Archive for the 'Uncategorized' Category

Remaindered Links, Tenth Edition

0

Things that have been sitting in my inbox for too long. In the spirit of 10:

Kottke turns 10.

10 years of design, notes, and more.

Negroponte’s 4 predictions for the future (in 1984)

In excerpts from his 2-hour talk (this was before TED’s 18-minute time limit), he foreshadowed web interfaces, touchscreen kiosks, the multitouch interface of the iPhone, and his own One Laptop per Child project. Oh, and there’s also a fascinating project called Lip Service, which … well, let’s just say it’s still ahead of us.

 VHS Tapes about the internet from the early 90s (via waxy)

On search engines:

“To get started, we have to sift through the vast amounts of information on the Internet and find what we need. The best way to do this is by using one of the many Search Engines available. These sites gather the information that is out there and categorize it so we can narrow our search. One popular site to do this is called Yahoo!”

The list of search engines on the slide is a great flashback. “Web Crawler, Lycos, Einet, WWW Worm, Yahoo, Info Seek, Savvy Search… and More”

“Normally, these sites would take a few seconds to load to your computer, but in the interest of time, we’re cutting to them through editing for the purposes of this video.”

Later, they cover a long-lost site called “The Weatherman,” where you email your trip profile and a nice guy named George Gatto emails you a weather forecast by hand. I can’t imagine that’d scale very well.

Live Updates from Today’s FCC Hearing at Harvard Law School, Pt 2

0

David Weinberger is liveblogging the event.

Kevin Parker is liveblogging the event.

Wendy Seltzer is liveblogging the event.

Drew Clark is liveblogging the event.

Join the live IRC Chat in the room.

Post a question for discussion here.

Listen to the live webcast here.

FCCBoston08 Del.icio.us Tag Stream

Statement from Copps (PDF)

Statement from Adelstein (PDF)

(These notes are by no means complete and comprehensive - and represent a summary, not a transcript, of the event)

4:00: Kevin Parker writes:

“Back to questions…

C. Martin: Should we investigate usage caps over time? P. Clark: Yes, you need to be careful, but we should recognize that there are costs associated with usage. This allows ISPs to have a postive engagement with customers instead of a negative one. This is simillar to the way things work in wireless.

P. Clark: The models don’t work very well. How do we quantify what is acceptable congestion? This is hard and Comcast has tried to say that it is what doesn’t interfere with others. How do we impose fairness among users? Nobody can send bits faster than anyone else at the same time (this is the historical approach). There has to be some way to deal with congestion.”

3:50: Playback of submitted selected video comments from the public

3:30: Via David Weinberger:

“Daniel Weitzner of MIT says the entire Web is peer-to-peer, although not technically. People use the Net in a synchronous, P2P manner. E.g., pages are pulled together from info all over. We depend on the open nature of the Web to enable that.

Richard Bennett (network architect): Does free speech require abandoning the active mgt of net traffic? If so, then we have to shut down the Internet. Is it legit to manage the Net by discriminating by application? The Net and its constituent nets serve different apps. E.g., VOIP needs to avoid jitter. It makes sense to move apps that don’t care about jitter (e.g., email) to the back of the queue. BitTorrent is insensitive to jitter; you care about the time between first and last packet, but not jitter of individual packets….except for apps like Vuze, but RB doubts Vuze’s business viability. If we abandon app discriminatory we have to get rid of IP because it includes info about the app in the packets. Get rid of Wifi because QoS discriminates among apps. Get rid of difference between UDP and TCP. We have to get rid of discrimination within their own homes. Even on Ethernet we have to discriminate among apps, e.g., WoS for audio systems to avoid lipsynching issues If you add capacity to a network, you’ve only moved the bottleneck from the first hop to the second hop. NN would inhibit rural delivery since it depends on wifi. So, sit back. We’ll solve it with more bandwidth and with revisions of the apps that use it, like BitTorrent.

David Clark says that TV is central here because it increases the traffic and it’s a collision of pricing models. We should be partnering, not fighting. Let’s talk about business model. The usage cost to Comcast for a month of user usage might be around $0.50. TV usage is 40 times as much (taking reasonable estimates), i.e., $20/month to cover your user costs. What’s going to give is the all you can eat flat rate pricing. We have to find a way that will be acceptable to the user. David likes selling tiers of consumption.”

