October 2006

As argued by Tim and Jim in their recent posts, the decision by the Norwegian broadband carrier NextGenTel to limit the bandwidth available to NRK (Norway’s broadcaster) for its IPTV service–unless it paid for more, and the subsequent withdrawal of that policy, shows a functioning market, rather than a market failure.

Tim and Jim stress that consumer reaction forced NextGenTel to reverse its policy. They are correct, although that still leaves the impression that this was a case of a network giant trying (unsuccessfully) to use its muscle to impose unreasonable conditions. But there’s more to it than that. First, NextGenTel doesn’t seem like much of a giant. It’s no monopolist, or even a former monopolist. Instead, its a relatively small start-up, launched only six years ago. Purchased earlier this year by a firm called TeliaSonera, NextGenTel itself only has some 150 employees. It’s not clear to me whether they even own their own infrastructure. Their website mentions only that its network “consists of approximately 850 DSLAMs,” implying the rest is leased. If bottleneck control of infrastructure is a necessary condition for neutrality regulation–as most regulation agree it is–then NextGenTel’s actions should not be of concern.

In any case, NextGenTel’s policy was hardly unreasonable. The “victim” in this case was NRK, the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation. The IPTV service at issue here was apparently launched by NRK earlier this year. In a press release issued in May, NRK boasted that its service would be provided “with minimal capital investment and very low cost of ownership.” Part of that capital investment needed for the high-bandwidth demands of NRK’s new service no doubt would be made instead by NextGenTel and other broadband networks. It seems entirely understandable that NextGenTel didn’t want to play this role in NRK’s business plans.

Rather than a dominant firm using its power to impose unreasonable restrictions, this seems to be a case of a competitive firm asking for reasonable compensation. It also seems that if supporters of neutrality regulation want a smoking gun of market failure, they will have to keep looking.

Has Wu Been Reading Lee?

by on October 17, 2006 · 2 comments

Tim Lee recently posted about Norwegian ISP NextGenTel returning to neutral provision of broadband after consumers objected to its practice of charging content providers for throughput.

It looks like Columbia law professor and champion of net neutrality regulation Tim Wu might be reading Lee – oh, and me. From the October 14 Economist:

“The public reaction has already been as powerful and effective as any law,” says Timothy Wu, a professor at Columbia Law School who is credited with coining the term “net neutrality”. The debate has put the telecoms companies on notice that they are being watched closely, he says, and has forced them to make public pledges not to block or degrade access. “Shame can have more power than litigation,” says Mr Wu. “The market and consumers can control bad practices, but consumers actually have to be aware of what is going on for that to happen.”

It’s an interesting strategic and ethical question whether brandishing the regulation cudgel is appropriate, but as long as we’re all agreed that consumers have influence in the broadband marketplace, I’m willing to let it go at that.

On Chinese History

by on October 17, 2006

Knowing I was going to be trapped on an airplane for a considerable time on my way to Asia, I indulged in the 32 CD set from the Teaching Company, “From Yao to Mao, Five Thousand Years of Chinese History.” I’m through the first three thousand years.

Continue reading →

The Register reports that Wal-Mart has failed to gain control of boycottwalmart.com:

The panel ruled that Wal-Mart’s case could not stand because nobody finding the website boycottwalmart.com would imagine that the site belonged to the retailer.

“This panel is of the view that members of the public wishing to find a website associated with the Complainant would not be confused as to whether the Complainant owned or operated the website at ‘www.boycottwalmart.com’,” said its decision. “It would be perfectly clear to anyone who recognized the Complainant’s trademarks that the disputed domain name would not resolve to a site used by the Complainant to promote its own goods or services.”

“Accordingly, the Panel finds that ‘boycottwalmart.com’ is neither identical nor confusingly similar to the trademark “Wal-mart” nor any proven variants of that mark,” it ruled.

This seems like a sensible decision. This is a recurring issue in Internet governance. Perhaps the most famous example was the eToys/etoy dispute of the dot-com era. It was strangely appropriate when eToys subsequently went down in flames, while etoy appears to be alive and kicking (I have to admit I have no idea what etoy actually does).

As I have written here before, the only way we are ever going to solve the online predator problem is to get serious about weeding out and prosecuting the vermin who commit crimes against children. As I pointed out last week in my response to Sen. Joe Lieberman’s online child protection manifesto, regulating Internet websites or online communications to solve this problem avoids the real issue: The bad guys don’t serve enough time and are out on the streets (and behind keyboards) because of our government’s failure to adequately punish them.

What got me thinking about all this again was this new Wired report by Kevin Poulsen. He explains how he helped New York law enforcement officials track down and apprehend a sex offender by writing a program that searched MySpace’s 1 million-plus profiles for registered sex offenders. Here’s what struck me about the specific perpetrator that they nabbed, a 39-year-old man named Andrew Lubrano:

“Lubrano was sentenced to three years probation in 1987 for sexual abuse against a 7-year-old boy, according to police. In 1988, he got another probation term for second-degree sex abuse. In 1995, he earned a 3 to 9 year prison term for sexually abusing two boys he’d been babysitting, one 11, the other 9. The parole board turned Lubrano down three times, and he was cut loose in September 2004 largely unsupervised, having served every day of his nine-year max. By November 2005 he was on MySpace, making friends.”

When I read stuff like this, I literally start screaming at my computer: “Why? Why? Why?” Why in the hell is this guy on the streets? Why is he even able to get online at all when he should be sitting in a jail cell? Why is it MySpace’s problem to solve instead of the government’s? And why is it my responsibility to have to monitor both MySpace and sex offender registries to see if these creeps might be preying on my children?

Continue reading →

Quote of the Day

by on October 16, 2006

“The notion that a track I buy in DRM is protected and one without DRM isn’t is a fallacy. It’s all nonsense. Music is never going to be protected, and anybody who tells you that is not being honest. Yes, you can put up speed bumps, but the people who really want to steal music are going to steal it. So you’re just making it hard for people who want to do the right thing to get the music they legitimately purchased on the devices and services that they want.”

Yahoo Music general manager David Goldberg

Hat Tip: EFF

Derek Slater notes an important wrinkle in the recent YouTube news:

Lost in the GooTube shuffle last week was some even bigger news for the scores of YouTube users who already enjoyed lip syncing (and hip shaking) to their favorite songs and posting home videos to the site. Deals worked out with Sony BMG, Universal, and Warner Music suggest that fans will be able to freely remix and share popular sound recordings from those major record labels’ catalogs. When a remix video gets viewed, YouTube will share a cut of the advertising revenue with the rights holder.

It’s a simple concept with potentially profound implications. Artists get paid, while fans can keep on sharing remixed tunes on the site and push the boundaries of user generated media even further. No fans or innovators get sued in the process.

That raises an important question: why can’t P2P users get a similar deal? EFF has long advocated that the music industry blanket license P2P users to let them keep sharing in a way that gets artists paid. The labels could help Internet users get legal by cutting a deal with an intermediary, whether a P2P company, an ISP, or a collective licensing society like ASCAP.

It’s worth noting that Prof. Picker called this development back in June. The deals announced last week appear to use exactly the model professor Picker predicted:

Continue reading →

Virtual Reality Reporters

by on October 16, 2006

My post earlier today about virtual reality helmets is probably all based on a big Internet hoax, but this virtual reality story is 100% legit. Reuters has announced that it is opening a “Second Life News Center” and assigning a reporter (Adam Pasick, who is shown below) to cover breaking developments in this cyber-world.

For those of you who aren’t as big of a nerd as me, “Second Life” is an incredible massive multiplayer online game that, as the title implies, allows hundred of thousands of people to build new lives and interact in a new world together. (This month’s Wired magazine has a wondeful guide to the game if you need a good primer.) And now mainstream media reporters will be covering developments there, wherever “there” may be. Pretty cool, and it’s another sign of how video games have become a major force in modern society / culture.

Virtual%20Reality%20Reporter.jpg

This week is National Freedom of Speech Week. It’s good opportunity for those of us in America to remember how lucky we are to live in a country that respects freedom of the press and freedom of speech. After all, we could live in country like China, where dissent, press freedoms and online communications are frequently punished with penalties or prison time. (They even censor news coverage of disasters over there!)

Or consider Russia, where journalists live in fear for their lives for reporting the news, or where the state has continued its push to monopolize the media industry. For example, in July 2004, a state-controlled entity took over Russia’s independent NTV television network and began canceling programs that were critical of the government, including, ironically, one talk show called “Freedom of Speech”!

Of course, there is still plenty of push-back against speech rights here in the USA. Over just the past few years, for example, we have witnessed a major government crack-down on “indecent” speech on broadcast TV or radio; a new push to expand indecency laws to cover cable and satellite TV; threats of wireless / mobile media regulation; a continued push for the regulation of video games; ongoing proposals to regulate Internet speech and online expression (including social networking sites); and stringent new campaign finance laws that grotesquely curtail political speech in the weeks before an election.

As I argue in every essay I pen responding to these proposals, what speech critics consistently fail to appreciate is that in a free society different people will have different values and tolerance levels when it comes to speech and media content. It would be a grave mistake, therefore, for government to impose the will of some on all. To protect the First Amendment and our heritage of freedom of speech and expression from government encroachment, editorial discretion over content should always remain housed in private, not public, hands.

However, there will always be those who respond by arguing that speech regulation is important because “it’s for the children.” (For example, just last week, I responded in detail to Sen. Joe Lieberman’s recent “for-the-children” manifesto). But raising children, and determining what they watch or listen to, is a quintessential parental responsibility. Moreover, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, almost 68 percent of American homes do not have any children under 18 years of age in residence. Thus, government regulations that seek to regulate all content the name of protecting children will cast too wide a net by ensnaring many adult-only households.

Personally, I think the most important thing I can do for my children is to preserve our nation’s free speech heritage and fight for their rights to enjoy the full benefits of the First Amendment when they become adults. Until then, I will focus on raising my children as best I can. And if because of the existence of the First Amendment they see or hear things I find troubling, offensive or rude, I will sit down with them and talk to them in the most open, understanding and loving fashion I can about the realities of the world around them.

I would hope that the critics of the First Amendment would do the same instead of seeking to undercut our nation’s rich history of freedom of speech and expression. It is one of our Founders’ enduring gifts to future generations and a precious freedom worth fighting for.

Happy Freedom of Speech Week everyone !

I love video games, and a future filled with virtual reality technologies gets me excited, but this is out of control. Toshiba apparently thinks that people want to wear a big space helmet like this to get a full 360-degree gaming experience. I doubt it. Wouldn’t it get a little sweaty in there? Plus, how am I going a drink a beer with this thing on my head? (Somebody please tell me this is just a joke by Toshiba or another Internet hoax).

virtual%20reality%20helmut.jpg

(Note: Engadget has a caption contest going for this one).