Hi Susan, >I understand that you're not surprised that FCC is >asserting jurisdiction over all ip-enabled services -- >over every server, web page, email, and IM client. I >think this will probably be fought out in court, just >as the broadcast flag rulemaking is being challenged >now. If it's a public infrastructure, indeed. Any one of those applications or network devices has the potential to significantly adversely affect millions of people. Under existing Title II, III, and IV jurisdiction, the FCC has long had jurisdiction over every piece of fiber, switch, telephone handset, wireless device, cellular phone, garage door opener, television set, cable modem, head end, satellite system satellite dish. Painting the picture just in terms of jurisdiction seems not particularly useful. Indeed, if you look at the label on your desktop or laptop computer, you'll probably see that the FCC jurisdictional label is already on it. as it is on the modem plug you inserted into the wall. >You're the expert, but my understanding is that FCC had >a license-related hook that allowed it to work on the >IM aspects of the AOL-TW merger. That is, its basis for >jurisdiction was spectrum-related, and not based on the >workings of AOL's IM client. I also believe that the IP >Relay service is specifically linked to the public >switched telephone network and North American numbering >plan. Again, I could be wrong, but I believe the hook >there is far closer to FCC's area of expertise and >jurisdiction. I'm glad we're agreeing that there are bases for jurisdiction for the exercise of authority, and that presumably you're OK with the result. Frankly, it's not clear why the jurisdiction part is bothersome. The Court has always (to the best of my knowledge) accorded the FCC the widest possible jurisdiction involving electronic communications. After all, that's why the FCC (or for that matter, the ITU) was created. What deserves scrutiny is the exercise of that jurisdiction. Maybe we also can get to that level. >And the fact that CALEA is being considered for >IP-enabled services is disturbing to some senators. CALEA was always "considered" for IP-enabled services. It's in the legislative history, and consistently construed as such by every appellate court of which I am familiar. The 1994 Act only exempts "information services," and narrowly defines them. That's rather different than "IP-enabled services." >It's fine for FCC to say it has exclusive jurisdiction >over IP-enabled services for the purposes of preempting >state rules. But it doesn't necessarily follow that it >can impose "social policies" on those services. So it's OK to pre-empt all the States, but then do nothing to reflect their policy concerns? That typically has not passed judicial muster. It doesn't really comport with Federal-State comity. I'll leave all the Internet poetry to you. Been there, done that. cheers, tony