Uncategorized

A Comcastic Mailer

by on June 24, 2009 · 8 comments

I received a mailing (see poorly taken iPhone photo) from Comcast a few days ago and I thought it was worth talking about from a libertarian perspective.

I’m all for companies taking advantage of the digital changeover to make a little extra scratch, so long as they’re honest in doing so.  This mailer never explicitly lies, but it’s not exactly forthcoming about what the digital conversion really means and it certainly didn’t mention the possibility of buying a converter box to continue getting broadcast TV for free.

Instead, the octagenarians who occupy most of the other units in my building were met with this sort of language: Continue reading →

SHARE: 8 comments

Don’t Believe ‘Special Access’ Hype

by on June 24, 2009 · 23 comments

A new coalition, NoChokePoints, has been formed to lobby Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to further regulate the prices that incumbent telephone companies (Regional Bell Operating Companies or Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers) can charge for special access services purchased by businesses and institutions.  Special access circuits are dedicated, private lines.  For example, Sprint purchases special access circuits to connect its cell towers to its backbone.

According to a coalition spokeswoman,

Huge companies like Verizon and AT&T control the broadband lines of almost every business in the United States. The virtually unchallenged, exclusive control of these lines costs businesses and consumers more than $10 billion annually and generates a profit margin of more than 100 percent for the controlling phone companies, according to their own data provided to the FCC. This hidden broadband tax results in enormous losses for consumers and the economy, and this country cannot afford it; especially now.

An analysis prepared by Peter Bluhm with Dr. Robert Loube under contract with the National Association of Regulatory Commissioners (NARUC) disputes this conclusion. Continue reading →

SHARE: 23 comments

Exclusivity Inspired Smart Phones

by on June 24, 2009 · 3 comments

Small cellphone operators want Congress or the Federal Communications Commission to prohibit larger carriers from becoming exclusive providers of popular handsets, like the Apple iPhone (AT&T), Blackberry Storm (Verizon Wireless), Palm Pre (Sprint) and Samsung Behold (T-Mobile).

John E. Rooney, President and CEO of United States Cellular Corp., testified at a recent Senate Commerce Committee hearing:

These arrangements harm consumers in rural areas and decrease competition nationwide and do not enhance innovation.

Let’s examine these arguments.

Rural Consumers

Rooney bemoans the fact that

many rural residents of Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming are not served by AT&T network facilities

while Victor H. “Hu” Meena, President and CEO if Cellular South, Inc.,  claims that

Vast portions of America – including all or part of Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin – are not served by any of the largest carriers, so Americans in these areas are prohibited from acquiring the newest and most innovative devices.

There are advantages and disadvantages no matter where one chooses to live.  The fact that someplace is without a particular amenity traditionally hasn’t justified limiting the ability of private entities to exercise their own judgment as to parties with whom they will deal.  While I am fortunate to have the opportunity to own an iPhone, I don’t get to live in a pristine rural setting with a wide open outdoors, low housing costs, etc.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 3 comments

Transparency Comes to Government Contracting

by on June 20, 2009 · 3 comments

I previously lauded the Sunlight Foundation for its intention to bid on the contract for updating Recovery.gov. There’s been extensive excessive discussion of it on the Open House Project Google group.

The general theme among the one or two critics has been “leave the incompetence to the experts.” They’ve been a bit curmedgeonly, frankly.

But an informative and balanced comment highlights the practice of “wiring” government contracts. The contracting authority gets together with the preferred contractor and they collaborate to make it very difficult for anyone else to win the bid.

Well, that’s why Sunlight’s bid is so interesting and different. As I said, “[T]he contract award will now be subject to public scrutiny. Value-for-dollar to the taxpayer will be easily discernible, and that will raise the political risk if the contract is awarded based on cronyism or go-with-whatchya-knowism.”

Government contracting officials aren’t used to encountering public scrutiny and political risk for their award decisions. They’re going to experience it here, and they should get used to it for the long haul. I am eager – nay, giddy! – to report on what happens.

Kudos, and carry on, Sunlight.

SHARE: 3 comments

Twitter and Iran – It’s Not About the U.S. Government

by on June 17, 2009 · 3 comments

It’s fascinating to continue watching developments in Iran via Twitter and other social media.

The fact that Twitter delayed a scheduled outage to late-night Tehran time was laudable, but contrary to a growing belief it wasn’t done at the behest of the State Department. It was done at the behest of Twitter users.

Twitter makes that fairly (though imperfectly) clear on its blog, saying, “the State Department does not have access to our decision making process.”

As my Cato Institute colleague Justin Logan notes, events in Iran are not about the United States or U.S. policy. They should not be, or appear to be, directed or aided from Washington, D.C. Any shifts in power in Iran should be produced in Iran for Iranians, with support from the people of the world – not from any outside government.

People are free to speculate that the State Department asked Twitter to deny its involvement precisely to create the necessary appearances, but without good evidence of it, assuming that just reflects a pre-commitment that governments – not people and the businesses that serve them – are the primary forces for good in the world.

SHARE: 3 comments

Hilarious DTV Transition Video

by on June 12, 2009 · 4 comments

Hilarious video on the DTV transition.

