The number of blogosphere predictions on the Grokster case were sufficiently notable that the New York Times wrote about it. On that case, I side with the conventional wisdom that the Court is likely to reverse the case on fairly narrow grounds.
As for Brand X, only a few industry insiders seem to care about the outcome even though its significance is potentially very far-reaching (alas, teaching telecom is far less likely to get folks excited than copyright). I have, in Digital Crossroads (a recent book written with Jon Nuechterlein), criticized the Ninth Circuit decision as wrong on both legal and policy grounds. Going into the argument, I was fairly confident that the Supreme Court would overturn the Ninth Circuit's decision, which decided that traditional "Title II"--or common carriage-type--regulation applied to broadband markets (as opposed to the more flexible "Title I" classification). Scalia's questioning at the argument suggested that the case may well be a closer call than I initially appreciated, though I will stick by my guns and predict a reversal.
For me, however, the interesting, difficult, and important issues are the ones that follow after the Supreme Court makes its judgment about what regulatory category applies. In particular, the spectre of blocking different applications or content offerings (such as the Voice over Internet services blocked by a broadband provider in the Madison River case) raises an important policy challenge only beginning to be appreciated. I have written about that elsewhere, as have former Chairman Powell, Lawrence Lessig, and, of course, Jim Speta, who can speak for himself. For those who have yet to notice my discussions and debates with Jim on this issue (i.e., pretty much everyone), there will be a lot to look forward to. Hopefully, we can induce Randy, Doug, and others to enter that fray.
Comments