In an interview with The Wall Street Journal today (p. A4), FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said he might consider “a la carte” mandates on cable and satellite operators as a possible way to clean up content on pay TV. He told the Journal, “I saw a quote recently where one person said ‘I can call up and order HBO, I don’t understand why I can’t call up and cancel any of my cable… programming.’ I think that there could be additional control over that.”
Well, before the Chairman rushes to impose a sweeping new regulatory regime on cable based on what he heard one guy say in the papers, I would hope he would consider what more rigorous research has revealed regarding the potential pitfalls of a la carte mandates. He might start by re-reading the report his own agency issued on the subject just 8 months ago. He should also take a second look at an important report issued by the General Accountability Office in October 2004.
These government reports, like the vast majority of serious academic reports penned on this topic, came to the conclusion that a la carte regulation would be devastating for the industry and consumers alike. (I should point out that I filed comments in the FCC proceeding as did my colleagues Randy May and Tom Lenard.)
Here’s why a la carte mandates, while sounding so good on the surface, would really be a disaster for consumers in the end:
Continue reading →
I disagree with James on cell phone bans. First of all, as one of his commenters point out, cell phones are not the only distracting thing in the car. They’re probably not even the most distracting. People eat, yell at their kids, change the station on the radio, apply make-up, and do all manner of other distracting things in the car. It’s not at all clear to me why we should single out cell phones for special treatment.
Secondly, context matters. If I’m zipping along in the left lane of an almost-empty freeway, being on my cell phone poses pretty minimal risk of accident. Likewise, if I’m in a residential area cruising along at 5 MPH (say, I’m almost to a friend’s house and calling the friend for directions) my chances of getting in an accident are likewise pretty low. And anyway, the damage will be minimal if I hit something at 5 MPH. So no, you shouldn’t be on the phone while changing lanes in rush hour traffic. But not all cell phone use in cars is bad.
Thirdly, is that really the best use of police resources? Even if the study is right, and cell phone use is killing people, it’s not at all clear that a ban would do much to deter cell phone use. It’s not very easy to tell who’s using a cell phone from outside, and there aren’t nearly enough police officers to enforce a ban effectively. A lot of people will just ignore the ban, on the (reasonable) assumption that they’re unlikely to be caught. I mean, really, has mandatory seat belt laws increased seatbelt use?
Finally, the study found that handsfree phones are just as distracting as normal phones. I don’t find this surprising at all. DC has a cell phone ban, and so I tried to use my hands free kit as often as possible. When my phone rings, I have to fish my phone out of my pocket, fish the handsfree kit out of the ash tray, plug the receiver into the phone, put the reciever into my ear (sometimes it falls out and I have to do it again) and then find a place to set the phone for the duration of the call. Since my cell phone calls are usually quite short, I think I’m a lot less dangerous having a phone to my ear for 30 seconds than spending 15 second fiddling around with things on my lap while the phone is ringing.
Bottom line: the police have better things to worry about.
Cell phones are not nearly as dangerous as people think. There’s no evidence they cause cancer. They do not cause gas pumps to explode. And they are not unsafe on airplanes. (See Adam’s excellent piece on that below). Time and again, wireless telephony, like other new technologies, has been the victim of an overactive culture of fear. Yet, there’s one area where the critics seem to have it right: cellphones and driving don’t mix. New evidence for this came out in an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study published in the British Medical Journal this week.
Continue reading →
Well, for once I find myself in perfect agreement with Democratic FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein about something. In a Wall Street Journal (pg. B4) story today about FCC prohibitions on cell phone use during airline flights, Adelstein argues that, “Our job is to determine if it’s technologically feasible and safe. Our job is not to decide etiquette. We’re not Emily Post.”
Amen brother! It’s one thing for the FCC to determine the technical standards for spectrum uses and users, and then even adjudicate interference disputes among those uses. It is quite another matter for the agency to go a step further and determine whether a certain use of the spectrum is socially acceptable.
Now don’t get me wrong, I detest the idea of cell phone chatter on long airline flights as much as the next person. The idea of a gabby jerk in the seat next to me screaming into their cell phone to talk above the already noisy jet engines, just makes me cringe.
But that doesn’t mean this should be a matter of federal concern. Indeed, self-regulatory experiments by private carriers would make a lot of sense here. Understanding the frustration (perhaps even violence) that cell phone gabbing in the cabin could induce, most airlines will put policies in place to limit cell phone use.
For example, certainly flights could be designated as “cell phone free” or “cell phone limited.” I can imagine that in an effort to appeal to many business travelers on high-volume routes (like NYC to DC or Chicago to Atlanta), some airlines would offer a few morning and evening flights that allowed unlimited cell phone use, while prohibiting calls on most other flights.
