Why do mobile carriers sell phones with a subscription? My roommate and I were debating this the other night. Most other popular electronics devices aren’t sold this way. Cable and satellite companies don’t sell televisions with their video service. ISPs don’t sell laptops and desktops with their Internet service. Bundling phones with mobile service subscriptions is pretty unique. (The only mass-market analogs I can think of are satellite radio and GPS service.)
Why might this be? Continue reading →
Jeff Winkler of The Daily Caller was kind enough to call me for comment after seeing some tweets of mine about a new proposal floated by U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to potentially mandate cell phone jamming technology be embedded in every car to minimize the risk of distracted driving. While I am sympathetic to the concerns he and others have raised about the serious dangers associated with distracted driving, LaHood has been continuously upping the ante in terms of proposed regulatory responses to the problem.
Back in October, La Hood suggested that a ban on all cell phone communications in cars might be needed. He argued that even hands-free phone conversations are a “cognitive distraction” and should be prohibited and has also suggested that such a ban should extend to in-vehicle information and entertainment systems such as Ford Motor Co.’s Sync and General Motors Co.’s OnStar system. This means almost every conceivable in-vehicle technology could be regulated under LaHood’s “cognitive distraction” paradigm, including your car stereo and GPS system. This week LaHood went further and suggested that it may be necessary to also mandate some sort of scrambling technology be embedded in all vehicles to completely block any potential wireless communications or connectivity.
My comments on that proposal appear in Winkler’s piece today, although Winkler notes that LaHood appears now to be backing off the idea. However, just in case this idea (or the idea of banning all communications devices from cars more generally) pops up again, here’s what I find wrong with LaHood’s approach: Continue reading →
Distracted driving is a serious problem. When you’re flying down the road at speed maneuvering a 2-ton piece of machinery, you need to be paying attention to the road to keep yourself, and others around you, safe. Distractions of any sort can be dangerous and undercut the driver’s ability to stay focused. And it’s certainly true that digital devices can be among the biggest distractions. But I think we have to ask some practical questions about just how far law can and should go to minimize that distraction.
I raise this issue because, according to this Bloomberg article yesterday, “U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says he believes motorists are distracted by any use of mobile phones while driving, including hands-free calls, as his department begins research that may lead him to push for a ban.” Sec. LaHood believes that even hands-free phone conversations are a “cognitive distraction” and should be prohibited. Also, “his concerns extend to vehicle information and entertainment systems such as Ford Motor Co.’s Sync and General Motors Co.’s OnStar,” which means that almost every conceivable in-vehicle technology could be regulated under LaHood’s scheme.
To be clear, I’m not necessarily opposed to laws addressing talking on phones or texting while driving since those actions can have dangerous consequences. But I’ve always preferred a more generic enforcement strategy when it comes to distracted driving laws. As I noted in my old 2007 essay, “Banning In-Car Technologies Won’t Work,” to the extent law enforcement needs to be brought into the picture it should be done in a technology-agnostic or activity-agnostic fashion. I went on to argue: Continue reading →
National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers made a major policy speech yesterday at the New America Foundation, announcing the adminstration’s plan to find an additional 500 megaherz of spectrum for wireless broadband service by the end of the decade. The spectrum will come from two places: federal agencies who currently under-utilize their spectrum, and commercial users who volunteer to participate in “incentive auctions.”
In an incentive auction, the current spectrum user receives part of the proceeds in exchange for making the spectrum available for reallocation. Within the current US system of spectrum allocation, it’s about as close as we can come to allowing spectrum holders to sell their spectrum licenses to someone else who can put the spectrum to a more valuable use.
Summers even mentioned broadcasters specifically, noting that a local television station with a few hundred millions of dollars of revenue may currently control spectrum worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Federal agencies would get to use some of the proceeds to adopt “state-of-the-art communications.” Presumably this would include new equipment that doesn’t use so much spectrum.
In his speech, Summers gave appropriate credit to the Federal Communications Commission, which surfaced many of these ideas in its National Broadband Plan. Even more appropriately, the former Harvard University president and academic economist assigned proper credit for the original source of the idea:
Most of the freed-up spectrum will be auctioned off for use by mobile broadband providers. As the great law and economics scholar Ronald Coase originally pointed out, auctions ensure that spectrum is devoted to its most productive uses because it is determined by investors’ willingness to pay for it.
There are, of course, a few unanswered questions. How much of the spectrum will actually get auctioned for mobile broadband, rather than reserved for unlicensed use? Will the buyers have to use the spectrum for mobile broadband, or will the license be sufficiently broad that they could use it for other forms of personal communication that perhaps haven’t even been invented yet? Do we really have to wait ten years for this? Will the Ronald Coase Institute get any royalties for the government’s use of its namesake’s intellectual property? (Academics will recognize the joke in the last question.)
For now I’ll just say, “Bravo, Dr. Summers!”
Texting while driving is generally a bad idea, since it involves taking one’s hands off the wheel and eyes off the road. While not wearing your seatbelt in a car or a helmet on a motorcycle probably only risks your own life, there’s a good argument to be made that distracted drivers put the lives of others at risk. The WSJ reports that 17 states have banned texting while driving outright. But is such regulation really the best way to address the problem?
Technological Empowerment. The WSJ highlights innovative technological solutions that:
- Block calls and texts while the user is driving; OR
- Let drivers “speak” their texts using voice-to-text technology.
Those who consider even hands-free cell phone use unsafe will probably insist on the more draconian blocking solution—and want government to mandate it! Such mandates would indeed probably be more effective than relying on the police write tickets to drivers they see texting while driving (especially since such offenses, like calling while driving, usually require some other, more serious offense before an officer can pull over a driver). But do we really need the government telling us when we can use a technology that really might be essential in certain circumstances, or totally safe in others (say, when we’re behind the wheel but stopped at a long light or in a traffic jam)?
The fascinating thing is that these solutions need not be mandated by government: At least some users will actually
pay for them! Why? Because, sometimes we’re better off by being able to “bind” our future selves—just as Ulysses asked his crew to tie him to his ship’s mast so he could enjoy the Siren’s enchanting song without giving in to their spell. Similarly, these texting-blocking technologies empower users in three senses:
- Some users know they shouldn’t text while driving but—like smokers and people who casually pick their noses—just can’t stop, so they want
external discipline;
- Others just want the monthly discount on their car insurance; and
- Parents want to make sure they can discipline their children, who have a hard time resisting the impulse to pick up the phone.
Continue reading →
Looks like we can count on another tax landing on our cell phones soon thanks to the taxaholics in the Obama Administration. According to Jeff Silva of RCR Wireless:
Though details on the Obama budget are few and far between, some information was made available. The administration estimates that spectrum license fees would raise $4.8 billion over the next 10 years.
Don’t be fooled into thinking that wireless carriers will just eat those fees. Those fees will be coming to bill near you soon in the form of another stupid government tax burden on our wireless phones.
You know, because we’re not already paying enough in taxes on our phones.
(P.S. I’m actually a little surprised that the “progressives” in this administration would support this proposal since a tax on mobile phones will end up being about as regressive as taxes can get.)
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.