Pictures from today’s FCC hearing at Harvard Law School

1

Here are a few photos from the morning session:

Tim Wu on the big screen in front of the FCC commissioners

Yochai Benkler and Marvin Ammori sitting on panel

The whole panel

David Weinberger live blogs the event

Berkfolks watch the morning session

More as the day goes on!

Live Updates from Today’s FCC Hearing at Harvard Law School

0

David Weinberger is liveblogging the event.

Kevin Parker is liveblogging the event.

Wendy Seltzer is liveblogging the event.

Drew Clark is liveblogging the event.

Join the live IRC Chat in the room.

Post a question for discussion here.

Listen to the live webcast here.

FCCBoston08 Del.icio.us Tag Stream

(These notes are by no means complete and comprehensive - and represent a summary, not a transcript, of the event)

1:20: Kevin Parker on the Q + A portion of the panel

1:15: Drew Clark posts on the hearing

12:50: Professor Yoo: There’s no question that network providers must add capacity. In this world, the network owners have to make decision on how they’re going to configure their bandwidth. We’re now in world where we have many different transmission technologies and are susceptible to traffic problems. One suggestion: We need to build more bandwidth, but it’s expensive and difficult to predict about.

12:45: Tim Wu: I hope the commission takes the time to clarify one thing: To arrive at a very simple kind of rule. Whatever we think reasonable network management is, it should not include blocking lawful applications. I’ve been interested in this issue since my time in Silicon Valley, and I use to be on the other side of this debate. One of the things that always bothered me about selling the products I did, was selling these products to oppressive regimes. In these technologies, and in searching deep packet inspections, you have the tech of censorship being built into the system. We should think very carefully about allowing America - the home of the free and open internet - becoming a place that has a reputation for a filtered and closed internet.

Let me discuss how this intersects with policy. America has spent a lot of time advertising itself as the home of a free press and a free internet. We advertise ourselves as the model of free speech and open networks. Keeping the internet as the American internet. What happens here will be followed everywhere.

12:30: From Kevin Parker:

“Panelist 3 - Judge Bosley. In western Mass broadband is important for economic development. Small businesses need bandwidth. Who gets to say what we need? (Nobody should.) This sounds like slotting fees at supermarket, pay for the end of the aisle. But this has become anticompetitive.

Issue isn’t content, it is capacity. ISPs have a point here, but we need to have an open net to find the most creative and innovative solutions. What we need is a national broadband plan. As is, ISPs have no incentives to increase average speeds, etc.

Panelist 4 - David Cohen, EVP Comcast. Wants to be a participant and not the main course for the meal. Comcast wants to give customers a superior internet experience. 92% of the country has broadband availble through cable. What is the key to success? Market forces and a lack of gov’t regulation.

There is nothing wrong with network management. This must happen. We have to fight congestion, spam, and viruses. Bandwidth consumption is a real concern. Goal is to have a minimal impact on a small number of users. We don’t block any websites or applications (but HMS does!).”

12:20: David Weinberger on Yochai Benkler’s testimony

12:11: Panels Begin: Marvin Ammori: This is about the future of the internet. Comcast is deliberately targeting and interfering with p2p technologies, including Bittorrent and others. These technologies help to distribute open source software, high resolution photos, and video. Video services, like Bittorrent and Miro, threaten Comcast. By targeting p2p, Comcast is threatening innovation.

12:04: Gilles: We only provide distribution to licensed content and have agreements with the content providers on our network.

11:53: Technology demonstration of Vuze. Gilles BianRosa. The reason I am here is to foster transparency and openness. Vuze is one of the fastest growing video distribution platforms - we offer a high resolution experience, comparable to watching a DVD. There have been 20 million downloads of our application. We have more than 150 content partners, including PBS, BBC, Showtime, History Channel. The absence of enforceable ground rules threatens the openness of the internet. And we only have promises of good faith to protect us. Make the rules relevant and transparent, so innovators like Vuze can deliver - the future of the internet depends on it.

11:45: McDowell: Today we focus on the positive and constructive economic destruction caused by the vibrancy of new media. The new media economy is working through growing pains. In fact, Comscore reported that American viewed an eye-popping 10 billion online videos in December alone.

11:35: Adelstein: Our colleagues at the FTC, held their own hearing on net neutrality over 8 months ago. I’m glad we’re doing this now. We need to establish an effective internet bill of rights that will secure rights for generations to come. We must preserve the open and neutral character of the internet that’s been it’s hallmark from the very beginning. Right now we’re seeing a broadband market where telephone/isps control 93% of the broadband market… Consumers don’t want the internet to become another version of old media. We face a major challenge in this country making sure we deploy affordable broadband connection everywhere. I think that preserving the vibrant quality of the internet, and having high speed access, are issues that go hand in hand. Access translates into opportunity.

11:32: If we don’t get this right, we will have squandered a technology and an opportunity.

11:30: Now we have allegations that an operator is degrading/blocking p2p file programs. I am not saying that all of these services are unlawful. But the affect our choices in the future - what we say, where we can go, what info we can encounter, and how we can access it. How all of this turns out is a very big deal for each and every one of us. I keep saying: The time has come that the specific enforceable principle of non-discrimination at the FCC… should be added to the FCC’s internet policy statement.

11:25: Copps: I have long advocated that the commission get away from the beltway to hear from the people about these issues - and the future of the internet is one such issue. I see no reason for us to wait on a new law to get this going… Before we begin hearing from our panelists, consider for a moment where we are in chartering the future of the internet. Right now, network operators are making choices that will determine how Americans will communicate now and in the future. Some of their choices may be right, some of their choices may be wrong. These are hard and complex questions. But these critical questions are indeed being made, and they were being made in a virtual black box that the American public had little opportunity to peek into. If anyone is uncertain that these choices are indeed being made right now, let’s take a quicklook at what we learned in 2007. That was the year that one of the nation’s wireless providers rejected a pro-choice text message as too controversial.

11:18: Martin: Review of the FCC’s internet policy statement

11:16: Marky: Finally, the commission should examine these issues not only to discern corporate practice, but also to ascertain whether these actions are temporary - “managerial creations of the moment” that the carriers may find useful and make permanent for non-networking reasons. The beauty of the internet is its wonderful, chaotic, evolving nature, and it’s ability to reinvent itself every year.

11:13: Marky: I am pleased that the commission has returned to MA in exploring contemporary issues in the development of the internet. We should keep in mind (1) The internet is as much mine and yours as it is Verizons, AT&T’s, and Comast’s, (2) The nature of the net is really not about services provided by carriers themselves - they don’t provide internet services, they provide broadband access to the internet. This distinction is vital in my view.

11:07: We’re fortunate and delighted to say that Chairman Ed Markey could attend, and we want to welcome him to open with remarks.

FCC Hearing: Today

0

Today, the FCC is hosting a hearing on broadband network management practices on the campus of Harvard Law School, hosted by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society. In addition, the Berkman Center will host a public post-panel discussion and reception following the hearing. 

The FCC will hear from two panels of stakeholders who will offer policy and technical perspectives.  Panelists will include David L. Cohen, Executive Vice President of Comcast; Eric Klinker, Chief Technology Officer of BitTorrent; Marvin Ammori, General Counsel for Free Press; and Berkman Faculty Director Yochai Benkler.

Webcast

The hearing will be audio webcast at this site, starting at 11 AM ET.

Social Tools

If you’re attending the hearing today, you can participate by posting questions and comments on our question tool (simply choose the instance for the Feb25FCCHearing). The del.icio.us and flickr to share them.

For updates throughout the day, visit our events blog.

Also be sure to check out Berkman fellow David Weinberger’s op-ed in this past Saturday’s Boston Globe on Net Neutrality and today’s hearing.

FCC Hearing Agenda for Monday 2/25

2

The agenda for this Monday’s FCC Hearing, hosted by the Berkman Center at Harvard Law School, has been announced. You can learn more about the hearing at this link, and see the agenda below.

11:00 a.m. Welcome/Opening Remarks

11:45 a.m. Technology Demonstration – Gilles BianRosa, Chief Executive Officer, Vuze, Inc.

