The Wall Street Journal has run my response to troubling recent opeds by President Biden (“Republicans and Democrats, Unite Against Big Tech Abuses“) and former Trump Administration Attorney General William Barr (“Congress Must Halt Big Tech’s Power Grab“) in which they both called for European-style regulation of U.S. digital technology markets.

“The only thing Europe exports now on the digital-technology front is regulation,” I noted in my response, and that makes it all the more mind-boggling that Biden and Barr want to go down that same path. “[T]he EU’s big-government regulatory crusade against digital tech: Stagnant markets, limited innovation and a dearth of major players. Overregulation by EU bureaucrats led Europe’s best entrepreneurs and investors to flee to the U.S. or elsewhere in search of the freedom to innovate.”

Thus, the Biden and Barr plans for importing European-style tech mandates, “would be a stake through the heart of the ‘permissionless innovation’ that made America’s info-tech economy a global powerhouse.” In a longer response to the Biden oped that I published on the R Street blog, I note that:

“It is remarkable to think that after years of everyone complaining about the lack of bipartisanship in Washington, we might get the one type of bipartisanship America absolutely does not need: the single most destructive technological suicide in U.S. history, with mandates being substituted for markets, and permission slips for entrepreneurial freedom.”

What makes all this even more remarkable is that they calls for hyper-regulation come at a time when China is challenging America’s dominance in technology and AI. Thus, “new mandates could compromise America’s lead,” I conclude. “Shackling our tech sectors with regulatory chains will hobble our nation’s ability to meet global competition and undermine innovation and consumer choice domestically.”

Jump over to the WSJ to read my entire response (“EU-Style Regulation Begets EU-Style Stagnation“) and to the R Street blog for my longer essay (“President Biden Wants America to Become Europe on Tech Regulation“).

Two weeks ago, as Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was getting grilled by Congress during a two-day media circus set of hearings, I wrote a counterintuitive essay about how it could end up being Facebook’s greatest moment. How could that be? As I argued in the piece, with an avalanche of new rules looming, “Facebook is potentially poised to score its greatest victory ever as it begins the transition to regulated monopoly status, solidifying its market power, and limiting threats from new rivals.”

With the exception of probably only Google, no firm other than Facebook likely has enough lawyers, lobbyists, and money to deal with layers of red tape and corresponding regulatory compliance headaches that lie ahead. That’s true both here and especially abroad in Europe, which continues to pile on new privacy and “data protection” regulations. While such rules come wrapped in the very best of intentions, there’s just no getting around the fact that  regulation has costs. In this case, the unintended consequence of well-intentioned data privacy rules is that the emerging regulatory regime will likely discourage (or potentially even destroy) the chances of getting the new types of innovation and competition that we so desperately need right now.

Others now appear to be coming around to this view. On April 23, both the  New York Times and The Wall Street Journal ran feature articles with remarkably similar titles and themes. The New York Times article by Daisuke Wakabayashi and Adam Satariano was titled, “How Looming Privacy Regulations May Strengthen Facebook and Google,” and The Wall Street Journal’s piece, “Google and Facebook Likely to Benefit From Europe’s Privacy Crackdown,” was penned by Sam Schechner and Nick Kostov. “In Europe and the United States, the conventional wisdom is that regulation is needed to force Silicon Valley’s digital giants to respect people’s online privacy. But new rules may instead serve to strengthen Facebook’s and Google’s hegemony and extend their lead on the internet,” note Wakabayashi and Satariano in the  NYT essay. They continue on to note how “past attempts at privacy regulation have done little to mitigate the power of tech firms.” This includes regulations like Europe’s “right to be forgotten” requirement, which has essentially put Google in a privileged position as the “chief arbiter of what information is kept online in Europe.” Meanwhile, the  WSJ article opens with this interesting story about the epiphany EU regulator Věra Jourová had upon visiting with the supposed victims of the EU’s new General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR:

When the European Union’s justice commissioner traveled to California to meet with Google and Facebook last fall, she was expecting to get an earful from executives worried about the Continent’s sweeping new privacy law. Instead, she realized they already had the situation under control. “They were more relaxed, and I became more nervous,” said the EU official, Věra Jourová. “They have the money, an army of lawyers, an army of technicians and so on.”

