About | Feedback | Site Map
  • Susan Crawford
  • Member since Feb 18, 2006
    Total Posted: 5
    Total Comments: 0
  • About: Susan Crawford is Assistant Professor of Law at Cardozo Law School, teaching cyberlaw and intellectual property law. Ms. Crawford received her B.A. (summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa) and J.D. from Yale University. She served as a clerk for Judge Raymond J. Dearie of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and was a partner at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering (Washington, D.C.) until the end of 2002, when she left that firm to enter the legal academy. Ms. Crawford is also a Policy Fellow with the Center for Democracy & Technology.

    Ms. Crawford’s practice was focused on Internet law and policy issues, including governance, privacy, intellectual property, advertising, and defamation. She represented major online companies, startups, and joint ventures, and worked particularly closely with companies doing business in the domain name world. From 1996-1998, she taught copyright as an adjunct professor at the Georgetown Law Center, and she has spoken and written frequently about online legal issues.

    Ms. Crawford chairs the Board of Directors of Innovation Network, and is a member of the Advisory Boards of Squaretrade, Renovation in Music Education, the Legal Expert Network of the Institute for the Study of the Information Society and Technology (Insites) at the Carnegie Mellon Heinz School of Public Policy and Management, the Georgetown E-Business Institute for Corporate Counsel, and other groups. She lives in New York City. 

By Susan Crawford:

  • Comparative Broadband Ideas
  • The primary reason that Japan and Korea do so much better than the U.S. on any measurement of broadband (availability, penetration, price, speed) is that there is fierce competition in the market for broadband internet access in these countries. ...How do you increase competition in the U.S. for broadband access? Right now, we have giants fighting with each other -- cable and telephone companies. Small numbers of these companies control 80%-90% of the market for broadband access... ›››
  • Network Neutrality Upsetting Worldviews?
  • With everyone talking about network neutrality, with all the heat, it didn't feel good to have to be in NY today and miss the goings-on in Washington. I watched part of the late afternoon markup session online, with Rep. Barton sounding awfully effective as he marched steadily through Title III -- quickly taking votes, soothing congress people who were suggesting soon-to-be-rejected amendments, and sounding confident. The only substantive work I heard was the rejection of an amendment that would have left in place all state laws that regulate the subjects of the bill -- like mini wireless networks. But the real news had already happened... ›››
  • Forward-Thinking Remedies
  • Just a year ago, I gave a talk at David Isenberg's 2005 Freedom to Connect conference. I said, essentially, that we should be careful in asking for regulation to protect the net, because the power to protect carries with it the power to constrain. This was a very troubling message for the audience, and the chatroom projected behind me went wild with disapproval. Since then, I've become very concerned about the concentration in broadband service provision in this country, and worried that there won't be any competition for unfettered internet access. ›››
  • A Very Shallow Gene Pool
  • The recent announcement that (new) AT&T will merge with (medium new) BellSouth doesn't change the current policy landscape very much. The dinosaurs are huddling ever-closer in the snow, hoping to survive whatever changes are ahead. It's a smart move on AT&T's part. Sheer numbers (70 million phone customers, 22 states, $130 billion in sales) may speak to AT&T's investors in a way that their business plans may not. ›››
  • Remarkable Leverage
  • One of the big problems with the enormously problematic E911 Order is that it required VoIP providers to hook into the legacy E911 system controlled by the Baby Bells without mandating that the Bells allow the VoIP guys to connect. This was a tailor-made holdup situation for what was already an enormous holdup. (Remember that it took the wireless industry more than ten years to figure out how to work with the legacy E911 world, but the FCC only gave the VoIP companies a few months.) The Bells had full authority to give the appearance of being helpful while slowly dragging their feet and pushing the VoIP providers (their competitors) closer and closer to a deadline that (initially at least) was supposed to trigger mass cut-offs of VoIP customers for whom E911 service wasn't available. ›››