Last week was a whirlwind of activity for the telecommunications, media and technology project with which I had been engaged since August 2006.
The folks at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard were kind enough to invite me to speak in their luncheon series on Tuesday, October 9. I discussed “Media Tracker, FCC Watch, and the Politics of Telecom, Media and Technology.” I’m happy to report that the event is now archived on Media Berkman as a webcast.
I spoke about the work of the “Well Connected” Project at the Center for Public Integrity for which I was responsible. I devoted most of my time in the lecture to the Media Tracker, the interactive database at the heart of the project. The Media Tracker combines data from publicly available sources in a new and unique way, mapping out media and telecom ownership at the ZIP code level. Ownership is linked to lobbying expenditures and campaign contributions by company. The level of contribution by a telecom, media or technology company to any federal candidate can be viewed – documenting who has received what from whom.
Continue reading →
Earlier this month, a Minnesota jury found a Duluth-area single mother guilty of illicit file-sharing and ordered her to pay a six-figure fine. The evidence against the defendant seemed pretty airtight, but the fine struck me as unreasonably harsh—you’d never get a $222,000 fine for your first conviction of shoplifting physical CDs.
In this week’s podcast, we’re joined by two individuals who have been following this issue closely. Eric Bangeman is the managing editor of Ars Technica. He spent a week in Minnesota covering the trial, and he gives us a first-hand account of the proceedings Debbie Rose is an IP fellow at the Association for Competitive Technology, and she gives us her perspective on the broader legal and ethical issues.
There are several ways to listen to the TLF Podcast. You can press play on the player below to listen right now, or download the MP3 file. You can also subscribe to the podcast by clicking on the button for your preferred service. And do us a favor, Digg this podcast!
Get the Flash Player to see this player.
Matt links to a Post op-ed that rightly criticizes the Bush administration for insisting on completely unfettered wiretapping powers, but otherwise misses the boat on the details of the dispute between the White House and the Democratic leadership. The argument has two major problems. First, we’ve got this:
The administration says that FISA wasn’t intended to cover the collection of intelligence information overseas. That is correct, but many of the communications are being intercepted in the United States and, more important, may involve U.S. citizens. In that situation, and with telephone and e-mail communications between the U.S. and foreign countries far more common than when FISA was enacted in 1978, it is reasonable to bring the court into the picture. The measure strikes an appropriate balance between the demands of some civil liberties groups for individualized warrants and the administration’s desire for sweeping authority.
The phrase “bring the courts into the picture” makes it sound like court oversight for domestic-to-foreign communication is a new idea. But in fact it’s not—it’s the way FISA has worked since it was enacted. If you wanted to install a wiretap on American soil, you had to get a FISA warrant, regardless of whether the other end of the line was overseas or not. The question isn’t whether we should “bring the courts into the picture.” The question is whether we should cut the courts out of the oversight role they’ve played successfully for the last 30 years.
Continue reading →
The New York Times has come up with a nifty online feature — a presidential debate analyser that allows you to see word-by-word what the candidates at this week’s GOP presidential debate said about what, and how many times.
It’s worth a look. Those looking for statements by the contenders on Internet or telecommunications policy, however, are likely to be disappointed. A few quick searches reveal that — although this was bill as an economic policy debate — anything having to do with digital world seems absent. “Telecommunications”? 0 mentions. “Net neutrality”? Not there. Television? Surprisingly absent. FCC? Mentioned only once, by the moderator, Chris Matthews.
The word “Internet” was mentioned six times, after Matthews asked Rudy Giuliani how he would police the Internet culturally. He stated firmly that he wouldn’t tax the Internet (reassuring, but not really responsive), and indicated broadly that existing laws should be sufficient to police child predators and the like. Matthews persisted, asking directly whether we need a new, FCC-style agency for the Internet. Oddly, Giulianai hedged a bit on that, hinting that maybe he would if things got “worse.” Kudos to John McCain, who seemed to practically chew through his microphone at that point to say his answer was “absolutely not.”
There’s also an analyser for the September 26 Democratic debate. Internet mentions there? Zero.
The Times analyzer is a fascinating gizmo, even if the content isn’t encouraging.
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 Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
