In an op-ed piece appearing in yesterday's Washington Times, Adam Thierer (Cato Institute), James Gatusso (Heritage Foundation), and yours truly urged that, in the wake of the DC Circuit's decision vacating the FCC's sharing rules, state and federal regulators not throw up roadblocks that provide disincentives for the ILECs and CLECs to negotiate with each other to reach mutually satisfactory interconnection agreements.

The bottom line, we said:

"The D.C. Circuit decision has opened a window of opportunity to escape the regulatory and litigation morass that has prevailed since the 1996 Telecom Act passed. But if regulators act as if nothing has really changed, then nothing will. It is past time for regulators to abandon the last century's public utility model in favor of a market-oriented regime in which industry participants have contract freedom so, like others in a competitive marketplace, they can decide themselves how to meet customer needs by voluntary agreements."

Eight years after the 1996 Telecom Act was passed, don't you agree it's time to stop litigating and start negotiating?

Not only does California see the need to interject itself into the contractual relationship between consumers and wireless phone companies (see Adam's post below), but the state senate there passed a bill this week limiting Google's freedom to offer "G-Mail" to customers. As PFF Adjunct Fellow Paul Rubin has written about the so-called California Consumers Bill of Rights passed by the California PUC, such regulations limit consumer freedom and choice.

But, of course, that is really the point of these regulations. The regulators, and now the state senate, do not think that people are smart enough to make decisions for themselves. Of course, there is a potent necessity for the law to protect against fraud. But these are run-of-the-mill bargains between consumers and companies -- yet still California government presumes to have the perspicacity and certainty to know best what terms should govern.

Fortunately, Governor Schwarzenegger has two appointments to the PUC in January, and of course veto power over the legislature's overzealous and specious "privacy" concerns. Let's hope that he has more trust in the people than the rest of California government.

[Incidentally, for Rubin and Lenard on privacy, go here.]

Following in the footsteps of Qwest, Verizon is reportedly offering unbundled DSL service, at least on an unadvertised basis, in some states. Leaving the public policy and legal implications aside, the tying of DSL and voice service has always been a questionable business strategy, given wireless substitution, the onset of VoIP, and growing broadband competition.

Despite a recent a study indicating that wireless customers are satisfied with the quality and coverage of their services, the California PUC adopted a "Telecommunications Bill of Rights" yesterday. The new rules will apply to "all forms of telecommunications service." After months of wrangling over Commissioner Wood's proposal, Commissioners Brown and Kennedy made their own modified recommendations. Brown's proposal was adopted under a 3-2 vote. The rules cover marketing, billing and service practices. For instance, if a carrier makes changes to an existing contract that would result in higher charges or more restrictive terms and conditions, they must provide 25-days notice and give consumers the right to opt out of the contract within 30 days. Perversely, customers also have a blanket right to get out of any contract they have entered into within thirty days, without penalty. The CTIA has promised to challenge the new rules.

As the CA PUC has tentatively concluded that VoIP is a telecommunications service through an Order Instituting Investigation, it is possible that the new "Bill of Rights" could be extended to cover those services as well. Along with the recent NY order deeming VoIP to be a telecom service, this represents a retrograde move by the states away from unfettered competition.

Okay, this isn't about the metaphysics of VoIP, but the metaphysics of something as unhip as plain ol' prepaid calling cards. (Forget that. What do I know about unhip?) Recall my original definition of "metaphysics" as "of or relating to the transcendent or to the reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses" or "highly absract and absruse".

The May 25 edition of Communications Daily [subscription required] reports that the Universal Service Administrative Co. is investigating whether AT&T has "saved" $140 million in USF contributions by classifying its prepaid calling cards as an "information" service not subject to the contribution requirement rather than a "telecommunications" service which is. So, Communications Daily reports that, according to AT&T: "The cards are considered 'enhanced' because they're sold to retail outlets which brand them and add advertising messages..."

Read that again slowly. And then tell me that the current regulatory regime that distinguishes between "information" and "telecom" services based on whether there has been a change in "the form or content" of the information as sent and received doesn't need to be reformed to comport with the realities of today's communications marketplace. Under the current regime, maybe everything turns on how the calling card is branded...

Florida Governor Jeb Bush is well known for his expansive email habits. He sends scores of messages each day to employees, legislators and constituents. Yesterday Bush took aim at spam when he signed legislation to give the attorney general the authority to bring a civil action against the sender, or anyone who helps the sender, of email with a deceptive subject line.

This strikes me as a fair balance. It preserves the rights of advertisers to hock their wares to consumers. Unwanted commercial email is not prohibited. However, if false or misleading information is provided - essentially fraud - there is a role for the state to play to minimize losses from bad actors in the economy.

I didn't delve into the details of the new law, so it is unclear to me how viruses and other malicious emails will be treated by the Florida AG. These intrusive emails usually have misleading subject lines but fall short of trying to sell something. The harm to email users from a virus is more akin to trespass or property damage than fraud.

USA Today has the story.

Comcast plans on offering VoIP phone service to all 40 million of its customers by the end of 2006. Despite uncertainty from the 9th Circuit's Brand X case wanting to regulate cable broadband like we regulate phones, it's good to be a cable company.

The New York Times profiles the challenges facing Qwest.

This story from today's Washington Post about When Wu Wei's Democracy and Freedom web site is about the age-old struggle between freedom and authoritarianism. It is a truism, of course, that new technologies like the Internet can be powerful aids on the side of expanding freedom and reducing authoritarian control. Of course, new technologies, if abused, can be used to counter the forces of freedom. But, on the whole, it is much more likely that the Internet, because of efforts like Mr. Wei's, will be a force for expanding rather than restricting freedom.

Hopefully, in his continuing battles with the Chinese authorities, Mr. Wei will draw some inspiration for his Democracy and Freedom project from the free-market and free-speech principles that guide us here at The Progress & Freedom Foundation.

The mapping tool offered by Yahoo now includes a feature that identifies WiFi hop-spots. Individual websites have been building WiFi directories for sometime but the adoption by Yahoo is sure to bring an upsurge of visibility to invisible networks. This example shows the hotspots around PFF's Raleigh office.

Thanks to Herb Brody at MIT's Technology Review for the pointer.