12:00 p.m. Panel Discussion 1: Policy Perspectives

* Marvin Ammori, General Counsel, Free Press
* Yochai Benkler, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School; Faculty Co-Director, Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School
* The Honorable Daniel E. Bosley, State Representative, Massachusetts
* David L. Cohen, Executive Vice President, Comcast Corporation
* The Honorable Tom Tauke, Executive Vice President - Public Affairs Policy and Communications, Verizon Communications
* Timothy Wu, Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
* Christopher S. Yoo, Professor of Law and Director, Center for Technology, Innovation, and Competition, University of Pennsylvania Law School

1:30 Lunch break

2:15 Panel Discussion 2: Technological Perspectives
* Daniel Weitzner, Director, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Decentralized Information Group
* Richard Bennett, Network Architect
* David Clark, Senior Research Scientist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
* Eric Klinker, Chief Technology Officer, BitTorrent
* David P. Reed, Adjunct Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Media Lab
* Scott Smyers, Senior Vice President, Network & Systems Architecture Division, Sony Electronics Inc.

3:45 p.m. Closing Remarks
4:00 p.m. Adjournment

With a special Berkman post-panel discussion to follow in the Ames Courtroom, and a reception afterwards in Pound Hall 212, the John Chipman Gray room.

Harvard University Unanimously Votes ‘Yes’ for Open Access

0

(Cross posted from the Berkman Center Blog)

Harvard University’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences has unanimously approved a motion for finished academic papers to be posted for free online, in an open access repository, on an opt-out basis.

The New York Times reported on the measure before the vote, where Stuart Shieber, a professor of computer science and who spearheaded the initiative, commented “As far as I know, everyone I’ve ever talked to is supportive of the underlying principle.”

Robert Darnton, Director of the Harvard University Library, expressed his enthusiasm in an op-ed to the Harvard Crimson, and stated “It will be a first step toward freeing scholarship from the stranglehold of commercial publishers by making it freely available through our own university repository. Instead of being the passive victims of the system, we can seize the initiative and take charge of it.”

Open Access leader Professor Peter Suber has an excellent roundup of links and resources related to the initiative, which you can check out on his blog. Professor Suber will be visiting the Berkman Center to give a talk on Open Access next month as part of our Berkman @ 10 Celebration. The Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed both cover the historic passage of the motion.

The Berkman Center has extensively discussed open access issues in the past, including at the 2007 Internet & Society Conference, where Stuart Shieber lead a working group session on “How Universities Can Support Open Access.” In addition, Gavin Yamey, senior editor of the PLoS Medicine, a peer-reviewed open-access journal , spoke at Harvard on “Opening Up to Open Access.” Harvard students Gregory Price and Elizabeth Stark also called on the University last spring to foster the development of open access to academic knowledge through a mandated repository. Berkman Fellow Melanie Dulong is also working on an Open Access Data Protocol with Science Commons, a project of Creative Commons.  Fellow Gene Koo has since the vote followed up with thoughts on the vote and what law schools can do, as well.

Congratulations to Professor Shieber and all those who helped work on the initiative!

John Palfrey Featured on This Week in Law Podcast

0

(Cross post from the Berkman Blog) podcast_18.jpg

Berkman Center Executive Director John Palfrey participated in the latest podcast installment of “This Week in Law,” a production of the This Week in Tech TV netcasting empire (created by Leo Laporte). Along with Ernie Svenson, Cathy Kirkman and Chris Johnston, and ZDNet blogger Denise Howell, Palfrey discussed the Draft Lessig Facebook group which he created, the tech-savvyness of presidential candidates, Lazy Web v. Twitter, social graphs and more.

On the tech policy of political candidates, Palfrey comments:

“I think the involvement of Larry Lessig, Julias Genachowski , Beth Noveck and others, who have been close tech advisers to the Obama campaign, and to the extent to which Obama listens to Larry, makes him really hard to compete with - in terms of issues that I’m concerned about.

The global piece is a good one, I actually think that issues of international trade related to technology and services is going to be a huge issue, and I think understanding how US tech firms - like Google or MS or Yahoo - has to deal with these regimes in other parts of the world, I’d like to see a person who’s conversant in this area”

Be sure to check out the Facebook group that John created (which is 2000+ strong!), as well as listen to the entire “This Week in Law” podcast at the Twit.tv site.

February 19: Cyberscholar Working Group - Tonight

0

Time: 6:00PM

Location: MIT’s Stata Center (aka “Building 32″), room 32-155.  The Stata Center is two blocks from the Kendall Square T (subway) stop, on the Red Line.  You can find directions below:

http://whereis.mit.edu/map-jpg?mapterms=32&mapsearch=go
http://beyondbroadcast.net/blog/wp-content/themes/kiwi/images/map.png

This event is free and open to all members of the Harvard-Yale-MIT community.  The following speakers will present their work:

From Yale ISP:
Stephen Wilmarth, Co-Founder, Center for 21st Century Skills
“Five Socio-Technology Trends that Change Everything in 21st Century Learning and Teaching”

From Harvard Berkman Center:
Melanie Dulong de Rosnay, Fellow
“Defining Taxonomies for Access and Reuse of Creative Works and Scientific Data”

From MIT Comparative Media Studies:
Colleen Kaman, Graduate Student in CMS
“The World Earth Catalog Redux: Environmentalism in the Age of Global Climate Change”

PRESENTATION ABSTRACTS AND SPEAKER BIOS BELOW:

Stephen Wilmarth, Center for 21st Century Skills
“Five Socio-Technology Trends that Change Everything in 21st Century Learning and Teaching”

* Abstract *

New digital technologies open the door on changes in learning and teaching that go much deeper than anything we’ve experienced in history.  Converging technologies are augmented by new social patterns, creating a “virtuous cycle” of new knowledge creation. Until now, technology has made its impact on productivity in global commerce, as we’ve defined it by industrial age standards.  So, e-mail, the World Wide Web and cell phones have made us more accessible, more mobile, and more productive in our daily lives. The problem is, our measurements of productivity continue to be grounded in industrial age standards and ideas.  The case can be made that at the dawn of the 21st century, converging technologies and emerging social trends lay the groundwork for entirely new landscapes, in society, in commerce, in the very meaning of the work we do and the lives we lead, and ultimately in the what, where, why, and how we learn.  Curriculum design has been the foundation of our pedagogy practice and professional teaching standards in a system that has changed only marginally since the start of the modern academy of the Renaissance period.  But emerging socio-technology trends will have a broad and definitive impact on curriculum design going forward. Learning and teaching will be reshaped by the forces of social production, social networks, a semantic web, media grids, and a new paradigm of knowledge creation best stated as a metaphor with biological, organic, sustainable tenor.  Let’s refer to the metaphor as “the new zoo” and debate how this metaphoric representation of knowledge creation forces a new look at how we should redesign learning experiences going forward.

* Biography *

Stephen Wilmarth is currently a Senior Program Specialist and Co-Founder of the Center for 21st Century Skills in Litchfield, Connecticut.  The Center is an NSF-funded program with the purpose to design and operate innovative learning programs in K-14 classrooms and learning communities.  The mission of the Center is to prepare learners for productive lives in a global 21st century society and economy.  He received his B.A. in History from the University of Bridgeport, and has attended Suffolk Law School, Babson’s Olin Graduate School of Management, and the Harvard Graduate School of Education.  Prior to his experience as an educator, Wilmarth founded several high-tech, VC funded start-ups.  He has been a guest lecturer at MIT’s Sloan School of Management and the London Business School, and is currently under contract with ASCD (an educational publishing house) to co-author a book on curriculum design with Dr. Heidi Hayes Jacobs of Columbia University’s Teachers College.  He has been a friend of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School and the Internet Society Project at Yale Law School for the past several years.

From Harvard Berkman Center:
Melanie Dulong de Rosnay
“Defining Taxonomies for Access and Reuse of creative works and scientific data”

*Abstract*

Rights expression languages provide legal metadata and relational elements to describe which actions can be performed on creative works and information. They can be part of digital rights management systems, or used by search engines to find works according to their availability status. Current legal metadata schemes express legal and contractual rules with standardized syntax (e.g. XML, RDF), but are not necessarily semantically interoperable. Compatibility may be achieved through the definition of a common denominator, e.g. jurisdiction-based definitions (European law harmonization and transposition, national versions of Creative Commons licenses), or community-based norms (citation, commercial use, appropriation or reuse). Definitions, licenses and protocols may evaluate freedom or openness and restrictions.

This research is currently being extended in collaboration with Science Commons in order to identify freedoms and restrictions for scientific databases. To this end, Science Commons has released a Protocol for Implementing Open Access Data, a set of “requirements for gaining and using the Science Commons Open Access Data Mark and metadata.”

* Biography *

Melanie Dulong de Rosnay is a fellow at the Berkman Center for
Internet & Society at Harvard Law School, where she leads research in
copyright law and information science. In addition, she is designing
a distance learning course on copyright for librarians in partnership
with eIFL, working on open access science and open data policy with
Science Commons, coordinating publications for Communia, the European
thematic network on the digital public domain, and serving as legal
project lead for Creative Commons in France.