SHARE: 4 comments

My ID Score

by on May 18, 2009 · 5 comments

myidscoreHere’s a very cool little app from Identity Analytics: My ID Score. You enter a bit of identifying information. It checks to see if you know stuff that only you are likely to know. (This is what I called “epistemetric” identification in my book.)And then it spits out an estimate of your risk of being a victim of identity fraud.

I got a 240 when I didn’t give them my SSN, and my score dropped to 40 when I submitted my SSN.

Everybody talks about identity fraud, but nobody does anything about it. This does something about it – specifically, it will help stop the worrying on the part of people who don’t need to. And it will give people who should worry a few things to do to get their situation under control. The more that can be done to demystify identity fraud, the better – and the less likely there will be unwise legislation and regulation that ultimately harm the interests of consumers.

So have a little fun and check out My ID Score. (If you’re worried about submitting personal data over a Web site – you can see for yourself that the transmission is encrypted, and ID Analytics is a company I’ve known for many years. This is not a phishing scam – unless it’s a very, very good one.)

SHARE: 5 comments

Should Hulu Brace for Antitrust Action?

by on May 4, 2009 · 10 comments

As many outlets reported last week, Disney’s ABC Enterprises has bought into Hulu, which had been a joint-venture of NBC Universal, News Corp., and investor Providence Equity Partners.  Like other large media platforms before it, Hulu should brace for the possible antitrust implications of its increasing number of content deals—many of them exclusive, at least as it applies to online streaming video—especially considering the Obama’s administration’s stance on antitrust policy.

Many media commentators are already using the kind of language we associate with past media antitrust cases.  Nate Anderson of ArsTechnica predicted Hulu’s forthcoming “lock” on the market saying:

The Disney deal makes it far more plausible that Hulu—mocked when it launched only last year for its name and its business plan—will dominate online streaming of premium content.

Caroline McCarthy of CNET pointed out that the Disney deal has Hulu fraternizing with prior antitrust targets:

Apple CEO Steve Jobs is Disney’s single biggest shareholder, having sold animation studio Pixar to the company in 2006.

McCarthy makes an apt point as Hulu is looking more and more like the iTunes of television, an honor which Mr. Jobs likely hoped would have gone to iTunes itself.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 10 comments

Pai and Dunn for FCC

by on May 2, 2009 · 0 comments

President Obama intends to nominate Mignon L. Clyburn to the Federal Communications Commission. Clyburn is a good pick. She has been a member of the Public Service Commission of South Carolina since 1998. She chaired the South Carolina commission from 2002 to 2004, is a past chair of the Southeastern Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and is a respected leader in the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC). She is trained in economics and has a reputation for thoughtfulness.

The remaining question is who ought to be the Republican nominee to fill the seat vacated by former chairman Kevin J. Martin (a soon-to-be-vacant seat held by Republican Robert M. McDowell will also need to be filled). By law, two of the commssion’s five members may not be from the President’s political party.

Let’s pretend you’re president. You have to appoint two opponents to the FCC. You don’t need their votes to pass your agenda, because you get to appoint three members from your political party who agree with your views. Do you fill the other two slots with people who hold few clear convictions, who are inclined to compromise and who crave positive feedback? Or do you look for people who are intellectually-engaged and are inclined to debate? If you believe your agenda is radical and you worry it will lead to negative consequences for which you will be blamed, you would want to appoint opponents who can be induced to vote with you. That way, you can claim your agenda had bipartisan support. This is the “cover you ass” approach. Continue reading →

SHARE: 0 comments

DoJ Fails to Report Electronic Surveillance Activities

by on April 30, 2009 · 4 comments

Unlike with wiretaps, law enforcement agents are not required by federal statutes to obtain search warrants before employing pen registers or trap and trace devices. These devices record non-content information regarding telephone calls and Internet communications. (Of course, “non-content information” has quite a bit of content – who is talking to whom, how often, and for how long.)

The Electronic Privacy Information Center points out in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) that the Department of Justice has consistently failed to report on the use of pen registers and trap and trace devices as required by law:

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act requires the Attorney General to “annually report to Congress on the number of pen register orders and orders for trap and trace devices applied for by law enforcement agencies of the Department of Justice.” However, between 1999 and 2003, the Department of Justice failed to comply with this requirement. Instead, 1999-2003 data was provided to Congress in a single “document dump,” which submitted five years of reports in November 2004. In addition, when the 1999-2003 reports were finally provided to Congress, the documents failed to include all of the information that the Pen Register Act requires to be shared with lawmakers. The documents do not detail the offenses for which the pen register and trap and trace orders were obtained, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3126(2). Furthermore, the documents do not identify the district or branch office of the agencies that submitted the pen register requests, information required by 18 U.S.C. § 3126(8).

EPIC has found no evidence that the Department of Justice provided annual pen register reports to Congress for 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, or 2008. “This failure would demonstrate ongoing, repeated breaches of the DOJ’s statutory obligations to inform the public and the Congress about the use of electronic surveillance authority,” they say.

It’s a good bet, when government powers are used without oversight, that they will be abused. Kudos to EPIC for pressing this issue. Senator Leahy’s Judiciary Committee should ensure that DoJ completes reporting on past years and that it reports regularly, in full, from here forward.

SHARE: 4 comments

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →