Appeals Court Backs FCC Decision To Speed Local Tower-Siting Approvals

A federal appeals court has upheld a decision limiting the time it should take state and local governments to consider cell tower-siting applications (City of Arlington, Texas and City of San Antonio, Texas v. Federal Communications Commission, 5th Cir., 10-60039,1/23/2012). The opinion handed down Jan. 23 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit leaves in place a ruling by the Federal Communications Commission in November 2009 [48 CR 1271] in which the agency declared that a “reasonable period of time” for state and local governments to act on applications for co-located sitings is 90 days, and for all other applications is 150 days. Under the FCC's ruling, if local officials fail to either approve or deny an application within the 90- to 150-day time periods, a wireless carrier may file a claim for relief in court within 30 days. The court will then decide what action to take based on all the facts of the case. The Texas cities of Arlington and San Antonio disagreed and filed lawsuits challenging the ruling on several grounds, but the court sided with the FCC. “We do not read the [FCC's] declaratory ruling as creating a scheme in which a state or local government's failure to meet the FCC's time frames constitutes a per violation of the [Communications Act],” Circuit Judge Priscilla Owen wrote for the three-judge panel. “The time frames are not hard and fast rules but instead exist to guide courts in their consideration of cases challenging state or local government inaction.” By blocking, or delaying the approval of, tower-siting applications, local authorities have given voice to concerns that proximity to a monopole or antenna may be not just aesthetically unpleasing but also harmful to one's health and property values. Industry Sees Inactivity. But the wireless industry says that the problem is inactivity. In many cases, the application process stretches over months, sometimes years, for a single cell tower. In July 2008, CTIA-the Wireless Association filed a petition with the FCC, asking the agency to interpret “ambiguous” provisions of Section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act to ensure that efforts to deploy wireless networks are not undermined by state and local zoning authorities. That was one aim of the FCC's ruling, and Chairman Julius Genachowski suggested as much in an e-mailed statement Jan. 23. “The FCC's tower siting policy upheld today advances the crucial national priority of ensuring American leadership in mobile innovation and is part of the FCC's relentless focus on unleashing the opportunities of wired and wireless broadband for all Americans, including job creation, increased investment, innovation and economic growth,” said Genachowski. The Fifth Circuit's decision will have an impact on issues of important to local jurisdictions. While siding with the FCC, the court said Section 332(c)(7)(A) of Communications Act states Congress's desire to make section 332(c)(7)(B)'s limitations “the only limitations confronting state and local governments in the exercise of their zoning authority over the placement of wireless services facilities,”and thus certainly prohibits the FCC from imposing restrictions or limitations that cannot be tied to the language of the Act. However, whether the FCC retains the power of implementing those limitations, however, remains “unresolved,” the court said.

Why ‘Ireland’s SOPA’ could be a good thing

Two days after hacktivist collective Anonymous distributed denial of service attack took the websites of the departments of Justice and Finance offline under the banner of OpIreland we now know exactly what they were protesting: two subsections of text on the topic of ‘harmonising' one element of Irish with EU law. Afforded a scant 15 minutes debate in a Dail chamber attended by a handful of deputies, you could be forgiven for thinking Junior Minister for Research and Innovation Sean Sherlock's (pictured) draft statutory instrument (SI) just another matter of process, not a landmark copyright war between the recording industry and Internet service providers. The debate, a mere exercise in optics, served two purposes: to show Minister Sherlock is in full possession of the facts of his brief and to dispel any doubts as to whether the SI (full text at http://bit.ly/xOnxOY) will be implemented. At time of writing it has just been announced that a full debate will indeed take place but let there be no confusion, the SI will pass and by the end of the month rights holders will be able to apply to the High Court to secure injunctions against copyright infringers, and those who enable them. After two years of gridlock, bodies like IRMA will have the right to demand Internet service providers (ISPs) block access to websites they believe are illegally distributing their work. The response has been predictable: outrage from the digerati reflected in a petition signed by almost 60,000 netizens, satisfaction from the recording industry, and indifference by everyone else. Having ignited the debate, Anonymous moved on to railing against the much bigger and scarier Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) being signed by the US, EU, Japan, South Korea, Canada and Australia. So has Government saved the state some money by dodging a fine for not complying with EU law at the expense of the Internet? Based on Minister Sherlock's wording (full text here) we can glean that Ireland is not on the verge of enacting its own version The US's defunct Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP Act - both cast aside in the face of massive Internet protest. Under the proposed SI there are no provisions for jail sentences for copyright infringement, removing links and domain names from search engines. What the order implements is a structure whereby they can apply for an injunction in the High Court against ‘intermediaries' (websites and Internet service providers) and individuals who are making money off work they did not create. A clue to the kind of sanctions the Courts might impose can be found in the order's reference to "due regard to the rights of any person likely to be affected by virtue of the grant of any such injunction". The wording implies that Courts act based on the scale of the infringement and the means of the defendant. This is not a measure designed to bankrupt people, yet the wording is sufficiently vague that in the wrong hands could lead to wholesale shutdowns of cloud services, social networks and even Web-based e-mail. Critics of the order say the recording industry has just been handed a nuclear option, yet there are already concepts in domestic and EU law that, properly clarified, can prevent a copyright apocalypse. The safe harbour defence Right now there are two kinds of broadband service provider: those that add content (eircom and Magnet, for example) to their offering and those that don't (UPC). Providers without ties to the recording industry - is those with no content agreements - would be well placed to seek clarity on the concept of the safe harbour. Under this defence a provider can argue they provide an infrastructure with no obligation to regulate what happens on it, much the same way a phone company cannot be held accountable for the nature of conversations held on its network. Minister Sherlock said the order would not compel networks to monitor their own traffic and that businesses cannot, under EU law, have their businesses affected by the whims of copyright owners. Under the safe harbour defence in the US's Digital Millennium Copyright Act rightsholders can issue takedown notices to have their content removed on a case by case basis, giving websites a fair chance to respond to complaints. Fair use At what point does reproduction and sharing become outright piracy. Some cases in the US saw rightsholders attempt to remove any and all traces of their work, extending to incidental background music in user-generated YouTube clips. Such lawsuits not only make bad PR, they present the recording industry as litigious patent trolls engaging in nuisance lawsuits to the detriment of the artists the industry represents. Clarifying the parameters of fair use would dissuade industry bodies from adopting a ‘sue them all and let the courts sort them out' approach. The central question to be addressed here is one of intent: has the creator of the ‘remixed' or reposted work *made* (as opposed to potential for making) any money off it? If so, then some kind of royalty is due to the rightsholder; if not, then nothing is owed. This would absolve users, discussion forums and social networks, and would work with any product from music to software. Individuals posting baby clips with music playing in the background need not be troubled. Large sites that rely on user generated content backed up by a mix of material submitted by record labels, studios and professional artists (YouTube) currently pay a licence fee or (Muzu.tv) have agreed a revenue share based on the number of times a piece of music is streamed. Debate in this area is ongoing in Ireland. The right to information If the new SI is all about bringing Ireland into line with Europe let's see what else Europe has to offer. In two decisions last year saw the EU court of human rights classified access to a satellite dish as a right in the context of the free movement of goods and services and the right to freedom of expression. and that separating television markets by territory was an anti-competitive practice. Both decisions have massive implications for how we receive broadcast content, but could spill over into how the Internet is treated in law. Without getting too far into the nuts and bolts of the decisions, should any entity try and limit avenues to public discourse either through hardware or service-level restrictions they are in violation of EU law. Sherlock's statutory instrument will give the recording industry a short term solution to its copyright woes. Few would mourn the loss of a service that exists only to illegally share content. A better solution lies with IRMA engaging with bodies like the Internet Service Providers Association of Ireland - something it has yet to do.

