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.
OnlineVideo by Shutterstock

Chairman Wheeler’s musings on the future of video: Is this a Tech Neutrality NPRM, and what’s up with linear programming?

Earlier this week, FCC Chairman Wheeler published a blog post detailing his proposal to apply the Commission’s rules governing multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) to over the top (OTT) video providers, who stream linear channels of video over the Internet. More precisely, Chairman Wheeler proposed to classify such Internet-based video providers as MVPDs. Commentators have been buzzing about this expected rulemaking for several weeks, and the Commission has previously made clear that...

OTTNPRM by Shutterstock

The FCC’s OTT NPRM: Is Aereo cable by nature? OTT, yeah MVPD

News broke late last month that the FCC is working on a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would classify some types of Internet-based video distributors as multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs). This is a big deal. MVPD classification would place these Internet-based video distributors on similar regulatory footing as traditional MVPDs like cable and satellite, with both the benefits and obligations that such footing entails. At the same time, there are substantial limitations, both on the MVPD classification and on the types of Internet-based video distributors to which the classification would apply. This is the first in a series of posts that will discuss the regulatory treatment of online video. Today, I’ll provide some background and look at what the NPRM likely would (or could) do, as well as the links between the NPRM and Aereo. In future posts I’ll get into more of the challenges about how specific rules may apply to OTT, the (statutory, if not logical) importance of “linear” vs. other video, and whether this is likely to be a step into the future or further tie the industry to the past.
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.