Prior to joining the Berkman Center, Ms. Dulong de Rosnay
participated to research projects on legal metadata and ontologies,
rights expression languages, e-science and open access, Internet
governance, and technical standardization (MPEG-21). She holds a
doctorate in law from CERSA (the Administrative Science Studies
Research Center from University Paris 2), where her dissertation was
entitled “Legal and technological regulation of networked information
and creative works.” She also holds degrees in political science and
law from the Universities of Lyon, Leipzig, and Tilburg, and has
taught copyright law at the University of Technology of Compiègne,
France.

Colleen Kaman, Graduate Student in CMS
“The World Earth Catalog Redux: Environmentalism in the Age of Global Climate Change”

* Abstract *

The threat of climate change has generated increasing interest in curbing energy use. Many of the well-publicized efforts have included corporate strategies to ‘go green’ and become more environmentally friendly as well as cap and trade systems and laws that seek to curb carbon emissions. Some argue that these current responses do not adequately address the fundamental need to change how we produce and consume energy. Moreover, while U.S. environmental movement has generated a public response to this threat, the reaction has not been widespread and sustained enough to substantial impact the problem. Critics note that without tackling the large issue of energy use, we will fail to attain the eighty percent cut in carbon emissions by 2050 needed to avoid the most drastic impacts of climate change. This paper examines the threat of climate change not as a scientific problem, but as a social and cultural one. More than seventy percent of Americans consider themselves to be active in, or sympathetic to, the environmental movement, although only about ten percent have actually made an effort to substantially curb their so-called carbon footprint. At the same time, an increasing number of Americans feel that the movement is doing more harm than good. This paper traces the current tension in and relative ineffectiveness of the environmental movement to changing relationships between citizenship, media, politics, and consumer culture. Environmentalism is a complex issue, simultaneously existing as a political movement and an economic, social, and even counter-cultural construct. Competing notions of citizenship classify the problem of climate change differently and hence propose very different solutions to curbing it. How might the specific criticisms of the environmental movement reveal these deeper tensions? How might we understand the role of the individual across competing models of citizenship? And finally, how do various models of citizenship impact media choice and the message created? This research will explore several case studies to reveal how these shifting boundaries are creating new opportunities for a citizen-led environmentalism that transcends the bounds traditionally set by the environmental establishment.

* Biography *

Colleen Kaman is in the Comparative Media Studies program at MIT, where she is analyzing the intersection of new media on notions of democracy and vernacular culture. She is a researcher with the Center for Future Civic Media, a CMS-Media Lab initiative. Her research focuses on notions of public space, mobility, identity, and narrative across media.  She currently is developing a mobile air pollution-monitoring device that functions as a digital pet and social networking tool as well as a community-driven participatory radio site. Prior to coming to MIT, Ms. Kaman worked almost ten years as a documentary producer/director and broadcast journalist where she examined issues involving electoral politics, environment, health, education, and the judicial system. She earned her B.A. in Anthropology from Bates College in 1995.

February 25: FCC Announces Public En Banc Hearing in Cambridge, Massachusetts on Broadband Network Management Practices

4

Berkman@10 Event

The Federal Communications Commission today announced a public en banc hearing to be held in Cambridge, Massachusetts on Monday, February 25, 2008, hosted by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society on the campus of Harvard Law School.

The hearing time and location are as follows:

Time: 11:00 a.m. (Eastern Standard Time)

Location:
Harvard Law School
Ames Courtroom, Austin Hall
1515 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138

Directions

The Commission will hear from expert panelists regarding broadband network management practices. The hearing is open to the public, and seating will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.

The public may file comments or other documents with the Commission and should reference docket numbers 07-52 and 08-7 when filing by paper or submit your filing electronically and enter proceeding numbers 07-52 and 08-7. Filing instructions are provided here.

Sign language interpreters and open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Include a description of the accommodation needed, and include a way we can contact you if we need more information. Please make your request as early as possible. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

For additional information about the hearing, please visit the FCC’s website. Press inquiries should be directed to Clyde Ensslin at 202-418-0506 or Robert Kenny at 202-418-2668.

+ Announcement

Login
Protected by AkismetBlog with WordPress