AT&T, T-Mobile To Transfer $1 Billion Worth Of Wireless Airwaves

Telecom giant AT&T is asking for approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to transfer $1 billion worth of wireless spectrum to cell carrier T-Mobile resulting from the failure of AT&T’s failed bid to purchase T-Mobile last year for $39 billion, reports Rue Liu for SlashGear. AT&T gave up on its plans to merge with T-Mobile in December after repeated scrutiny by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) along with lawsuits brought on by state attorneys general and rival carriers. After the FCC threatened to request an administrative hearing, AT&T decided the efforts were not leaning favorably in its direction and walked away from the plans. As part of its pre-negotiated terms for backing out of the acquisition, AT&T will give T-Mobile’s German owner Deutsche Telekom $3 billion in cash along with the $1 billion in spectrum allocation. Tom Sugrue, T-Mobile’s senior vice president for government affairs, speaking in the Wall Street Journal said, “this additional spectrum will help meet the growing demand for wireless broadband services.” T-Mobile, the fourth largest carrier in the US can certainly utilize this spectrum. They have not announced any plans for rolling out LTE 4G service and is currently hampered by its use of non-standard UMTS 3G service, writes Daniel Eran Dilger for Apple Insider. This prevents the carrier from selling Apple’s existing iPhone, which it has cited as a key reason for the company’s poor sales performance.

Ericsson and ZTE resolve patent license issues

In April 2011 Ericsson (NASDAQ:ERIC) filed lawsuits in Germany, UK and Italy against ZTE for infringing on several Ericsson patents related to GSM and 3G/UMTS cellular technology The parties have now signed a global cross-licensing agreement and both parties have also agreed to drop all litigation. "Ericsson has the strongest patent portfolio in the industry with over 27,000 patents and any company which sells mobile devices or systems needs a license from Ericsson. We have signed more than 90 patent agreements with different vendors worldwide. Now we can add ZTE to this group," says Kasim Alfalahi, Chief Intellectual Property Officer at Ericsson. ZTE signs a royalty bearing cross-licensing agreement that complies with Fair, Reasonable and Non- Discriminatory (FRAND) royalty compensation for access to part of Ericsson's patent portfolio.

Labour lashes out at Govt's long delayed 4G auction

Labour is blaming the Conservatives for the delays in the 4G mobile spectrum launch, which it claims is costing the economy £1m a day. Labour has blamed the Government for not being firm enough with Ofcom regarding the 4G mobile spectrum auction, and that the ongoing delays have cost the economy millions. Helen Goodman, Labour's Shadow Minister for Media, states that alongside the auction itself which is expected to raise £2-4bn in capital, the Government is also missing out £300m a year in licensing fees. Following the current round of consultation, the auction is now due to occur late this year, with 4G network rollouts in mid-2013 at the latest. "The auction could have taken place in 2010 but this government decided not to give Ofcom the backup to go ahead with the sale of 4G," said Goodman. It is possible that 4G networks may not be available until 2015. "Consumers need better mobile coverage, particularly in rural areas, and it is disappointing that it has taken the government 18 months to get on with the auction," Goodman said. "At a time of deep cuts to the public sector, the government is in effect losing almost £1m in revenue a day. We will be one of the last major countries in Europe to get 4G coverage, which is shameful because Britain is one of the largest producers of mobile phone technology in the world." A 4G spectrum auction was originally looked at in 2009, but 4G standards were not finalised at the time. Since then, Ofcom claims problems aligning UK spectrum with Europe and our slow analogue TV switch off saw the process drag out across 2010-2011. Other have been swift to disagree. Ofcom also claims it is focusing on ensuring the current, already overloaded 2G and 3G networks are stable for the Olympics, a justifiable enough goal, but one which will not please technophiles, businesses or especially rural customers. Mostly the arguments have been over how the auction should be conducted. Ofcom wants to preserve competition, while the mobile operators want to ensure there is no repeat of the 3G auctions in 2000. Those auctions netted the government an unexpected and astonishing £22bn - but this left many operators debt riddled and struggling to build and then monetise their investments, leading to the telecoms crash of 2001. A supposedly final round of 4G consultation completed in May 2011, with the auction due to occur around now. Threatened lawsuits from Vodafone and O2 saw Ofcom open a second round of consultation, which began last week. Both Vodafone and O2 already have some 4G spectrum, and weren't happy at perceived corporate welfare to the other market competitors. France Telecom and Deutsche Telekom's Everything Everywhere (owners of Orange Mobile and T-Mobile) as well as Hutchison-Whompoa (owners of Three Mobile) were to have spectrum reserved for them in the 800Mhz spectrum, alongside overall bidding limits, which Ofcom claimed was to preserve a competitive 4G market with four big mobile operators. Ofcom released its revised proposal document last week, which has seen Everything Everywhere lose this reserved 800MHz spectrum. Ofcom now claims Everything Everywhere already holds enough 4G compatible 1800MHz spectrum. The proposal also pushes two new approaches to pushing national mobile coverage past the previous threshold of 95%. Germany has completed its spectrum auction, earning its government €4.4bn, and German telcos are already beginning to rollout 4G networks. France's radio spectrum auction is currently under way. The US already has a functioning 4G network and last week's CES show saw the second generation of 4G phones unveiled. If the UK's networks aren't up before 2015, by Goodman's estimations it will have cost the economy £1.5bn pounds. 4G has been much hyped as a solution to the rural/urban digital divide, which has seen telcos struggling to economically justify rolling out high speed broadband to rural areas. 4G would wirelessly produce similar broadband speeds to what general fixed line users in UK cities receive today.

