Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology
Articles by Ryan Radia
Ryan Radia is an information policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., where his research encompasses electronic privacy, online speech, telecommunications regulation, and media ownership. Aside from tech issues, Ryan is interested in Constitutional law and environmental policy. He tinkers with electronics obsessively; as a result, most of the devices he owns are semi-dysfunctional. He enjoys overclocking all sorts of processors, such as Intel’s 45nm Wolfdales. His favorite application is SuperPI Mod 1.5 XS; his favorite game, 3DMark06. A proponent of x264-encoded Matroska-contained videos, Ryan longs for a fatter pipe with which to fill his senselessly large RAID10 array. He received a BA in economics from Northwestern University.
The Ticketmaster-Live Nation antitrust saga has come to a bittersweet end. Earlier this week the Justice Department finally approved the merger between the two firms, just shy of one year after it was announced.
While a number antitrust experts had speculated that the Justice Department might seek an injunction to block the deal outright, the DoJ ultimately opted to approve the deal while subjecting Ticketmaster-Live Nation to several conditions that are supposed to promote competition in the events marketplace. Under the terms of the consent decree, the combined firm will be required to license its ticketing software to competitor Anschutz Entertainment Group and divest Paciolan, a ticketing subsidiary of Ticketmaster. Ticketmaster-Live Nation also faces ten years of monitoring by antitrust officials to “prevent anticompetitive bundling of services.”
Ticketmaster has long been a controversial firm among concertgoers, frequently drawing consumers’ ire for charging hefty “convenience” fees and offering customer service that’s not exactly stellar. But it’s important to remember that today’s entertainment market is more fragmented than ever, and consumers have a huge array of choices for listening to music and viewing live events. Even YouTube is getting into the business of airing live events. The video site has broadcast several live events already, including U2’s Rose Bowl performance in October 2009, and is eyeing the pay-per-view live streaming market as well.
So it’s not hard to see why consolidation is taking place in the event ticketing and promotion markets. Economists have demonstrated that vertical integration, done properly, often results in sizable efficiencies, translating into overall welfare gains for consumers. Together, Ticketmaster and Live Nation are in a stronger position than before to offer value to event venues and promote concerts and shows. And as much we all hate service fees, in industries characterized by high fixed costs and declining marginal unit costs – like ticketing – big per-unit “markups” are often necessary to induce businesses to compete and innovate. While Ticketmaster may not be the most innovative company in the world, the firm faces an uncertain future as its contracts with venues come up for renewal. If Ticketmaster really is harming concertgoers – and by the way, there’s no clear evidence that it is – it will be disciplined not only by concert lovers, but by venues and artists as well. Derailing a potentially efficient business arrangement simply because it might not work out, whether in the event ticketing market or the cable television market, results in harm to consumers.
Mr. Jenkins suggests that Google would likely “shriek” if a startup were to mount its servers inside the network of a telecom provider. Google already does just that. It is called “edge caching,” and it is employed by many content companies to keep costs down.
It is puzzling, then, why Google continues to support net neutrality. As long as Google produces content that consumers value, they will demand an unfettered Internet pipe. Political battles aside, content and infrastructure companies have an inherently symbiotic relationship.
Fears that Internet providers will, absent new rules, stifle user access to content are overblown. If a provider were to, say, block or degrade YouTube videos, its customers would likely revolt and go elsewhere. Or they would adopt encrypted network tunnels, which route around Internet roadblocks.
Not every market dispute warrants a government response. Battling giants like Google and AT&T can resolve network tensions by themselves.
Ryan Radia
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Washington
To be sure, the market for residential Internet service is not all that competitive in some parts of the country — Rochester, New York, for instance — so a provider might in some cases be able to get away with unsavory practices for a sustained period without suffering the consequences. Yet ISP competition is on the rise, and a growing number of Americans have access to three or more providers. This is especially true in big cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and Washington D.C.
Instead of trying to put a band-aid on problems that stem from insufficient ISP competition, the FCC should focus on reforming obsolete government rules that prevent ISP competition from emerging. Massive swaths of valuable spectrum remain unavailable to would-be ISP entrants, and municipal franchising rules make it incredibly difficult to lay new wire in public rights-of-way for the purpose of delivering bundled data and video services.
The federal government may gain broad new powers to regulate Internet providers next month if Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski gets his way. In a milestone speech on Monday, Genachowski proposed sweeping new regulations that would give the FCC the formal authority to dictate application and network management practices to companies that offer Internet access, including wireless carriers like AT&T and Verizon Wireless.
