in conjunction with
The Yale Information Society Project
presents:
Bellhead/Nethead: The FCC Takes On The Internet
The full Conference proceedings are available here.
The original Conference announcement is here.
The Conference schedule is here.
The press release is here.
On Tuesday, September 28, 2004, the Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy, at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, in conjunction with the Yale Information Society Project, sponsored Bellhead/Nethead: The FCC Takes On The Internet. This one-day conference took place at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York City. The conference brought together representatives from the FCC, the telecommunications and internet industries, a diverse array of public policy organizations, and the legal academic community, to discuss the regulation of IP-enabled services.
The conference explored four major threads under the umbrella of regulation of IP-enabled services. This web site is a central resource for the various viewpoints represented in these discussions. You will find information about the conference as well as materials relevant to the various panel discussions. Check back frequently as the links here will be updated to track ongoing developments. Visit a specific Panel page through the links on the left.
Panel 1: Justifications for Regulation
What is/are the justification(s) for FCC regulation of IP-enabled services, as those services are defined in n.1 of the NPRM? How persuasive are these justifications? Do different justifications underlie different aspects of the proposed rulemaking? What are possible responses to these proposed justifications? Are justifications for traditional FCC regulation of traditional services transferable to this setting?
Panel 2: Ancillary Jurisdiction
What are the arguments for and against FCC's exercise of "ancillary jurisdiction" over IP-enabled services, as such services are defined in n.1 of the NPRM? Are there new ways of thinking about the FCC's role and/or the jurisdictional approach suggested by the NPRM (e.g., a "layers" approach) that might be useful? Can the FCC preempt state actions without itself acting?
Should universal service contributions be required of all IP-enabled services? Or only those that use telephone numbers or connect to the telephone system? Or none?
What is the proper scope of CALEA's coverage? As a matter of policy? Of law? What is likely to happen next in this debate?
© 2004 Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law | Last Updated August 2004
Send questions or comments to: webmaster@wingedearth.com