Blackmailing NBN Co works best through the media

opinion Over the past week a rather pathetic little game of bluster, bluff and ultimately light blackmail has played itself out in Australia’s telco sector as a handful of Australia’s major ISPs have done everything in their power to demonstrate just how self-interested they can be when it comes to exploiting the National Broadband Network. This game — let’s call it Quigley’s Hold’em, or perhaps Dalby’s Five DSLAM Draw — probably kicked off, as most such shady efforts do, late in the week, perhaps as the shadows of last Friday night were drawing near and the weekend, with all its inherent vices, began to beckon the players away from the clear sunlight of honest dealing. At the time, the head negotiators from most of Australia’s major ISPs — at least including iiNet and Internode, but likely Telstra and Optus as well — informed the National Broadband Network Company that they were not planning to sign the comprehensive wholesale agreement which it had labored with them for some 15 months to develop. Despite the fact that the document had already been through five draft iterations and hundreds of hours of consultations, the ISPs told NBN Co, it had still not addressed some of their key concerns; namely, the ability of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to oversee the relationship, the liability in the case of problems, and equivalence issues with all ISPs signing the same document. Now, normally this kind of issue would be part of the normal cut and thrust of negotiation between the ISPs and NBN Co — fair points to raise. But, to add a little punch to their demands, at the last moment, the ISPs played two hidden trumps: Timing, and the media. Unlike the ISPs, NBN Co has been on a clock in the negotiations. The existing trial agreement between the two sides, which has allowed some 4,000 customers to be signed up to NBN Co’s infrastructure nationally, expired today. This isn’t a problem for the ISPs. After all, they need be in no rush to move their existing customers onto the NBN’s infrastructure. Either way — if the customers stay or go — the ISPs get paid. But it is a vast problem for NBN Co. The ridiculous furore that erupted when NBN Co released its current customer sign-up numbers just after New Year’s Eve should go some way to illustrating the fact that the company is currently fighting for its own survival. If NBN Co can roll out enough infrastructure and sign up enough customers over the next year, it faces a chance of continued existence under a Coalition Government; if its effort stall, it will fall victim to Tony Abbott’s oft-repeated promise to shut the project down. The ISPs know this. And so, when faced with NBN Co’s intransigence in modifying the terms of its wholesale contract, at the eleventh hour, they bent the company over a barrel and reached for one of the easiest and most manipulable weapons available to anyone in Australian society: The media. “NBN Co to bar defiant telcos,” screamed the Financial Review’s article on Monday morning, which painted NBN Co as a draconian monopoly, “threatening” to “ban” ISPs from signing up new customers. And the rest of the media swung into line, with more headlines: ‘NBN Co pressures telcos on access agreements’; ‘NBN Co stands firm on wholesale contract’; ‘Under 50% of ISPs sign onto NBN contract’; ‘Tension as NBN trial agreement ends’; the headlines went on forever. On Monday, NBN Co was standing fairly firm, soberly highlighting its extensive 18 month consultation efforts and the lengths to which it had gone to meet the ISPs’ demands. But it only took two days for the company — flailing under a fictional ‘pressure’ entirely created by the ISPs and a media ravenous for fresh meat in the slow news days of the new year — to buckle. NBN Co’s bluff had been called as the ISPs refused to give ground. This morning, it was again the Financial Review which brought us the new developments. “NBN backs down on agreement,” the newspaper reported. And “sources close to negotiations” — read: the ISPs — noted that NBN Co had retreated in precisely the areas the ISPs were complaining about. Game over. Quelle surprise! Now, I don’t want to go too far in alleging improper behaviour on the part of the ISPs. Solid journalistic efforts by the AFR’s reporter on this issue, David Ramli, did faithfully bring this important issue to light. And, of course, the fact that we know about all of this is itself a positive thing: Transparency in the NBN process is only to be lauded. Then, too, it is common commercial practice for companies of any stripe to use any legal tool at their disposal to bring negotiations to a successful close. Nothing illegal has been done here, and probably even nothing unusual for the private sector. However, there are several disturbing aspects to what happened this week which I think bear further rumination. The first is the adoption by several major ISPs of the sorts of language during this NBN process which we are more accustomed to hearing from the Daily Telegraph. Internode carrier relations manager John Lindsay, for example, raised a rather unusual scenario when speaking to the AFR about the liability issue. “You don’t want to be in a position where NBN Co’s installers have wrecked your customer’s house or have no incentive to do connections in a timely fashion, with you getting the blame,” he said. Really? Painting NBN Co as house wreckers? I would have thought that below Lindsay. Then there was this curious statement on the part of iiNet regulatory chief Steve Dalby, again on the liability issue: “It means that if customers are affected by outages they can sue us, but we can’t pass that liability through to the cause, which would be NBN Co, and that just doesn’t make any sense.” Really? It’s extremely rare — in fact, almost unheard of — for a customer to sue an ISP about their connection going down. I can’t imagine this will be a regular event under the far more reliable fibre future NBN Co has planned for us. NBN Co ‘wreckers’, customer lawsuits? Is the iiNode which we know and trust? It doesn’t seem like it to me. Then there was the nature of the negotiations themselves. Wikipedia defines a cartel as being a formal (explicit) agreement among competing firms, which Australia’s ISPs most certainly are. It then goes on to explain that cartels usually occur in oligopolistic industries, where there are a small number of sellers, usually selling homogeneous products. The aim of cartels, it adds, is to increase the profits of individual members by reducing competition. Maybe I’m taking this argument a bit far, but when most of Australia’s ISPs gang up together on the same issues and force a major wholesale service provider like NBN Co to back down, by exerting pressure through the media, that sounds a great deal like a cartel to me. There’s no competition here; there’s no fair play; there’s only a gang of what — five or six ISPs, representing overwhelming market share — effectively publicly blackmailing a joint supplier. Then there’s the political angle. The whole reason why the ISPs are able to exert pressure on NBN Co is because the company has aims that are not commercial. NBN Co’s mission is to roll out telecommunications infrastructure around Australia and then sign customers to use it, through utilising relationships with retail ISPs. This isn’t a commercial business proposition — it’s a mandated government policy. And so while it doesn’t really have to ‘sell’ its products and services to ISPs as such, as they will be forced to use them eventually anyway (when other broadband networks are shut down), neither do ISPs have to buy them, until that shutdown date comes. The difficulty is, however, is that while NBN Co is locked into its course of action and cannot deviate from its mission, the ISPs are not, and they all have varying degrees of cooperation with the NBN policy. Some, such as Internode (or should I say, iiNet?), are pretty much wholly on board, while others such as TPG are so far ignoring the whole thing altogether. This gives the ISPs an extraordinary degree of non-commercial negotiating power. This week, the ISPs flexed that muscle. “Back down on your commercial contracts,” they told NBN Co, “or else we’ll make the NBN project look like it’s stalling, and your political masters very unhappy.” The pathetic statements they issued this afternoon, seeking the validation of the public and the media for signing contracts with NBN Co — whose public credibility they flirted with wrecking through their game — only makes blisteringly obvious their belief in the usefulness of the press in the negotiating process. As a believer in free markets and the value of competition, all of this makes me very, very uncomfortable. We have collusive action by Australia’s telecommunications giants, leveraging political angles and the threat of the media. We have bluster from formerly honourable ISPs painting an important national project as “wrecking” people’s homes. And we have an 18 month NBN negotiation process undercut at the very last minute. Who knows what the long-term implications will be. If I were the ACCC, I would be looking very, very carefully at the events of this week, as I’m sure Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull and other elements of the Coalition are. How far can we trust the major players in Australia’s telecommunications sector? At this point, I am far from sure.

