President Daniel Castro. Compliance “is almost always a moving target,” he said. “Even similar laws often have some differences and businesses must hire lawyers or other professionals to resolve those differences and ensure they are in compliance.” For example, even though California’s law and Europe’s Global Data Protection Act are similar, “many U.S. businesses will have separate rules (and terms in their privacy policies) for users in California versus those in the European Union,” he said.

A hypothetical 50-state privacy law patchwork could cost more than $1 trillion over 10 years, estimated an Information Technology and Innovation Foundation report Monday. California, Virginia and Colorado have comprehensive privacy laws; 15-plus states are considering bills this year (see 2201120021). ITIF estimated California’s privacy law will cost $78 billion annually. The think tank modeled a scenario where all 50 states enacted privacy laws over 15 years, and the report assumes “not all states would implement identical laws and early adopters would likely favor stricter policies, whereas laggard states would expectedly favor less-stringent consumer privacy laws.” ITIF’s “intention is to estimate the costs if the U.S. continues down this path of state-led privacy laws” and isn’t “trying (or claiming) to predict the future in terms of what states might do,” emailed ITIF Vice President Daniel Castro. Compliance “is almost always a moving target,” he said. “Even similar laws often have some differences and businesses must hire lawyers or other professionals to resolve those differences and ensure they are in compliance.” For example, even though California’s law and Europe’s Global Data Protection Act are similar, “many U.S. businesses will have separate rules (and terms in their privacy policies) for users in California versus those in the European Union,” he said.

USTelecom appoints from OMB Michael Pauls as senior director-government affairs ... Information Technology and Innovation Foundation adds ex-FTC economist Julie Carlson as associate director-antitrust and innovation policy, ITIF’s Schumpeter Project on Competition Policy ... Kirkland & Ellis hires Scott Scheele as partner, Antitrust & Competition Practice Group; he was at DOJ as chief, Antitrust Division’s Media, Entertainment and Communications Section.

Florida’s social media law violates the First Amendment despite the state’s common-carrier arguments, groups argued Monday in supporting the tech industry’s lawsuit (see 2109220064) in case 21-12355 in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. SB-7072 makes it unlawful for sites to deplatform political candidates and requires sites be transparent about policing, unless the site owns a Florida theme park. Groups filing in support of the Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice included tech and telecom interests, consumer advocates, publishers and media representatives. Filers included CTA, Engine, the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, Chamber of Progress, TechNet, American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Democracy & Technology, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Cato Institute, TechFreedom and Authors Guild. The law is “a direct threat to healthy and safe online communities by restricting and penalizing online providers’ efforts to exercise their First Amendment rights to moderate content on their private platforms,” CTA argued with 10 other groups, including ITIF, TechNet and the Progressive Policy Institute. The law would open the door to “direct content regulation,” in service of government policing bias, “on the platforms that millions of Americans now use to get their news,” publisher and news associations wrote. The First Amendment “protects the exercise of editorial discretion, including by speakers that host others’ speech,” said CDT. Slapping the label “common carrier” on something doesn’t make it a reality, said TechFreedom: “Even if it did, common carriers retain their First Amendment rights, and they have much broader discretion to refuse service than SB 7072 allows for.”