The Fairness Doctrine Is Dead and Living in Israel

The fairness doctrine has long been eliminated as required conduct for broadcasters in the United States. When enforced, it meant both being required to discuss controversial issues and to represent them in a fair way. In Western Europe, where only public service broadcasters existed until quite recently, a different doctrine emerged—the doctrine of impartiality. Under this doctrine, broadcasters were to refrain from being partial in any way. In Israel, a hybrid solution was adopted: While the system was designed in the Western European way, the courts have been insisting for years that the American fairness doctrine is the norm for achieving political neutrality. This study describes this phenomenon and the way it emerged, and questions its contribution to free speech in a volatile democracy

The Fairness Doctrine Is Dead and Living in Israel

The fairness doctrine has long been eliminated as required conduct for broadcasters in the United States. When enforced, it meant both being required to discuss controversial issues and to represent them in a fair way. In Western Europe, where only public service broadcasters existed until quite recently, a different doctrine emerged—the doctrine of impartiality. Under this doctrine, broadcasters were to refrain from being partial in any way. In Israel, a hybrid solution was adopted: While the system was designed in the Western European way, the courts have been insisting for years that the American fairness doctrine is the norm for achieving political neutrality. This study describes this phenomenon and the way it emerged, and questions its contribution to free speech in a volatile democracy

Justice, and Only Justice, You Shall Pursue: Network Neutrality, the First Amendment and John Rawls\u27s Theory of Justice

As broadband becomes the public\u27s technology of choice to access the Internet, it is also emerging as the battlefield upon which the struggle for control of the Internet is being fought. Operators who provide physical access to the service claim the right to discriminate among the content providers who use the infrastructure in which the operators have invested. In contrast, content providers warn that exercising such a policy would undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success. [...] For academic observers, analysis of this issue has thus far been confined to the areas of property law, innovation, and competition models. This study, however, offers a different framework for analyzing the network neutrality controversy, one that takes into account that the Internet is a new medium of mass self communication. The Internet provides a unique venue for civic engagement, exposure to information, and opportunity for education. The established frameworks that guide the regulation of traditional media are not necessarily suitable for this new form of communication because they fail to address its multi-participant character (as opposed to the limited-participant technologies of old media ), and the abundance created by its innovative technological form (as opposed to the scarcity which characterized old media ). Here arises the urgent need to address this debate in its appropriate context. While others have framed the debate in terms of another battle among the conflicting interests of large corporations, we view it as a struggle between the newly defined classes of haves and have-nots. We contend that using this new frame of reference should provide both those whose interests have been ignored by the regulation of past technologies, and the newly created have-nots, with an opportunity to better their social positioning by enjoying unobstructed access to the Internet as users. Therefore, we propose abandoning the utilitarian philosophy that has characterized U.S. telecommunications regulation--the outcome of which has been promoting the interests of a fortunate few--and adopting the alternative theory of John Rawls\u27s theory of justice. [...] The materialization of the promise of the Internet requires its maintenance as an open and neutral network. We are therefore concerned about the continued reliance on legacy policies and intend to offer here a new underlying theory for regulation of access to the Internet. We suggest that although Rawls\u27s theory preceded the popularization of the Internet by decades, it has the power to bridge the different policy narratives and offer a framework for maintaining the free nature of the Internet because it addresses both the social and economic nature of the Internet policy debate, accepts the general framework of market economy and capitalism, focuses on protecting fundamental rights, and proposes an egalitarian, fair, and just solution

Israeli cellular telecommunications policy

Abstract Recent research has emphasized the role of regulatory measures in the adoption of new technologies, specifically mobile telephony. This study describes in detail the three phases of cellular licensing in Israel. It surveys policy changes and questions their contribution to the public interest, while discussing their underlying objectives. It reveals a pattern by which Israeli regulatory policy has shifted from a public interest focus to a government interest/corporate interest focus.

Policy implications of market segmentation as a determinant of fixed-mobile service substitution: What it means for carriers and policy makers

a b s t r a c t The determination whether mobile and fixed telecommunications services operate in the same market not only affects business decision of service providers, but also has wide implications on public policy decisions pertaining to the means by which they should be regulated in the United States. This study conducts a two-stage cluster analysis implementing the American Customer Satisfaction Model on two datasets of 3251 and 5060 data points pertaining to mobile and fixed-line phone services, respectively, collected by the National Quality Research Center at the University of Michigan in order to determine whether the way consumers perceive these services can indicate as to their levels of substitutability. It concludes that different types of customers with different needs consume these products and offers policy makers some insight on how to further the penetration of mobile services

Israeli cellular telecommunications policy

Recent research has emphasized the role of regulatory measures in the adoption of new technologies, specifically mobile telephony. This study describes in detail the three phases of cellular licensing in Israel. It surveys policy changes and questions their contribution to the public interest, while discussing their underlying objectives. It reveals a pattern by which Israeli regulatory policy has shifted from a public interest focus to a government interest/corporate interest focus.Israel Cellular Competition Telecommunications policy Government

Justice, and Only Justice, You Shall Pursue: Network Neutrality, the First Amendment and John Rawls\u27s Theory of Justice

As broadband becomes the public\u27s technology of choice to access the Internet, it is also emerging as the battlefield upon which the struggle for control of the Internet is being fought. Operators who provide physical access to the service claim the right to discriminate among the content providers who use the infrastructure in which the operators have invested. In contrast, content providers warn that exercising such a policy would undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success. [...] For academic observers, analysis of this issue has thus far been confined to the areas of property law, innovation, and competition models. This study, however, offers a different framework for analyzing the network neutrality controversy, one that takes into account that the Internet is a new medium of mass self communication. The Internet provides a unique venue for civic engagement, exposure to information, and opportunity for education. The established frameworks that guide the regulation of traditional media are not necessarily suitable for this new form of communication because they fail to address its multi-participant character (as opposed to the limited-participant technologies of old media ), and the abundance created by its innovative technological form (as opposed to the scarcity which characterized old media ). Here arises the urgent need to address this debate in its appropriate context. While others have framed the debate in terms of another battle among the conflicting interests of large corporations, we view it as a struggle between the newly defined classes of haves and have-nots. We contend that using this new frame of reference should provide both those whose interests have been ignored by the regulation of past technologies, and the newly created have-nots, with an opportunity to better their social positioning by enjoying unobstructed access to the Internet as users. Therefore, we propose abandoning the utilitarian philosophy that has characterized U.S. telecommunications regulation--the outcome of which has been promoting the interests of a fortunate few--and adopting the alternative theory of John Rawls\u27s theory of justice. [...] The materialization of the promise of the Internet requires its maintenance as an open and neutral network. We are therefore concerned about the continued reliance on legacy policies and intend to offer here a new underlying theory for regulation of access to the Internet. We suggest that although Rawls\u27s theory preceded the popularization of the Internet by decades, it has the power to bridge the different policy narratives and offer a framework for maintaining the free nature of the Internet because it addresses both the social and economic nature of the Internet policy debate, accepts the general framework of market economy and capitalism, focuses on protecting fundamental rights, and proposes an egalitarian, fair, and just solution