Indeed they do. And that means that they are better positioned to absorb the significant costs of compliance that will be associated with the new GDPR rules, which are somewhat ambiguous and will require a great deal of ongoing interpretation and legal wrangling.  The Journal essay also cites an unnamed Brussels lobbyist for an media-measurement firm saying, “The politicians wanted to teach Google and Facebook a lesson. And yet they favor them.” Consider this paragraph from the WSJ essay about how the two firms worked diligently to come into compliance with the new GDPR regulations:

Once the law passed in spring 2016, Google and Facebook threw people at the problem. Google involved lawyers in the U.S., Ireland, Brussels and elsewhere to pore over contracts and procedures, said people close to the company. Facebook mobilized hundreds of people in what it describes as the largest interdepartmental team it has ever assembled. Facebook lawyers spent a year scrutinizing the law’s lengthy text. Designers and engineers then toiled over how to implement changes, according to Stephen Deadman, Facebook’s global deputy chief privacy officer. During the process, Facebook got frequent access to regulators across Europe. It met with Helen Dixon, the data protection commissioner in Ireland, where the company bases its European operations, and her staff to run through changes Facebook was planning. Ms. Dixon’s agency provided the firm with feedback on the wording of its consent requests, Facebook said.

Now ask yourself how many other smaller existing or new firms would be in a position to do the same thing. Answer: Not many. We’re already seeing the deleterious effects of the GDPR on market structure, the  Journal reports. “Some advertisers are planning to shift money away from smaller providers and toward Google and Facebook,” Schechner and Kostov note. And they end their essay with the telling thoughts of Bill Simmons, co-founder and chief technology officer of Dataxu, Boston-based company that helps buy targeted ads, who says, “It is paradoxical. The GDPR is actually consolidating the control of consumer data onto these tech giants.” The  NYT essay included a funny tidbit about how “Some privacy advocates also bristle at the idea that these new restrictions would help already powerful internet companies, noting that is a well-worn argument employed by tech giants to try to prevent future regulation.” That’s a highly unfortunate attitude. If privacy advocates really care about improving the situation on the ground, then the best way to do that is with more and better choices. Sadly, it seems that with each passing day the write off the idea of any new competition emerging to today’s tech giants. “Can Facebook be replaced?” asks Olivia Solon writing in The Guardian today. Some probably think not, but as Solon notes, “prominent Silicon Valley investor Jason Calacanis, who was an early investor in several high-profile tech companies including Uber certainly hopes so. He has launched a competition to find a ‘social network that is actually good for society,'” and his “Openbook Challenge will offer seven “purpose-driven teams” $100,000 in investment to build a billion-user social network that could replace the technology titan while protecting consumer privacy.” In a blog post announcing the Challenge, Calacanis wrote: “All community and social products on the internet have had their era, from AOL to MySpace, and typically they’re not shut down by the government — they’re slowly replaced by better products. So, let’s start the process of replacing Facebook.” I don’t have any idea whether this Openbook Challenge will succeed. It’s hard building big, scalable digital platforms that satisfy the diverse needs of a diverse world. But this is exactly the sort of innovation that we should be encouraging. Even the very threat of new competition will keep the big dogs on their toes. Alas, all the new regulations being consider will likely just leave us with fewer choices and regulations that probably won’t even do all that much to truly better protect our data or privacy. But hey, at least it was all well-intentioned!

Updates :

• Nick Kostov and Sam Schechner, “Google Emerges as Early Winner From Europe’s New Data Privacy Law,” Wall Street Journal, May 31, 2018, https://www.wsj.com/articles/eus-strict-new-privacy-law-is-sending-more-ad-money-to-google-1527759001

If the techno-pessimists are right and robots are set to take all the jobs, shouldn’t employment in Amazon warehouses be plummeting right now? After all, Amazon’s sorting and fulfillment centers have been automated at a rapid pace, with robotic technologies now being integrated into almost every facet of the process. (Just watch the video below to see it all in action.)

And yet according to this Wall Street Journal story by Laura Stevens, Amazon is looking to immediately fill 50,000 new jobs, which would mean that its U.S. workforce “would swell to around 300,000, compared with 30,000 in 2011.”  According to the article, “Nearly 40,000 of the promised jobs are full-time at the company’s fulfillment centers, including some facilities that will open in the coming months. Most of the remainder are part-time positions available at Amazon’s more than 30 sorting centers.”

How can this be? Shouldn’t the robots have eaten all those jobs by now?

The reality is that we suffer from a serious poverty of imagination when it comes to thinking about the future, and future job opportunities in particular. “One thing automation alarmists sometimes miss is that the simplistic ‘machines steal jobs’ story tells an incomplete tale,” observes James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute. “How machines can complement what humans do and create increased demand should not be overlooked when evaluating the rise of the robots. Yet it seems like it often is,” he notes.

Bank tellers are the paradigmatic example. With the rise of ATMs a few decades ago, many thought the days of bank tellers were numbered. But research by economist James Bessen of Boston University shows that we have more bank tellers today than we did 40 years ago. (See chart below). How’s that? Because once the ATMs could handle the menial tasks of counting and distributing money, the tellers were freed up to do other things.

This is a part of the story of technological change that is often ignored, as Pethokoukis suggests. Old jobs and skills are indeed often replaced by mechanization and new technological processes. But that in turn opens the door to people to take on new opportunities — often in new sectors and new firms, but sometimes even within the same industries and companies. And because human needs and wants are essentially infinite, this process just goes on and on and on as we search for new and better ways of doing things. And that’s how, in the long run, robots and automation are actually employment-enhancing rather than employment-reducing. (For a historical overview of this process, see this paper on “Does Productivity Growth Threaten Employment?” by David Autor and Anna Salomons as well as Autor’s 2015 paper, “Why Are There Still So Many Jobs? The History and Future of Workplace Automation.” Also see this McKinsey report on “Four fundamentals of workplace automation.” from 2015.)

Of course, in the short-run, that process of creative destruction isn’t always pretty. In fact, it can be gut-wrenching for some professions and workers. But the long arc of history, this is how progress happens.

Gordon Crovitz has an excellent column in today’s Wall Street Journal in which he accurately diagnoses the root cause of our patent litigation problem: the Federal Circuit’s support for extensive patenting in software.

Today’s patent mess can be traced to a miscalculation by Jimmy Carter, who thought granting more patents would help overcome economic stagnation. In 1979, his Domestic Policy Review on Industrial Innovation proposed a new Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which Congress created in 1982. Its first judge explained: “The court was formed for one need, to recover the value of the patent system as an incentive to industry.” The country got more patents—at what has turned out to be a huge cost. The number of patents has quadrupled, to more than 275,000 a year. But the Federal Circuit approved patents for software, which now account for most of the patents granted in the U.S.—and for most of the litigation. Patent trolls buy up vague software patents and demand legal settlements from technology companies. Instead of encouraging innovation, patent law has become a burden on entrepreneurs, especially startups without teams of patent lawyers.

I was pleased that Crovitz cites my new paper with Alex Tabarrok:

A system of property rights is flawed if no one can know what’s protected. That’s what happens when the government grants 20-year patents for vague software ideas in exchange for making the innovation public. In a recent academic paper, George Mason researchers Eli Dourado and Alex Tabarrok argued that the system of “broad and fuzzy” software patents “reduces the potency of search and defeats one of the key arguments for patents, the dissemination of information about innovation.”

Current legislation in Congress makes changes to patent trial procedure in an effort to reduce the harm caused by patent trolling. But if we really want to solve the trolling problem once and for all, and to generally have a healthy and innovative patent system, we need to get at the problem of low-quality patents, especially in software. The best way to do that is to abolish the Federal Circuit, which has consistently undermined limits on patentable subject matter.

Yesterday on TechCrunch, Josh Constine posted an interesting essay about how some in the press were “Selling Digital Fear” on the privacy front. His specific target was The Wall Street Journal, which has been running an ongoing investigation of online privacy issues with a particular focus on online apps. Much of the reporting in their “What They Know” series has been valuable in that it has helped shine light on some data collection practices and privacy concerns that deserve more scrutiny. But as Constine notes, sometimes the articles in the WSJ series lack sufficient context, fail to discuss trade-offs, or do not identify any concrete harm or risk to users. In other words, some of it is just simple fear-mongering. Constine argues:

Reality has yet to stop media outlets from yelling about privacy, and because the WSJ writers were on assignment, they wrote the “Selling You On Facebook” hit piece despite thin findings. These kind of articles can make mainstream users so worried about the worst-case scenario of what could happen to their data, they don’t see the value they get in exchange for it. “Selling You On Facebook” does bring up the important topic of how apps can utilize personal data granted to them by their users, but it overstates the risks. Yes, the business models of Facebook and the apps on its platform depend on your personal information, but so do the services they provide. That means each user needs to decide what information to grant to who, and Facebook has spent years making the terms of this value exchange as clear as possible.

“While sensationalizing the dangers of online privacy sure drives page views and ad revenue,” Constine also noted, “it also impedes innovation and harms the business of honest software developers.” These trade-offs are important because, to the extent policymakers get more interested in pursing privacy regulations based on these fears, they could force higher prices or less innovation upon us with very little benefit in exchange.

Of course, the press generating hypothetical fears or greatly inflating dangers is nothing new. We have seen it happen many times in the past and it can be seen at work in many other fields today (online child safety is a good example). In my recent 80-page paper on “Technopanics, Threat Inflation, and the Danger of an Information Technology Precautionary Principle,” I discussed how and why the press and other players inflate threats and sell fear. Here’s a passage from my paper:

“The most obvious reason that doomsday fears get disproportionate public attention is that bad news is newsworthy, and frightening forecasts cause people to sit up and take notice,” Julian Simon astutely observed in 1996.[1] That is equally true today.[2] Many media outlets and sensationalist authors sometimes use fear-based rhetorical devices to gain influence or sell books. “Opportunists will take advantage of this fear for personal and institutional gain,” notes University of Colorado Law School professor Paul Ohm.[3] Fear mongering and prophecies of doom have always been with us, since they represent easy ways to attract attention and get heard. “Pessimism has always been big box office,” notes [Matt] Ridley.[4] This is even more true in the midst of the modern information age cacophony. Breaking through all the noise is hard when competition for our eyes and ears is so intense. It should not be surprising, therefore, that sensationalism and alarmism are used as media differentiation tactics. This is particularly true as it relates to kids and online safety.[5] “Unbalanced headlines and confusion have contributed to the climate of anxiety that surrounds public discourse on children’s use of new technology,” argues Professor Sonia Livingstone of the London School Economics. “Panic and fear often drown out evidence.”[6] Sadly, most of us are eager listeners and lap up bad news, even when it is overhyped, exaggerated, or misreported. [Michael] Shermer notes that psychologists have identified this phenomenon as “negativity bias,” or “the tendency to pay closer attention and give more weight to negative events, beliefs, and information than to positive.”[7] Negativity bias, which is closely related to the phenomenon of “pessimistic bias” …  is frequently on display in debates over online child safety, digital privacy, and cybersecurity.

Recent revelations about Microsoft’s internal debate over Internet Explorer’s handling of tracking cookies, as chronicled by The Wall Street Journal earlier this month, have prompted harsh criticism from self-described privacy groups, who’ve called on Congress to investigate Microsoft’s actions. But as Jim Harper pointed out in an excellent WSJ essay, Web users stand to lose a great deal if online tracking is squelched by the hand of government. Data gathering on the Internet is largely harmless, and individually targeted advertising coexists with robust privacy safeguards.

