Abstract
Internet research often assumes users may connect devices without consent by their service providers. However, in many networks the service provider only allows use of devices obtained directly from the provider. We review how United States communications law addresses the rights of users to connect devices of their choice. We explicate a set of user and service provider rights. We propose legal requirements for attachment and management of devices. We illustrate how these proposed regulations would affect the services currently offered on telephone, cable, satellite, video networks, and cellular networks, as well as on the Internet.
- FCC. 1968. FCC 68-661, Carterfone Order.Google Scholar
- FCC. 1975. Part 68 Connection of terminal equipment to the telephone network. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 47, Chapter 1, Part 68. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov.Google Scholar
- FCC. 2002. FCC 02-77, Cable modem service order. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-77A1.pdf.Google Scholar
- FCC. 2005a. FCC 05-150, Internet over Wireline Facility Order. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-150A1.pdf.Google Scholar
- FCC. 2005b. FCC 05-151, Internet policy statement. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-151A1.pdf.Google Scholar
- FCC. 2007. FCC 07-132, AWS service order.Google Scholar
- FCC. 2009. FCC 09-93, Open Internet NPRM. (October). http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-93A1.pdf.Google Scholar
- FCC. 2010a. DA-10-1667, Further inquiry into two under-developed issues in the open Internet proceeding. (September). http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1667A1.pdf.Google Scholar
- FCC. 2010b. FCC 10-201, Open Internet order. (December). http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.pdf.Google Scholar
- FCC. 2010c. FCC 10-60, Allvid notice of inquiry. (April).Google Scholar
- François Bar and Christian Sandvig. 2000. Rules from truth: Communication policy after convergence. In Proceedings of the 28th Telecommunications Policy Research Conference.Google Scholar
- Robert W. Hahn and Robert E. Litan. 2007. The myth of network neutrality and what we should do about it. Intern. J. Commun. 1, 595--606.Google Scholar
- Scott Jordan. 2007. A layered network approach to net neutrality. Intern. J. Commun. 1, 427--460.Google Scholar
- Scott Jordan. 2009. Implications of Internet architecture upon net neutrality. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. 9, 2, 1--28. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Scott Jordan. 2011. Traffic management and net neutrality in wireless networks. IEEE Trans. Netw. Service Manag. 8, 297--309.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Scott Jordan and Arijit Ghosh. 2010. A framework for classification of traffic management practices as reasonable or unreasonable. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. 10, 1--23. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Scott Jordan and Gwen Shaffer. 2010. Comments of Scott Jordan and Gwen Shaffer before the Federal Communications Commission in the matter of further inquiry into two under-developed issues in the open Internet proceeding. GN Docket No. 09-191 and WC Docket No. 07-52. (October).Google Scholar
- Scott Jordan and Gwen Shaffer. 2011. A proposed device attachment statute for converged networks. J. Inform. Policy 1, 394--424.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Scott Jordan and Gwen Shaffer. 2012. Should users be entitled to use and control the devices of their choice on networks? In Proceedings of the IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium (NOMS).Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Lawrence Lessig. 2001. The Internet under siege. Foreign Policy 127, 56--65.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Lawrence B. Solum and Minn Chung. 2003. The layers principle: Internet architecture and the law. U. San Diego Public Law Research Paper No. 55. http://ssrn.com/abstract=416263.Google Scholar
- U.S. Congress. 1996. S.652.PP, Telecomunications Act of 1996, 104th Congress, Public Law 104--104. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:s.00652.Google Scholar
- Kevin D. Werbach. 2002. A layered model for Internet policy. J. Telecomm. High Technol. Law 1, 37--67. http://ssrn.com/abstract=648581.Google Scholar
- Richard S. Whitt. 2004. A horizontal leap forward: Formulating a new communications public policy framework based on the network layers model. Fed. Commun. Law J. 56, 587--672.Google Scholar
- Tim Wu. 2007. Wireless Carterfone. Intern. J. Commun. 1, 389--426.Google Scholar
Index Terms
User and ISP Rights of Device Attachment and Device Management
Recommendations
Device Management in the IMS
IMS is the only standardized way to offer IP based services that are enabled by one common core and all types of access networks and devices. The management of devices can benefit services enabling and improve user experience. This paper presents the ...
Principles of device attachment and control
ITC '12: Proceedings of the 24th International Teletraffic CongressAn evolving issue of net neutrality concerns whether users should have a right to connect and control devices of their choice. In cable and satellite television networks, cellular networks, and some broadband Internet networks, the service provider ...
Protecting fair use from digital rights management in china
DRM '07: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM workshop on Digital Rights ManagementThe widespread applications of the digital rights management (DRM) in China now are challenging its traditional fair use doctrine. This paper gives an analysis of the existing Chinese laws and regulations that could be applied to protect fair use from ...






Comments