Gus Hurwitz

Gus Hurwitz

Gus Hurwitz, a visiting fellow at AEI's Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy, is an assistant professor at the University of Nebraska College of Law, where he teaches telecommunications law, cyber law, law and economics, and other regulation-related subjects. His research builds on his background in law, technology, and economics to consider the interface between law and technology and the role of regulation in high-tech industries. He has a particular expertise in telecommunications law and technology. He was previously the inaugural research fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Law School’s Center for Technology, Innovation and Competition, and before that was a visiting assistant professor at George Mason University Law School. He previously spent several years as a trial attorney with the US Department of Justice Antitrust Division’s Telecommunications and Media Enforcement Section. Hurwitz has a background in technology and worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory. During this time, his work was recognized with professional awards from organizations such as the Federal Laboratory Consortium, R&D Magazine, Los Alamos National Lab, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the Association for Computing Machinery, and the Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California. In addition, he held an Internet2 Land Speed world record with the Guinness Book of World Records. Hurwitz is a co-blogger at Truth on the Market.
NetNeutralityFacts by Shutterstock

Facts let us argue directly with net neutrality comments from around the world

Recent comments by Etsy CEO Chad Dickerson – as well as comments filed by his company in the FCC’s Open Internet proceeding – demonstrate both some of the best and worst of what pro-Title II advocates have to offer. I’ll focus here on what makes his comments some of the best. Simply put, they go beyond expressing mere opinion about the FCC’s potential regulation of the Internet and attempt to provide a factual basis...

Independent agencies: The lost lesson of civics and civility

Pro-Title II groups have regularly urged the President to get involved in the FCC’s Open Internet proceedings. Characteristic of these efforts is Free Press’s self-styled “Campaign to Push Obama on Net Neutrality.” Similar suasion has been applied to members of Congress. These efforts have increased in recent weeks with the Editorial Board of the New York Times addressing Title II in an editorial called “President Obama: No Internet Fast Lanes” and pro-Title II advocates penning a public letter requesting a meeting with the President to discuss these issues. These efforts show at best a basic – and ironic – ignorance of the structure of our Federal government, and at worst a deliberate intent to win political points by further agitating and confusing an already bewildered public.
CableSystem by Shutterstock

Aereo’s legal strategy straightens up and flies right

I have argued several times  over the past months that the Aereo case has wrongly been framed in terms of Copyright law – that it is really a case about communications law and policy and, in particular, about our ongoing commitment to broadcast television in the era of online video. Just this week I argued that the Supreme Court’s opinion should have been framed in terms of Section 111, a specialized section of the Copyright Act that deals specifically with the retransmission of broadcast television content. The same day, news broke that Aereo has reframed its legal strategy to embrace just this argument, now arguing that it is a cable system and that it can avail itself of the Section 111 compulsory license to gain access to broadcast television content.
SupremeCourt by Shutterstock

A Supremely broken Aereo  

Even though it reaches the correct outcome, the Supreme Court’s Aereo opinion is staggeringly, and confusingly, bad. The court’s “looks like cable” analysis fails to address the difficult questions about the meaning of the Copyright Act; rather, it has added to existing confusion. This outcome was entirely predictable. As I have explained before, by framing the questions presented in traditional copyright terms – the meaning of the Transmit Clause – the court...

Aereo: Too clever by half gets you nowhere, fast

Since 10:17AM yesterday morning, hundreds, if not thousands, of articles and blog posts have been written explaining, dissecting, and analyzing the Supreme Court’s decision in ABC v. Aereo. Rather than engage in more analysis and explanation of the Court’s opinion, I will assume some level of familiarity with the opinion and the facts, and offer what I hope is a somewhat unique perspective on what the case means.

The basic point I want to make is...