Over on AOLNews.com, my colleague Carolyn Homer discusses these privacy tradeoffs, arguing that Microsoft and other Internet firms have a strong incentive to set privacy defaults that align with their users’ preferences. She points out that most consumers are, in practice, quite willing to live with allegedly “pervasive” tracking in exchange for the enormous benefits that targeted advertising makes possible. While many surveys and polls indicate consumers are very worried about their privacy, the actual decisions that consumers make every day tell a very different story (as documented extensively by Berin Szoka). From Carolyn’s piece:

A body of research reveals a sizable disparity between how much people say they value privacy and how willing they are to actually protect it. In a 2003 Duke Law Journal article, Michael Staten and Fred Cate found that fewer than 10 percent of users exercise their right to opt out and share less. Conversely, if given the opposite choice, fewer than 10 percent of users elect to opt in and share more. The vast middle is apparently indifferent. If consumers were required to affirmatively opt in before sharing data, the Internet’s prevailing advertising-based business model would be decimated. The effectiveness of online advertising in Europe, for example, fell 65 percent after the European Union in 2002 required a blanket opt-in system. For more than a decade, the Internet has thrived on the assumption that most people believe it is a fair trade to receive free content in exchange for viewing ads. Mere advertisements shouldn’t be equated with gross privacy violations.

She goes on to discuss how privacy settings are evolving as consumer preferences adapt to new technologies and firms experiment with new ways to use and collect data. You can read the rest over at the AOL News website.

Another great column by the Wall Street Journal’s Gordon Crovitz, who is quickly becoming my favorite tech policy columnist. In today’s column, “Bloggers Mugged by Regulators,” he comments on the FTC’s new disclosure rules for bloggers, which I discussed here over the weekend.  Crovitz focuses on the enforcement challenges associated with the new rules and also argues that self-regulation should be given a chance to work:

There should be more disclosure, but the Web is different from earlier media in ways that make government regulation less relevant and practical. The Web has its own self-regulatory mechanisms. Failing to disclose interests sullies one’s reputation online, and reputation harm travels faster and lasts longer than it did before the Web. There’s also greater need for caveat emptor online, because there is no practical way that any government agency can monitor the world’s bloggers and posters. There will always be people who post comments about products and services that are self-serving in one way or another, at least by someone’s definition. […] Instead of trying to extend analog-era regulations onto the Web, the FTC should encourage readers to be vigilant about assessing for themselves the independence of sources online. At least we now know the biggest fraudulent claim so far on the Web: It’s been committed by regulators claiming there can be a government stamp of approval on everything anyone posts anywhere on the Web.

Amen brother.

I’m intrigued by this new bill that Rep. Peter King has introduced to prevent video voyeurism. H.R. 414, the “Camera Phone Predator Alert Act” finds that “children and adolescents have been exploited by photographs taken in dressing rooms and public places with the use of a camera phone.”  To remedy this problem, King’s “Phone Predator Alert” bill would require that:

any mobile phone containing a digital camera that is manufactured for sale in the United States shall sound a tone or other sound audible within a reasonable radius of the phone whenever a photograph is taken with the camera in such phone. A mobile phone manufactured after such date shall not be equipped with a means of disabling or silencing such tone or sound.

In other words, cameras would have to get noisy again!  Old timers will recall the days when our cameras were noisier than a box of rocks. Today’s digital cameras and camera phones, by contrast, are increasingly silent, but that also opens up the door to potential abuse by some creeps out there. While I don’t believe there’s evidence pointing to a national epidemic of digital voyeurism, there’s no doubt that some people — including many youngsters — are having their privacy invaded in this fashion.

I find King’s solution at once to be both ingenious and futile. It’s ingenious in that, if we could truly force it upon everyone, it might actually go along way towards solving this problem. The noisy camera would again act as the prime deterrent to such an act.

It’s futile, however, in that the real bad guys would likely get around the law pretty quickly. After all, if they are really determined to try to surreptitiously snap some shots in a locker room or elsewhere, it’s likely that they’ll quickly find a way to hack the device and disable the noise-maker. (By the way, exactly how loud do will our phones need to be to comply with the law?) Moreover, the market for old, unregulated phones would grow longer and a black market of illegal devices would likely spring up, too. (However, Wired reports that such a law is already in place in Japan, so it would be interesting to see how it is working out there.)