Genachowski’s proposed rules would make good on a pledge that President Obama made in his campaign to enshrine net neutrality as law. The announcement was met with cheers by a small but vocal crowd of activists and academics who have been pushing hard for net neutrality for years. But if bureaucrats and politicians truly care about neutrality, they would be wise to resist calls to expand the government’s power over private networks. Instead, policymakers should recognize that it is far more important for government to remain neutral to competing business models — open, closed, or any combination thereof.
September 8 — this Tuesday — is the deadline for filing objections against the Google Book Settlement. A number of trade associations, corporations, authors, and advocacy groups have weighed in, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union. They argue that approving the Google Book Settlement in its current form, without explicitly spelling out data collection practices, would endanger user privacy. EFF and ACLU have threatened to file an objection to the Settlement unless Google commits to a stringent privacy policy for Google Book Search.
I think the privacy risks posed by Google Book Search are being blown out of proportion, as I explained in the Examiner Opinion Zone last month. While EFF and others have raised some legitimate fears about the possibility of government getting its hands on Google Book Search user data, these privacy concerns are not unique to Google Book Search, nor are they legitimate grounds for the court to reject the Google Book Settlement.
In a letter I submitted yesterday as an amicus curiae brief to U.S. District Judge Denny Chin, who is presiding over the Google Books case, I argue that privacy concerns should not determine the court’s evaluation of the Settlement:
A number of conservative blogs have picked up on reports that the Obama administration is looking to data mine users on social networking sites. Reports CNS News:
Anyone who posts comments on the White House’s Facebook, MySpace, YouTube and Twitter pages will have their statements captured and permanently archived by the federal government, according to a plan that the White House is now seeking a contractor to carry out.
Whenever government is collecting information about private citizens, we should be concerned. But this controversy smells a lot like privacy fear-mongering, even though it involves government. If you post a comment to an “official” Obama administration page on a social networking site, it seems only natural that it’s fair game for data mining. The same goes if you post a video response on a publicly accessible site.
If you’re posting controversial statements online under your real name for the public to see, what do you expect will happen? Anybody in the world who has an Internet connection can log your postings, so why shouldn’t government officials be able to do the same? Until government starts pressuring Facebook or Myspace to hand over data that’s being collected on an involuntary basis, I don’t see a whole lot here to worry about.
This controversy, and the flap over flag@whitehouse.gov from a few weeks back, raise another interesting question: should Congress reexamine the Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978? This is the law that governs Presidential record-keeping. According to some commentators, if the administration solicits data on its critics, it is obligated under the PRA to retain that data indefinitely. I haven’t read the law, but at first glance it appears that it may have some serious deficiencies. This is is hardly surprising, of course, given that the Internet — let alone social networks — didn’t even exist when the PRA was enacted in 1978.
You’d think that in 2009, when global networks are handling exabytes of data in a single day and OC192 fiber optic connections crisscross the planet, the FCC — the most important communications agency in the United States — would at least be able to use modern technology to stream its own public meetings.
Nope. The FCC is still streaming its webcasts withRealPlayer, a horrendous and arguably obsolete application that fell out of favor with techies years ago and has since been overtaken by superior streaming platforms like Adobe’s Flash Media Server.
Today’s big tech news item is the FCC’s “three-pronged probe” of the wireless industry, which was set to be announced today at this morning’s Open Commission Meeting.
Want to watch the FCC’s meeting and see what our “public servants” in Washington are up to? Good luck. The FCC’s streaming video server only supports 200 simultaneous connections.
In a nation of 270 million wireless users, why not offer, say, 1000 or even 10000 connections? Given the agency’s $339 million dollar budget that’s not too much to ask, is it?
It’s especially ironic that the FCC still struggles with streaming webcasts given that the FCC is launching an investigation of alleged “anti-competitive” practices in the wireless industry. Why isn’t the FCC investigating its own inability to accomplish relatively simple tasks, like stream live video or run a halfway decent website?
The FCC doesn’t just use RealPlayer for Open Commission Meetings. Even the FCC’s “Broadband Workshops” — which are supposedly going to guide the future of broadband deployment in America — are using the same tired streaming platform.
Of course, in the grand scheme of things, the platform the FCC uses for streaming video isn’t all that important. But it is a much-needed reminder that bureaucrats in Washington aren’t very good at keeping pace with modern technology. Unfortunately, many seem to have forgotten this fact.
ADDENDUM: Turns out the FCC does use a modern platform for streaming open commission meeting, Cisco Webex Webinar (accessible via www.broadband.gov) but only offers RealPlayer streams on the official FCC.gov website. Also, once meetings are finished, they are available online exclusively in the Real video format.