Ericsson reshuffles pack to capitalise on IPR

With a flurry of patent lawsuits dominating headlines in the industry, Ericsson has taken steps to place more emphasis on protecting its intellectual property. The vendor claims to have the industry’s strongest wireless IPR portfolio with 27,000 granted patents covering a range of technologies, such as wireless access and WLAN. It has already signed more than 90 license agreements with firms in the industry and as wireless access is now being added in new types of devices, Ericsson is reorganising its Licensing and Patent Development department with the aim of creating a larger revenue stream from its IPR. The vendor is aiming to increase IPR revenues above the SEK 4.6bn ($662m) net revenue generated in 2010. In addition, the company’s chief intellectual property officer, Kasim Alfalahi, will no longer report to Håkan Eriksson, CTO within the group function technology and portfolio management division, and will instead report directly to president and CEO Hans Vestberg. “The ICT industry is built on standardised and shared technologies, making it possible to create a global mass market for mobile telephony and mobile broadband. Today’s six billion mobile phone subscriptions, and close to one billion mobile broadband subscriptions, would not be possible without this industry mentality,” said Vestberg. “As we are entering the Networked Society, we will see built-in wireless access beyond traditional devices like phones, laptops and tablets, providing new services to the consumers. This provides an interesting business opportunity for us, having this industry’s strongest patent portfolio, as any company or manufacturer that wants to get in there will need an agreement with Ericsson.”

FCC Chairman Pushes Spectrum, 'Proud' of Net Neutrality Efforts

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission made his annual appearance here at the Consumer Electronics Show this afternoon, and his message was a familiar one—more spectrum, please. He also touched on the AT&T, T-Mobile merger (sort of) and net neutrality. "Nowhere are the opportunities and challenges greater than with mobile broadband," Chairman Julius Genachowski said. "Tablets, ultrabooks, 4G phones, machine-to-machine all ... consume now and are going to consume more and more data." Genachowski reiterated his support for spectrum auctions, which would allow TV broadcasters with excess spectrum to sell to the highest bidder. "We need to get it done now and we need to get it done right," he said. "The plain fact is that the aggregated consumer demand for spectrum for broadband is increasing at a very rapid pace while the supply ... of spectrum remains essentially flat." If that sounds familiar, it is. It's the exact same thing he asked for during his appearance at the 2011 CES. "The coming spectrum crunch threatens American leadership in mobile and the benefits it can deliver to our economy and our lives," Genachowski said last year. Very few things happen overnight in Washington, however—or over the course of a year, it seems. Congress, the FCC, and stakeholders have been battling for ages over how to solve the spectrum crunch, but as more and more people snap up data intensive gadgets like the iPad or Galaxy Nexus, a spectrum crunch looms. The carriers currently have enough spectrum to keep those calls and that data coming, but for how long? Genachowski also sat down with CEA president Gary Shapiro and the two talked about the failed AT&T, T-Mobile deal as well as net neutrality. Well, Shapiro tried to get Genachowski to talk about the AT&T, T-Mobile merger. Without addressing the companies specifically, all the chairman would say was that the whole process "was a reminder of to all of us of the benefits and power of competition." Congress, meanwhile, gave the FCC and Justice Department the power to preserve competition and "on balance, the system ... has worked," Genachowski said. On net neutrality, meanwhile, Genachowski admitted that he wished he "had inherited something different" when becoming chairman, "but that's life," he said. The net neutrality rules the commission approved in December 2010 and which went into effect on Nov. 20, 2011, were an effort to preserve the broadband economy, Genachowski said. "The vision that I have ... is for a virtuous cycle of investment and innovation and I thought that we had to try and do what we can to bring peace" to the situation, he said. "I discovered that the gap ... in this fiery debate wasn't that large. We [did] everythig we can to bridge this gap and try to have a simple framework that gives much more certainty, [and] that's what we've done. It was controversial and not something everyone agreed with ... but I'm proud of the result." The FCC is currently facing various lawsuits from groups and companies that believe the FCC does not have the right to hands down net neutrality rules, as well as a suit arguing that the rules don't go far enough.

$22M price for Pinnacle Data too low, suits contend

Three lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of Pinnacle Data Systems, alleging that the company is being sold for a lower price than it is worth. Avnet, a Phoenix-based electronics components maker, announced plans two months ago to pay about $22 million, or $2.40 per share, for Pinnacle. Groveport-based Pinnacle is an electronics repair and logistics services company founded in 1989 that helps clients repair, refurbish, recycle and dispose of electronics products. The suits, filed in Franklin County Common Pleas Court in November, say that Pinnacle is undervalued because the company has no debt and has reported seven consecutive quarters of profits. “Pinnacle enjoys some of the highest margins among electronic repair service companies,” one lawsuit says, “and correspondingly delivers in profitability and cash reinvestment for future growth opportunities.” Avnet will “inexplicably” pay $2.40 per share for Pinnacle even though Pinnacle shares traded as high as $3.45 per share as recently as July 26, 2011, one suit says. Company shares stood at $2.38 yesterday. Pinnacle shares have traded in a range from $1.08 to $3.45 during the past 52 weeks. The purchase is subject to the approval of Pinnacle shareholders, with that special meeting scheduled for Jan. 25. In statements issued after the purchase was announced, executives at Pinnacle and Avnet said the deal is good for both companies. They said they would have no further comment about the purchase and did not return calls yesterday seeking comment. Avnet is no stranger to the Columbus market. In the fall, it acquired Broadband Integrated Resources Ltd, which has operations in Columbus and Dallas. Broadband Integrated Resources provides repair and logistics services to cable companies such as Time Warner, Comcast and Charter Communications.

'Pursue plunder raps vs GMA over ZTE deal'

Bayan Muna party-list Rep. Teddy Casiño is asking the Ombudsman to pursue plunder charges against former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in connection with the aborted $329-million national broadband network (NBN) project. He and two co-complainants are filing a “partial” motion for reconsideration (MR) with the Ombudsman’s office today to press for the filing of a plunder case against Arroyo. “In our MR, we want the Ombudsman to include the case of plunder in the case they filed at the Sandiganbayan against GMA (Mrs. Arroyo), former first gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo, Benjamin Abalos (former Commission on Elections chairman) and Leandro Mendoza (former transportation and communications secretary). We totally disagree with the Ombudsman’s position that the witnesses cannot tend to prove that money changed hands,” he said. It was Abalos who allegedly brokered the NBN contract, which was awarded to Chinese firm ZTE Corp. in April 2007 in ceremonies in Boao, China that were witnessed by then President Arroyo. Casiño said there were testimonies in Senate hearings that money changed hands between ZTE Corp. and Filipino officials behind the deal. He said that the testimony of witness Dante Madriaga alone “clearly establishes the fact that money, at least $30 million of it, indeed changed hands.” He said there was another testimony that the Chinese firm advanced $41 million to the “Filipino group” that was pushing for the transaction. He added that apparently, investigators of the Ombudsman glossed over these testimonies. He noted that there were also the sworn statements of witnesses Joey de Venecia III and Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada Jr. about kickbacks and commissions amounting to as much as $200 million and which padded the contract price to $329 million. Casiño said they also want Mendoza charged not only with graft but with violating the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standard for public Officials as well. Meanwhile, Comelec prosecutors and defense counsels of former president Arroyo and Abalos will argue today the motions on the separate electoral sabotage charges filed before the Pasay City Regional Trial Court Branch 112. They will tackle the motions for inhibition, bail and recall of warrant of arrest issued by the Court.

5 Mobile Things That Won't Happen In 2012

Plenty of good things and plenty of bad things happened throughout 2011 in the mobile industry and the same will be true of 2012. Looking ahead a wee bit, here are a few things that we might like to see happen next year--but probably won't. 1. The end of patent lawsuits. If you've been paying attention, you know that 2011 has been full of patent litigation between smartphone companies. Pretty much every handset manufacturer is involved with patent-related suits with its competitors. Apple happens to be at the nexus of many of the lawsuits, and has trials and court dates on deck around the world. But it's far from alone. Just last month, the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled that HTC is violating an Apple patent and that Motorola is violating a Microsoft patent. As great as it would be to see all the lawsuits dropped, it probably won't happen--especially since Steve Jobs called Android a "stolen idea" and vowed to fight it until it's dead. 2. The return of unlimited data. One thing we saw in 2011 was the death of the unlimited data plan. Most carriers moved to some form of tiered system for mobile broadband. Some charge overage fees for those who exceed their limits, while others throttle down the mobile broadband speeds of over-users. Though some carriers--such as Verizon Wireless--might introduce shared data family plans, the carriers aren't likely to offer unlimited data again until it is economical for them to do so. [ Why AT&T didn't get its way with T-Mobile. See AT&T Licking Its Wounds Over T-Mobile Collapse. ] 3. Widely available mobile payments. Google and Sprint might have kicked off Google Wallet this summer, but widespread availability and adoption of mobile payments using near-field communications won't arrive in 2012. Google Wallet can be used only on a single device using Sprint's network in a limited number of markets and with a limited number of retailers. Google Wallet's chief rival, Isis, won't even start trialing its systems until close to the end of the first half of the year. Although mobile payments will surely make solid progress throughout 2012, the technology won't be ready for prime time until 2013 at the earliest. 4. A solid competitor to AT&T and Verizon Wireless. Even though the Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission effectively squashed AT&T's attempt to purchase smaller rival T-Mobile USA, AT&T and Verizon Wireless will remain the dominant mobile network operators in 2012. Sprint is in a bad spot. It trails AT&T and Verizon by tens of millions of customers, and is currently transitioning between Wi-Max and LTE 4G network technologies. This transition is going to take years, and will keep Sprint from competing effectively. T-Mobile is worse off, with even fewer customers than Sprint and no clear path toward real 4G. (Its HSPA+ network is fast, but won't be able to compete with LTE in the long run.) Meanwhile, Verizon's LTE lead is unquestionable. AT&T is far behind Verizon, but won't be by the end of 2012. Sprint and T-Mobile won't be able to beat AT&T and Verizon at the 4G games, at least not in 2012. 5. A viable competitor to Android. Android's success shows no signs of stopping. With 700,000 daily activations, Android is a runaway hit, and its popularity will only increase once more users get a chance to adopt Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich. Apple's iPhone will hang on in second place, but don't expect RIM's BlackBerry 10 or Microsoft's Windows Phone to come even close to Android. Android owned 2011, and it will own 2012.

