PFF has just released my latest paper entitled “Parental Control Perfection? The Impact of the DVR and VOD Boom on the Debate over TV Content Regulation.” In the report, I focus on the extent to which new video technologies, such as digital video recorders (DVRs) and video on demand (VOD) services, are changing the way households consume media and are helping parents better tailor viewing experiences to their tastes and values. I provide evidence showing the rapid spread of these technologies and discuss how parents are using these tools in their homes. Finally, I argue that these developments will have profound implications for debates over the regulation of video programming. As parents are given the ability to more effectively manage their family’s viewing habits and experiences, it will lessen—if not completely undercut—the need for government intervention on their behalf.
This 16-page report can be found at: http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop14.20DVRboomcontentreg.pdf
First it was those clown-ass oversized jackie-o glasses. Then it was carrying around a miniature dog, paralyzed with fear (and shame). Now the latest fashion trend is to name a law after yourself.
C|Net star reporter and self-styled “iconoclast” Declan McCullagh has established himself a law – following right on the heels of . . . hmmm, how shall I put this . . . MOI.
McCullagh’s law is:
As the certainty that legislation violates the U.S. Constitution increases, so does the probability of predictions that severe harm or death will come to Americans if the proposal is not swiftly enacted.
Nicely put. Has a Godwin-y quality to it, but is certainly distinct. I like it.
Let’s have it, people. Name your law! But only one a piece!
Like Generalissimo Francisco Franco, the Fairness Doctrine is still dead. But will it remain that way? Supporters of disterring the doctrine were thrashed in a House vote this summer, but the debate continues in Congress over legislation to permanently bar the FCC from re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters.
In the Senate, the effort is being led by Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota. Coleman spoke on the issue last week at The Heritage Foundation. If you want to see it, you can tune in here.
In a post last June, I noted that the FCC had — after 78 days – finally begun it’s 180 day “shotclock” for ruling on the Sirius-XM merger. The piece concluded by noting that the FCC had 176 more days to make a decision, “unless it decides to stop the clock again.”
I meant that as sarcasm, but now comes news that opponents of the merger are asking for just such a pause. The National Association of Broadcasters this week asked the FCC to formally toll its 180-day timetable for reviewing the merger, in order to allow NAB to review documents being released to it pursuant to a FOIA request. What are these new documents? Formerly unknown studies on the consumer effects of the merger? Information on pricing or product quality? Nope. The documents don’t pertain to the effect of the merger on consumers at all, but on whether Sirius or FM have violated FCC technical rules on the “operation of FM modulators/translators and/or terrestrial repeaters.” U.S. Electronics has also asked for a delay, citing a grabbag of reasons, including “monopolistic equipment access, rule violations, interoperable requirements, the handling of ex parte communications, the scheduling of agenda items and (last but not least) delays in access to “decision-makers” (quote from Orbitcast).
What is this? The 1972 Olympic basketball finals? Should the FCC stop the clock every time it looks like one side is going to lose?
Continue reading →
Lately, it’s been like the 1990s all over again at the FCC. Forget the endless battle over net neutrality — since mid-summer the Commission has been in the midst of an all-out telecom war over telephone rates and broadband regulation — with the Bell companies squaring off against Sprint, competititive access providers such as Covad, and others. Their are two overlapping issues: should the FCC reverse it’s deregulation of of “special access” lines used by CLECs, cell carriers and large businesses, and (going in the other direction) should the FCC further deregulate high-capacity broadband services to large enterprises. Last year, AT&T filed a petition for such deregulation. Under federal law, if the Commission doesn’t act on that petition by midnight tonight, it automatically becomes law. For an excellent run-down of the issue, see fellow TLFer Hance Haney’s post here, as well as his op-ed from today’s Washington Times here.)
For months now, the two sides in this debate have been slinging statistics back and forth on the state of competition in these markets. Regulation proponents point to the high number of buildings that only are served by one carrier. But these numbers can be deceptive. As AT&T and Verizon point out, a high proportion of customers seem to be clustered in buildings with competing lines. More important, the market can’t be seen in static terms — the mere existence of a competitor nearby can constrain prices, as can the growing availability of wireless and other alternative technologies.
Continue reading →
I was a little surprised that Cindy Cohn at EFF all but endorsed the Restore Act, although they “remain deeply concerned about its embrace of so-called “blanket warrants.'” I imagine they place a high priority on ensuring their lawsuit against AT&T can go forward, so they’re willing to embrace legislation that’s not egregious in other respects as long as a “get out of jail free” card for AT&T isn’t in the package.
I’ve also got a new roundup of the FISA debate at Ars.
The WSJ reports that the French government has “rejected the sole bid it had received for the so-called third-generation, or 3G license, from French Internet start-up Iliad SA, on the grounds that it didn’t meet required financial criteria.” It also says that the “failed auction for a fourth mobile-operator license could forestall new competition and keep prices at their lofty levels for consumers[.]”
It seems like the French government is going to try to remove the technical roadblocks stopping the deal, and that desire for more competition is certainly gratifying. But what I’m more curious about is why there aren’t more bidders? After all the WSJ also says, “France is one of the more desirable markets in Europe for operators. Prices have remained high and competition — limited to the three operators — isn’t as brutal as elsewhere. Italy, for example, has four mobile operators and is set to roll out more.”
It wouldn’t have anything to do with forced business models, would it?
Here’s a satellite photo of Dick Cheney’s house, which I learned about on the Daily Show. He’s obviously very concerned about protecting his home from prying eyes. I’m sure he’s equally zealous in his defense of the privacy rights of ordinary Americans.
Update: One of Matt’s commenters notes that Mapquest doesn’t blur the observatory circle. Also, one of our commenters claims that although this is the vice president’s official residence, his family doesn’t actually live there. Still, I think it’s a safe bet that somebody from the government asked Google to blur the observatory circle. And I rather doubt they’d be so helpful if I asked them to blur my neighborhood.
Threat Level has an absolutely fascinating article about the topology of the worldwide data network and how it has given the NSA a windfall of easy surveillance access:
While nobody outside the intelligence community knows the exact volume of international telephone and internet traffic that crosses U.S. borders, experts agree that it bounces off a handful of key telephone switches and perhaps a dozen IXPs in coastal cities near undersea fiber-optic cable landings, particularly Miami, Los Angeles, New York and the San Francisco Bay Area.
Miami sees most of the internet traffic between South America and the rest of the world, including traffic passing from one South American country to another, says Bill Manning, the managing partner of ep.net. “Basically they backhaul to the United States, do the switch and haul it back down since (it’s) cheaper than crossing their international borders.”
Continue reading →
I’m not sure I buy the elaborate interpretations it offers, but this illusion sure is neat.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