That being said, I don’t really have a better solution than Rep. King.  There are already laws on the books dealing with invasion of privacy that can be tapped to deal with this problem, but there are obvious problems going that route in terms of time and expense. The damage is already done once the photo is snapped. And usually you can’t find the creep who originally took the shot after it has been around the Internet a zillion times.

Self-regulation in semi-public spaces might help. My gym has clearly posted policies about where mobile devices can be used and makes it clear they are not to be used in the locker rooms. That’s a good first step that others should follow to help protect the privacy of people in areas where they are likely to be disrobing.  And schools can do the same thing for their locker rooms. Of course, that’s still going to be difficult to enforce. There’s just no easy solution here.

[Further discussion over at Washington Watch.com]

Continuing the “Cutting the (Video) Cord” series started by my PFF colleague Adam Thierer:  The WSJ had two great pieces yesterday about the increasing competitive relevance of television distributed by Internet—a trend that was at the heart of an amicus brief PFF recently filed in support of C omcast’s challenge of the FCC’s 30% cap on cable ownership.  The first WSJ piece declares that:

After more than a decade of disappointment, the goal of marrying television and the Internet seems finally to be picking up steam. A key factor in the push are new TV sets that have networking connections built directly into them, requiring no additional set-top boxes for getting online. Meanwhile, many consumers are finding more attractive entertainment and information choices on the Internet — and have already set up data networks for their PCs and laptops that can also help move that content to their TV sets.

The easier it is for consumers to receive traditional television programming (in addition to other kinds of video content) distributed over the Internet on their television, the less “gatekeeper” or “bottleneck” power cable distributors have over programming.  So the Netflix-capable and Yahoo-widget-capable televisions described by the WSJ piece go a long way to increasing the substitutability of what we call Internet Video Programming Distributors (IVPDs) for Multichannel Video Programming Distributors (MVPDs), such as cable, satellite television and fiber services offered by telcos such as Verizon’s FiOS.  

While such televisions are only expected to reach 14% of all TV sales by 2012, one must remember that a growing number of set-top boxes ( e.g., the Roku Digitial Video Player, game consoles like the Microsoft XBox 360 and Sony PlayStation 3, and TiVo DVRs) allow users to users to receive IVPD programming on their existing televisions.  

As we argued in our amicus brief, the immense competitive importance of IVPDs lies not in the potential for some users to “cut the cord” to cable and other MVPDs (though that will surely happen), but in the immediate impact IVPDs have as an alternative distribution channel for programmers.  In the pending D.C. Circuit case, we argue that both the FCC’s 30% cap, issued in December 2007, and the underlying portions of the 1992 Cable Act authorizing such a cap should be struck down as unconstitutional because the ready availability of IVPDs as an alternative distribution channel means that cable no longer has the “special characteristic” of gatekeeper/bottleneck power that would justify imposing such a unique burden on the audience size of cable operators.  (Of course, Direct Broadcast Satellite and Telco Fiber are also eating away at cable’s share of the MVPD marketplace.)

The second WSJ piece, an op/ed, illustrates beautifully how cable operators are already losing “market power” (or at least negotiating leverage) in a very tangible way:  they’re having to pay more for programming.  Specifically, the Journal describes how Viacom plaid chicken with Time Warner—and won.  

 The Viacom network had threatened to pull its 19 channels, including Nickelodeon with its “Dora the Explorer” and “SpongeBob SquarePants” cartoons, from the 13 million subscribers to the Time Warner Cable system…. The game of chicken included Viacom advertisements that unless Time Warner Cable agreed to pay more, it would pull the channels, encouraging viewers to call to say they wanted their MTV and other Viacom channels. One ad asked, “Why is Dora crying?” Time Warner countered that consumers would pay more if its costs rose. Bernstein Research analyst Michael Nathanson noted that neither party could afford “mutually assured destruction.” Viacom needs to find more subscription revenue as advertising revenues soften, while Time Warner Cable has to worry about satellite and telecom competitors. New media was the new factor. Many popular Viacom shows are widely available on the Web, including on its own sites. When it looked as if Comedy Central would be pulled, Wired magazine helpfully posted a guide for accessing the shows on the Web, pointing out that Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show” can be accessed on Hulu and that “South Park” episodes are on Fancast. The best parts of “The Colbert Report” are often viewed as email attachments or as snippets on mobile phones.