GMA's ZTE cases go to Erap appointee

The criminal charges filed against Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for her alleged involvement in the anomalous national broadband network (NBN) deal were raffled off yesterday to the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division chaired by Associate Justice Gregory Ong, an appointee of former President Joseph Estrada. Presiding Justice Francisco Villaruz, in the presence of other magistrates, supervised the drawing of numbered balls to determine which court will hear the cases. “The case of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, three cases, goes to the Fourth Division,” he later announced, with defense lawyers led by Arroyo’s counsel Jay Flaminiano and media as witnesses. After the raffle, Ong vowed to give no special treatment to Arroyo. “All cases here in the Sandiganbayan will be given the same treatment even if it involves the former president of the country,” he said. “We will treat this as an ordinary case like any other case pending before the Sandiganbayan,” said Ong, a former regional trial court (RTC) judge and former government prosecutor. Sandiganbayan executive clerk of court and spokesman Renato Bocar said a warrant of arrest against Arroyo and the other respondents, including former first gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo, former elections chief Benjamin Abalos Sr., and former transportation and communications secretary Leandro Mendoza may be issued within the next 10 days. He, however, added that if the magistrates of the anti-graft court’s Fourth Division find insufficient reason to proceed with the trial, they can also order the outright dismissal of the cases. “They have to do that within a period of 10 days,” he said, adding that the two graft cases and the third for violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees filed against Arroyo were raffled off to only one division of the Sandiganbayan because the cases arose from the same transactions, involve the same witnesses, and apparently the same set of documents. Strict but fair The Sandiganbayan Fourth Division headed by Ong has Associate Justices Jose Hernandez and Maria Cristina Cornejo as members. Ong’s court is known to be very strict but also very fair in its handling of cases, which is why lawyers appearing before it come prepared or face the possibility of being openly embarrassed. Ong even gave the media a taste of who he is yesterday when he turned down a request for him to hold the number four ball for a photo after the Arroyo cases were raffled off to his sala. “There is no need for me to be showing the number four,” he said before issuing a short statement on how the Arroyo cases will not be given special attention. STAR research show that Ong was appointed to the Sandiganbayan in 1998 by Estrada, who was convicted of plunder by a Special Division of the same court a few years later. Before becoming a Sandiganbayan magistrate, Ong was a Pasig RTC heinous crimes court judge for six years, appointed by former President Fidel Ramos in 1992. He started his legal career in government as a public prosecutor in Manila appointed by former President Corazon Aquino, the mother of President Aquino. Ong, 58, a product of the San Beda Law School, handled a number of controversial cases at the Sandiganbayan, including a perjury case against former military comptroller Carlos Garcia who was convicted but later acquitted by the Supreme Court (SC). He is also hearing a civil case against former military comptroller Jacinto Ligot, the separate graft case filed against Abalos also in relation to the NBN deal, and the walis tingting (broomstick) graft case of former Parañaque City mayor Joey Marquez, who was also convicted but again later cleared by the SC. Ong also became popular in 2007 after then president Arroyo appointed him to the Supreme Court, a move that was blocked because of issues concerning his citizenship. Though he was eventually declared a natural-born Filipino, he did not get to sit as an SC magistrate because his appointment papers had been returned to Malacañang. Hernandez and Cornejo, on the other hand, are Arroyo appointees who were appointed on March 9, 2004 and March 1, 2010, respectively. Objective trial Mr. Arroyo welcomed yesterday the raffling of the case against him and his wife to the Sandiganbayan’s Fourth Division. He said he expects a fair and objective trial before the Sandiganbayan. “I’m sure that Justice Ong is a very fair judge, as are the others in his division,” Mr. Arroyo told The STAR when sought for comment. He said he has not yet availed himself of the services of a lawyer for the NBN case but indicated that he is likely going to tap the expertise of Ferdinand Topacio, who earlier represented him and won the case of the watchlist order against the Department of Justice. He earlier said he was surprised that the Office of the Ombudsman filed the charges against him and his wife since the contract was cancelled. “That contract was abrogated so there’s no damage done,” Mr. Arroyo said. “Also why was she (Arroyo) charged, when she did not sign it (contract)?” Bayan Muna party-list Rep. Teodoro Casiño also welcomed the development and said he trusts that Ong “will handle the case with objectivity and fairness despite perceptions that he is favored by GMA (Arroyo’s initials), having been previously nominated by her to the Supreme Court.” Mendoza’s motion Meanwhile, hours after the cases were raffled, Mendoza filed an omnibus motion asking the Sandiganbayan to defer any further proceedings pending the resolution of a motion for reconsideration that he has filed before the Office of the Ombudsman. He said he has already been cleared of any liability in the resolution of the Ombudsman dated April 21, 2009 which recommended the first graft case against Abalos and former National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) director general Romulo Neri. Mendoza said the NBN deal with China’s ZTE Corp. is not “manifestly and grossly disadvantageous” to the government when compared to the offer of the losing bidder, Amsterdam Holdings Inc. (AHI). “The ZTE contract was actually advantageous to the government, more so than AHI’s proposal, in terms of coverage, cost against deliverables, data security, track record of the proponent and other significant factors,” he said. He said the contract price rose from $262 million to $329 million “because of the significant expansion of its coverage and substantial increase in deliverables,” including 300 backbone stations, 30 network nodes, 300 base stations and 25,844 customer premises equipment, among others. “As regards track record, which is of fundamental importance particularly in projects of this scale, ZTE surpassed AHI immensely. ZTE is a recognized player in the integration of telecommunications systems and is the largest listed telecom in the Hong Kong and Shenzhen stock exchanges. On the other hand, AHI is a holding company with no experience in telecommunications,” he said. Through his lawyers, Mendoza said he is also filing a motion for judicial determination of probable cause which should be heard if his motion for reconsideration is denied.

Is the Sprint Lawsuit a Spectrum Play?