But all this could change later this year. A number of handsets are due for release on several major networks over the next few months that run on Android, Google’s open source mobile operating system. Android is currently available on only a single device, the HTC G1. It’s a decent phone, but it lacks the polish of the iPhone and is only available with a contract from T-Mobile, which lags behind Sprint, AT&T, and Verizon in terms of 3G coverage.
I’m especially excited about the Android 2.0-based Motorola “Sholes,” a great-looking phone that’s supposedly due for release in November 2009 from Verizon. If rumors pan out, the Sholes should come with a slide-out keyboard, an extremely high-res display, a 5MP camera, and all-around solid specs. Via Android and Me: Continue reading →
Microsoft and Yahoo’s proposed deal faces a tough antitrust gauntlet. In today’s The Seattle Times, Jonathan Hillel and I have an op-ed in which we argue that trustbusters should let the deal go through:
MICROSOFT and Yahoo want to join forces in Internet search to better compete against Google. But first, they need the blessing of government antitrust enforcers. Senate Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman Herb Kohl, D-Wis., already has threatened “careful scrutiny” of the deal. But trustbusters should not go fishing for problems in the Internet search market. In the relentlessly fast-moving digital economy, government intervention contorts the market and ultimately harms consumers.
Under their proposed decade-long pact, Yahoo searches will be powered by Microsoft’s Bing search engine, which launched this June. The two search firms will maintain separate Web sites, but Microsoft will administer the technical side of both. Microsoft will also gain access to Yahoo’s vast volume of searches and query data. In exchange, Yahoo will receive 88 percent of ad revenues from searches performed on its own site.
We’ve discussedextensively the controversy that recently erupted when Apple rejected Google Voice applications from the iPhone App Store. With the FCC sniffing around and tech pundits around the blogosphere weighing in on the merits of possible government intervention, it’s important to remember that jailbreaking an iPhone may be illegal under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). In other words, if you use a hack or workaround that enables you to run banned apps like Google Voice on your iPhone, you could be violating federal law.
The DMCA hasn’t stopped millions of iPhone owners from jailbreaking their phones and installing Cydia, an unofficial alternative to the official iPhone App Store. Cydia, which lets users download banned iPhone apps like Google Voice, has been installed on a whopping one in ten iPhones, according to its developers.
But jailbreaking programs and applications like Cydia are in risky legal territory. Developers who circumvent the iPhone’s copy protection systems are at risk of being sued by Apple, as are users who run jailbreaking software. Apple maintains that jailbreaking software is illegal under federal law, though it has not taken legal action against any unauthorized iPhone developers to date.
To clear up the muddy legal waters surrounding iPhone jailbreaking, Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has asked the U.S. Copyright Office to grant a legal exemption to iPhone jailbreaking on the grounds that users should be able to install apps of their choice on the phone without risking civil or criminal sanctions. In a recent DeepLinks post, von Lohmann argues that the FCC should throw its weight behind EFF’s call for exempting jailbreaking from anti-circumvention rules.
The recently proposed Microsoft-Yahoo deal has rekindled the debate over what role, if any, antitrust regulators should play in the high-tech sector. Adam and Berin have argued that decades-old (sometimes centuries-old) antitrust laws simply cannot keep pace with the relentlessly fast-moving digital economy. And Farhad Manjoo of Slate has concluded that antitrust action against tech companies does more harm than good — even when the facts favor government intervention.
Markets were so much simpler in the 1890s, when Sen. John Sherman got almost unanimous support in Congress to go after the Standard Oil Co. of Ohio. The Sherman Act and later antitrust laws were supposed to protect consumer interests. That’s not so easy when regulators have to deal with industries as different as oil, with its cartels and long product cycles, and technology, where fast change is a constant necessity for survival…
The bottom line is that by the time regulators can assess a technology market, the market has often moved on. Not long ago, Google was the upstart and the search leaders included names like AltaVista and Excite. “Regulatory intervention in the high-tech sector thwarts the natural evolution of the market,” argues Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “Worse, it distorts the response of competitors. Antitrust investigations steer the market in unnatural directions, creating instabilities in entire industry sectors.”
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology. Learn more about TLF →
Ryan Radia is an information policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., where his research encompasses electronic privacy, online speech, telecommunications regulation, and media ownership. Aside from tech issues, Ryan is interested in Constitutional law and environmental policy. He tinkers with electronics obsessively; as a result, most of the devices he owns are semi-dysfunctional. He enjoys overclocking all sorts of processors, such as Intel’s 
Comments 
Posted in: Advertising & Marketing, Antitrust & Competition Policy 
providers next month if Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski gets his way. In a milestone speech on Monday, Genachowski proposed sweeping new regulations that would give the FCC the formal authority to dictate application and network management practices to companies that offer Internet access, including wireless carriers like AT&T and Verizon Wireless.
Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union. They 
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