So, in a nutshell, the fact that consumers could get Viacom programming available through IVPDs gave Viacom more leverage against MVPD Time Warner because it increased the credibility of Viacom’s threat to simply shut off programming to Time Warner if the cable giant didn’t cough up more cash.  While this fact seems to have carried the day for Viacom, the availability of Viacom’s content through IVPDs did have some secondary effects that also are worth noting:

During the negotiations, Time Warner Cable threatened to make it easier for its subscribers to connect laptop computers to their televisions so that Viacom shows could stream directly onto subscribers’ televisions.

This is essentially a reversal of the tactic often employed by local broadcasters in their battles with cable operators:  give your customers a set of rabbit ears so they can still get your signal if you actually take your programming off the local cable network.  While this tactic doesn’t seem to have helped Time Warner here, it does point to a long-term trend that could fundamentally change the programming marketplace:

The cable company also argued that it shouldn’t have to pay more to distribute shows that Viacom made available free in other media.

I suspect that, as IVPDs further erode the viewership of cable and other MVPDs, the MVPDs will become more desperate for content—and therefore willing to pay more for it.  But it seems likely that both of the key revenue sources for MVPDs—subscriptions and advertising—will, at some point, begin to decline as Americans spend more time watching IVPD content and become less willing to pay for expensive MVPD plans.  As this happens, cable may have less revenue to share with programmers per subscriber, even as their need for that programming grows.

So how will this all end?  I doubt anyone really knows.  But I feel reasonably comfortable making two predictions.  

First, the overall health of the video programming content market will become increasingly dependent on the profitability of advertising—for MVPDs, IVPDs as well as programmers.  This will require technological innovation to produce smarter advertising.  The better advertising is targeted to a specific consumer’s interests, the more revenue it will produce for all concerned.  But if the government short-circuits this process by hindering the evolution of targeted advertising in the name of protecting consumers’ privacy (or simply to protect them from the supposed inherent unfairness of advertising—an old Marxist shibboleth), the total amount of funding available for content could plummet.  The dynamics described so well by Chris Anderson in “Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business” could drive video programmers to make their content available online for “free” (i.e., at no charge to the user) even if that content ends up producing (via advertising, etc.) significantly less revenue than it currently does on MVPDs (primarily from subscription revenue).  Plenty of smart people have explored this question and have far more intelligent things to say about it than I do.  But since the long-term trend seems to be that consumers are increasingly unwilling to pay even small sums for content, I just don’t see any alternative to increasing advertising revenues—other than public financing, which will necessarily bring with it government control and censorship.

Second, the other part of the solution to this problem will be business model innovation:  If individual consumers won’t pay for online video content, and if future ad revenues for online video content  don’t replace existing revenue streams, programmers are going to look for other sources of funding.  This dynamic seems to be on a collision course with net neutrality mandates.  The WSJ reported:

At one point, it looked as if Viacom might have escalated by trying to block Time Warner Cable broadband subscribers from accessing its Web sites to see its shows.

Whatever actually happened here, one can easily imagine a programmer like Viacom at some point in the future trying to get ISPs to start paying money per broadband subscriber for video content just as MVPDs currently pay per subscriber.  This is really the inverse of the fear generally expressed by net neutrality advocates that ISPs would try to charge programmers for the bandwidth used to transmit their content to an ISP’s subscribers.  If it’s true that programmers (the Viacoms of the world) and not distributors (Time Warner Cable the MVPD or Time Warner Cable the ISP) really have the market power, as this story suggests, then such arrangements might well be the economic salvation of content creators.  As with regulation of advertising, I only hope that government mandates against such innovation in the name of abstract “neutrality” principles don’t end up dooming us to a future where, with free market solutions (better advertising, revenue sharing with ISPs) rendered ineffective by government, government itself seems to be the only option left.