Verizon Wireless has found a source of exciting play dates with cable operators via a deal at the beginning of December with Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks and, last week, with Cox Communications. The need to reach out and make new cable friends clearly doesn’t extend to Sprint, however. Bloomberg and other sites are reporting that the telephone company has filed suit against Cable One and three of Verizon Wireless’s new friends over VoIP patents that they say were infringed upon. The stories point out that Sprint won a suit against Vonage Holdings over the same patents in 2007. Vonage paid $80 million in licensing fees as a result. The news raises a group of interesting questions. Why, for instance, has Sprint waited until now to sue? Nothing has changed in the use of VoIP for a few years, other than cable’s position growing stronger. But it has been a significant player in the sector for well more than a decade. Another question: Why are only cable companies targeted? Though the answer is pretty obvious (that’s where the money is), for cosmetic reasons it may have been helpful for Sprint to throw in a non-MSO VoIP provider. The suit comes as wireless carriers prepare for the data deluge brought by the emergence of LTE. One reaction is the aforementioned deals between cable operators and Verizon Wireless, which will help the carrier add spectrum. The second was the acquisition of T-Mobile by AT&T, which also was driven by spectrum concerns. The deal’s demise isn’t good news for AT&T from this perspective. Writes Cecilia Kang at The Washington Post: Some analysts, including Kevin Smithen at Macquarie Capital, worry about the future of AT&T, as it now has to deal with a data deluge on its network without the prospect of more spectrum in the pipeline. It is possible that the Sprint suit and its timing — and the inclusion of an operator, Washington Post Company subsidiary Cable One, which usually isn’t grouped with the big players — also has a spectrum angle. This is from The Washington Post’s 10-K report for fiscal year 2008: In December 2006, Cable ONE purchased in the FCC’s Advanced Wireless Service auction approximately 20 MHz of spectrum in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz frequency bands in areas that cover more than 85% of the homes passed by Cable ONE’s systems. This spectrum can be used to provide a variety of advanced wireless services, including fixed and mobile high-speed Internet access using WiMAX and other digital transmission systems. Licenses for this spectrum have an initial 15-year term and 10-year renewal terms. Two things should be noted. Wired comments that the spectrum is not as desirable as that bought by Verizon Wireless in the first deal announced this month. At the same time, however, it is in the same area as that sold to the wireless carrier by Cox. Thus, it has value: The Cox/Verizon transaction is obviously not as grand in scale as the AT&T/T-Mobile deal. And the AWS zone, way up there in the 1.7 to 2.1 GHz region, should not be confused with the coveted 700 MHz sector. The “beachfront broadband” licenses to this area of the spectrum were auctioned off in 2008 to the tune of $19.6 billion, and Cox is apparently keeping its share of that treasure. Could it be, then, that Sprint is trying to make the cable operators more amendable to a spectrum sale along the lines of the Verizon Wireless deals? Lawsuits can be good bargaining chips and — if they are decided in the wireless carriers’ favor — a good form of compensation.

Top ZTE officials to testify vs GMA

Two executives of ZTE Corp., the largest telecommunications equipment company in China, will be among the witnesses of the Ombudsman against Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, now facing graft charges before the Sandiganbayan for her alleged role in the $329-million national broadband network (NBN) anomaly. ZTE vice president Yu Yong and Fan Yang, one of the firm’s directors, are expected to testify against the former president, her husband Jose Miguel Arroyo, former elections commissioner Benjamin Abalos, and former Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) secretary Leandro Mendoza during trial. Both Chinese executives were listed as main witnesses in the three separate criminal complaints filed by the Office of the Ombudsman on Wednesday, along with other key personalities who claimed to have knowledge of how the NBN-ZTE deal was overpriced due to alleged commissions and kickbacks. The STAR sources said Yu Yong and Fan Yang have already been asked to testify before the Sandiganbayan on the graft cases filed by former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez against Abalos and former National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) director general Romulo Neri in May 2010, also in relation to the NBN deal. The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) has sent to the ZTE officials the letters signed by Justice Secretary Leila de Lima and translated into Chinese, requesting their participation in the court hearings since they were the executives who allegedly held meetings with the respondents discussing the details of the contract. Sources said there are several options to pursue, including the possibility of having prosecutors, defense lawyers, and a Sandiganbayan clerk of court fly to China to conduct a deposition, an out-of-court oral testimony of a witness that is reduced to writing. If such an arrangement cannot be made, government lawyers plan to first secure the sworn statements or affidavits of Yu Yong and Fan Yang and have the anti-graft court summon them through the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT). Also listed as witnesses against the Arroyos, Abalos, and Mendoza are former House speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. and his son Jose “Joey” de Venecia III, NBN-ZTE deal whistleblower Rodolfo Lozada Jr., Dante Madriaga, and representatives of DOTC and the Wack Wack Golf and Country Club. The first graft case filed by the Ombudsman against Arroyo accuses her of violating Section 3(i) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for allegedly having personal interest for personal gain in the contract “despite knowledge of the irregularities and anomalies that attended its approval.” The second graft case against her and her husband, Abalos, and Mendoza is for alleged violation of Section 3(g) of the same law which penalizes acts of entering into any contract or transaction that is “manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government.” The third case filed against Arroyo accuses her of violating Republic Act 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Government Officials and Employees for playing golf and having lunch with ZTE executives in Shenzhen, China while the NBN deal was still pending final approval. Lawyer Gabriel Villareal, Abalos’ legal counsel, said he could not comment yet on the case filed against his client since he has not seen or read the actual complaint. OSP will handle trial Unlike in the case of former Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo during the plunder trial of former President Joseph Estrada, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales has no plans of actually participating in Arroyo’s trial. Assistant Ombudsman Asryman Rafanan, the anti-graft agency’s spokesman, said Morales is not keen on joining the prosecutors who will handle the case at the Sandiganbayan. “The OSP will be handling the prosecution of the cases,” he said, adding that it will be up to the prosecution team to strategize and “explore the possibility or the viability and the means with which to pursue or to secure the listed witnesses,” including the ZTE officials. Rafanan said the Office of the Ombudsman will not pick the lawyers to handle the Arroyo cases and will just follow the OSP’s system of assigning cases to its bureau. When the cases were filed last Wednesday, representatives of the Office of the Ombudsman did not go through the OSP and instead filed the complaints directly with the Sandiganbayan. “I think there is no express rule under the Office of the Ombudsman that all information would have to pass through the OSP since the OSP is under the Office of the Ombudsman,” Rafanan explained. When Ombudsman Morales held her first and only press conference after assuming her post, Special Prosecutor Wendell Sulit, who has a rank equal to a deputy ombudsman, was curiously absent from the presidential table even though other officials were present. Rafanan said the graft complaints against the Arroyos, Abalos, and Mendoza would be raffled off to a division of the Sandiganbayan “and under the rules, the court will have to determine probable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest.” “The office of the Ombudsman weighed the evidence and so far as meeting the required quantum of evidence, it has sufficiently met the level of probable cause and that the crimes were committed and that respondents probably committed the crime and should be hailed to court,” he said when asked how strong the cases are. Rafanan also dismissed claims that the Office of the Ombudsman erred in finding reason to indict the respondents after previously being cleared of the same accusations. “It was discussed (in the resolution) that the Office of the Ombudsman had the power to conduct another investigation over the case and that there is no res judicata on that case even after the previous investigation conducted by the previous ombudsman,” he said. Presidential Adviser for Political Affairs Ronald Llamas expects more lawsuits to be filed against Arroyo. Llamas said there are other cases that had not yet been filed at the Office of the Ombudsman, like the fund anomaly at the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration. Meanwhile, lawyer Salvador Panelo accused the Office of the Ombudsman of filing flawed graft complaints against Arroyo and Abalos. Panelo said Abalos could not be charged for violating Section 3(g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act because he did not enter (into a contract or transaction) on behalf of the government in the NBN deal. “He was not a signatory to the contract,” Panelo, a former spokesman for Abalos, said, believing that the Office of the Ombudsman’s case is weak. Panelo said the NBN-ZTE deal that was cancelled “was not disadvantageous to the government.” As to the graft cases filed against Arroyo, he said Section 3(g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act presupposes that there is no contract yet, “there is no such animal precisely because it has been cancelled.” “Also, assuming there is a contract, there is absence of injury to the government as ruled upon by a previous investigating panel,” he stressed. As to Section 3(i), Panelo asked, “how could the Ombudsman file a graft case under such provision when the panel ruled that there is no proof that money, assuming there is one which is impossible to prove, passed on to GMA?” “That is precisely why it did not file a plunder case against GMA. There is a contradiction in the stand of the panel,” he said.