Alternatively, on larger aircraft, we might see the return of an in-flight lounge area (although probably much smaller than the ones of the past). Perhaps these cell phone lounges would be no bigger than current airplane bathrooms (perhaps they would be the bathrooms!) Regardless, these are just a few options that carriers could explore. They are certainly preferable to a federal etiquette regulatory regime for cell phone usage.
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) proposed new legislation on Thursday that would make it a federal offense for retailers to sell a minor a video game that includes violent or sexual themes. Her bill would impose a $5000 fine on any retailer that sold a youngster a game that was classified as mature or violent under the video game industry’s voluntary ratings system.
The Clinton bill might best be thought of as a “hanging the industry with its own rope” regulatory scheme. That is, her bill would hijack the industry’s voluntary ratings system and then use it against them (and retailers) should someone choose to sell a game with mature or violent themes to someone under the age of 18.
Continue reading →
Although the word “spyware” alone can make the blood boil for those who have struggled to remove the stuff from their computers, coming up with an actual definition of the concept is actually quite difficult. Still, the Anti-Spyware Coalition, consisting of consumer groups, Internet service providers (ISPs), and software companies, is struggling to pin one down. The group released a draft definition this week.
Continue reading →
The Economist (subscription) ran a story in its current edition making the case that cell phones–even more than the personal computer–may be key to reducing poverty in the third world. From enabling farmers to check prices in different markets, to making it easier for people to find work, to making it easier to transfer funds, wireless telephony is a boon.
“[M]obile phones are, in short,” says The Economist, “a classic example of technology that helps people help themselves.”
Yet, high costs are impeding the growth of wireless in many areas. And among the culprits are third-world governments themselves. From Turkey to Uganda to Bangladesh and even Aghanistan, governments have imposed high taxes or other costs on wireless services. As the article notes, manufacturers (seeing a market here) are working to reduce their costs “Now governments must do their part, too.” Worth reading.
Anytime you find yourself thinking that regulation in America can’t get any worse, it’s always helpful to take a look at Europe for confirmation that yes, indeed, it can. The Times of London online edition posted a startling story today on a new issue paper on media regulation expected to be released soon in Brussels. The paper is part of an EU effort to update its existing media directive, adopted in 1989. Among its conclusions: “non-linear audio-visual content” (Euro-speak for Internet content) needs to be regulated. According to Times Online, the EU is considering regulating areas such as “taste and decency, accuracy and impartiality for Internet broadcasters.”
Chilling stuff, if true. Of course, it’s hard to predict what, if anything will sprout out of Brussels’ bureaucratic maze. Still, it kind of makes you glad that over here we have that pesky First Amendment to protect us (well, usually) from such regulatory musings.
We’re in the midst of a transition from analog to digital transmissions of broadcast TV – sort of (as I said in a C:\Spin article). Today the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on legislation concerning digital television (DTV), focusing on how and when to transition away from analog. It is hoped that the hearings will induce Congress to give this lagging transition a defined mission with a “hard” deadline.
Congress must create a “hard” deadline for a complete digital transition. The sooner the date becomes a certainty, the better it will be for: a) consumers, who will be able to make more informed purchases; b) manufacturers, who can label analog sets in a way that will inform consumers of the transition date; c) broadcasters, who can publicize the transition in a way that can help attract increased viewership.
Continue reading →
There’s been a debate raging in Washington recently about the future of public broadcasting. Paul Farhi of The Washington Post provides some details of this catfight and yesterday’s Senate hearing on the matter in his column today.
I don’t want to get into all questions about “bias” on PBS or NPR, although I think there’s a lot less of it than others do. Indeed, I think there is a great deal of informative and entertaining programming on public television and radio that is not “biased” at all. I especially enjoy NPR’s “Morning Edition” and “All Things Considered” as well as PBS’s “News Hour with Jim Lehrer.”
Are there some biased shows or personalities on public TV and radio? Of course there are. But I don’t really think there’s any more bias on public broadcasting outlets than any other media outlet these days. And I don’t have any problem with the tilt of the bias being a little more to the left than to the right on these outlets. There’s no way any of us could ever agree on what constitutes “perfect” balance TV or radio. Moreover, attempts to strike such a balance–even for public broadcasting–ultimately run afoul of the First Amendment since it interferes with the editorial discretion of the programmers. Finally, in our world of media abundance, there are plenty of other good outlets to which we can turn if we find any one outlet overly biased.
Continue reading →
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.