Google sued by BT over Android patent disputes

Lawsuits these days are becoming more and more uncommon. They can arise because of infringement of copyright or on patents, arguments in business practises or agreements, and so on and so forth. For instance, it was reported that Apple had just recently lost a lawsuit in China over the name of the iPad. As a result, their best-selling tablet might have to be marketed under a different product name in the country. Apple had also lost a lawsuit versus Motorola, where a judge ruled that Apple had been guilty of infringing upon Motorola’s patents for data packet transfer technology (GPRS). On a similar note, BT Broadband is suing Google over Android patents. The broadband giant is claiming billions in damages against Google, claiming that the Android mobile operating system infringes a number of BT’s key patents. The lawsuit was filed in Delaware in the United States. BT claims that Google Maps, Google Music, and other location-based apps for Android infringe upon their patents that were filed in the 1990s. A spokesperson for BT has said: “BT can confirm that it has commenced legal proceedings against Google by filing a claim with the US district court of Delaware for patent infringement. The patents in question relate to technologies that underpin location-based services, navigation and guidance information, and personalised access to services and content. BT’s constant investment in innovation has seen it develop a large portfolio of patents, which are valuable corporate assets.” Independent expert Florian Müller commented: “Android already had more than enough intellectual problems anyway. Now Google faces one more large organisation that believes its rights are infringed. BT probably wants to continue to be able to do business with all mobile device makers and therefore decided to sue Google itself.” In response, a Google spokesman has said: “We believe these claims are without merit, and we will defend vigorously against them.”

Twitter lawsuit threatened over alleged Hezbollah aid

Is Twitter aiding and abetting terrorism? The director of an Israeli legal outfit says yes, and is threatening to sue the micro-blogging site if it doesn't change its policies. Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, director of the Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center, sent a letter to Twitter on Thursday asserting that the company is violating U.S. law by allowing groups such as Hezbollah and al Qaeda affiliate al-Shabaab to use its popular online network. "It has come to our attention that Twitter Inc. provides social media and associated services to such foreign terrorist organizations," Darshan-Leitner wrote. "Please be advised that (doing so) is illegal and will expose Twitter Inc. and its officers to both criminal prosecution and civil liability to American citizens and others victimized" by Hezbollah, al-Shabaab and other foreign terrorist entities. Twitter declined to comment when contacted by CNN. In her letter, Darshan-Leitner noted that Hezbollah and al-Shabaab are officially designated as terrorist organizations under U.S. law. She also cited a 2010 Supreme Court case -- Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project -- which upheld a key provision of the Patriot Act prohibiting material support to groups designated as terrorist outfits. "Your provision of social media and associated services to Hezbollah and other foreign terrorist organizations would constitute the type of seemingly innocuous material support that would render your company and you personally criminally and civilly liable," she told Twitter CEO Richard Costolo. Hezbollah-controlled al-Manar television currently maintains a Twitter account with roughly 7,500 followers. Other groups considered terrorist organizations by the United States also maintain accounts. Hamas, the Islamist group that rules the Gaza Strip, posts regularly on at least one government-controlled account. Darshan-Leitner says she realizes there will be stiff opposition to a potential lawsuit from free speech advocates, but told CNN she nevertheless hopes Twitter will change its policies. "Once you bring it to their attention, they cannot say that they don't know," she said. Aden Fine, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, told CNN that the Supreme Court "has not directly addressed the issue of whether any speech allegedly supportive of a designated terrorist organization is unlawful." But "the government can't force private companies to censor lawful speech just because the government doesn't like the speech or the people making the speech," he said. Fine noted that since the Internet depends on private companies such as Twitter to function, any clampdown or adverse ruling could be used to restrict everyone's online communications. Social networks Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have been lauded for the role they played in the Arab Spring, a series of anti-regime protests that erupted across the Middle East starting in late 2010. The online networks and instant messaging services were used extensively to spread the word about demonstrations, especially in the case of the Egyptian uprising that toppled longtime strongman President Hosni Mubarak. A number of governments, however, have started arguing for stricter controls. Authorities in the United Kingdom say rioters used social the networks to coordinate mass civil disobedience earlier this year in London. State prosecutors in Mexico have accused two people of terrorism and sabotage by claiming that their Twitter posts helped spread false rumors about a school attack, leading to real-life violence on the streets of Veracruz. The Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center describes itself as a civil rights organization dedicated to "combating the terrorist organizations and the regimes that support them through lawsuits litigated in courtrooms around the world." It supported a similar campaign earlier this year directed at social media giant Facebook. Among other things, the center succeeded in getting Facebook to pull down a page created by Palestinian activists calling for a "Third Intifada" against Israel.