I can’t let the week end without calling attention to a Bloomberg article on Republican outrage over the FCC’s cession to Google’s petition for “gaming” the spectrum rules.
At Tuesday’s House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, Molly Peterson reports that:
Rep. John Shimkus (IL) asked whether Google had “duped” the FCC by bidding primarily to trigger the open-access rules. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said the agency wasn’t duped, adding that the rules weren’t designed to prevent any company from bidding. “My goal was to make sure that whoever won the C-block had an open platform,'” Martin, a Republican, told the House telecommunications subcommittee.
The 463 blog smartly caught the irony of a company playing the game too successfully:
The only right thing for Google to do is to begin to shut down it’s overly effective Washington operation. They are clearly operating on a level that is unfair to all those telecom giant DC neophytes.
But here’s the real takeaway. Google’s public policy pitch was a crafty and bold maneuver. By asserting public interests, Google convinced the FCC to skew the spectrum rules to favor Google’s ad-based business model over competitive models that receive revenue from monthly subscriptions or operating networks. Continue reading →
What a great letter Kurt Denke, president of Blue Jeans Cable, has written in response to a cease and desist from Monster Cable.
I don’t know anything about the merits, but Denke seems to, and some lawyer for Monster surely feels like an ass right now as the PR department, and perhaps even people from parts of the business actually producing product and revenue, are asking what the hell is going on.
I, for one, have purchased my last Monster product (I have indeed bought Monster stuff in the past), and will now buy from Blue Jeans Cable. I recommend the same to you.
The FCC is continuing its desperate search for a reason to exist. This year it’s decided to assert its relevance by reengaging an issue that it had ignored since 2004. The “Localism” debate has reemerged and one of the most troubling aspects of this debate is the focus on the supposed lack of ownership of broadcast television and radio stations by women and minorities. While the goal of increasing diversity in the sphere of broadcast media is a noble one, the data being used to justify new rules is specious.
Many have attempted to validate their concerns over ownership diversity by referencing a March 2008 GAO study which focuses on media ownership. However, this report admits freely that FCC data is severely lacking.
Many of you who follow TLF will note that Jerry Brito has done extensive work on government transparency and the importance of making data truly accessible–you know, putting it online rather than in a basement in the Capitol. While it’s no surprise that some agencies haven’t updated their record keeping, it is a little disturbing that the FCC–a commission charged with regulating some of the most advanced technology available–doesn’t keep adequate records. Specifically the GAO sites the problems with Form 323, the FCCs method of collecting information on broadcast station owner gender, race, and ethnicity:
Companies must file the Form 323 electronically. However, FCC allows owners to provide attachments with their electronic filing of the Form 323. These attachments may include the gender, race, and ethnicity data. Since these data are not entered into the database, the data are unavailable for electronic query.
This flaw in data collection is certainly laughable, but the most glaring deficiency is that the FCC doesn’t require sole proprietors, limited partnerships, or non-profits to report on ethnicity of owners—leaving one to wonder how it assesses this information at all. Excluding these legal entities from data collection leaves only incorporated radio stations in the group required to file FCC Form 323 which contains information on race and gender.
But how does one determine the sex or ethnicity of a corporation? Clear Channel Communications—one of the nation’s largest owners of radio stations—has issued nearly 500 million shares of stock. Has Clear Channel polled every share holder about their race or gender? It’s doubtful. It’s also doubtful that any method of determining the race and gender of the owners of corporate stations could ever be done in a way that’s meaningful or anything close to a basis for sound public policy.
Continue reading →
Alcohol Liberation Front 5 is happening Monday, April 21, at 5:30 p.m., at the Science Club, 1136 19th Street, NW, Washington D.C.
As if the excitement of hanging around with the TLF bloggers weren’t enough, we’re making the event a fundraiser for our friend (and former co-blogger), Brooke Oberwetter. Brooke was arrested at the Jefferson Memorial the other night – for dancing. Or perhaps for asking why dancing wasn’t allowed. (More information is at the Free the Jefferson 1 blog.)
She needs funds to pay for legal fees, and you need an excuse to drink. It’s a match made in heaven!
Suggested donation: $10. More is better, and we’ll be passing the plate once again after you’re sloshed.
If you can’t make it because you’re out of town, or perhaps because you find the idea of hanging out with the TLF crew absolutely revolting, you can donate to Brooke’s cause by clicking on the image below. Otherwise, see you Monday!
I foolishly neglected to do my homework, and unfortunately, the 18th St. Lounge is closed on Monday afternoons. So ALF 5 will be at Science Club instead. Still April 21, still 5:30 to 7:30. Hope to see you there.
Ben Worthen explains why. (I am much better about guarding my privacy. I usually only give out my password if the chick is topless and offering ice cream!)
There are a lot of disturbing things out there on the Internet. I don’t think I need to provide an inventory. Occasionally, some of the more despicable sites (think pro-suicide sites or bomb-making sites) capture the attention of public policymakers and bans are proposed. It was only a matter of time, therefore, before “pro-ana” sites made the regulatory radar screen as they did this week when lawmakers in France proposed a measure, “aimed at fighting incitement to extreme thinness or anorexia.”
The pro-ana movement, which refers to people and websites that justify or glorify anorexia or an excessively “thin look” or lifestyle, came to my attention last year when an academic was interviewing me for a new book he was writing about online responsibility. He was asking me what I thought about the idea of liability being imposed on website developers who glorify potentially harmful lifestyles or activities. In other words, an “aiding and abetting” standard for hateful or “harmful” online speech. I expected our discussion to focus on the truly sick or stupid stuff out there—like the bomb-recipe nutjobs or the suicide fans—but, instead, the academic mentioned pro-ana sites, like House of Thin (which no longer seems to be around) and others. The danger of these sites is that they offer young girls, which seems to be the primary audience, very unhealthy advice about how they can use various techniques (fasting, vomiting, laxatives, etc) to become super-thin. Needless to say, that can lead to extreme weight loss and serious health disorders for these girls.
Should sites be banned, or held liable in some fashion, for the harm they cause? We could nitpick about whether of not pro-ana sites cause serious harm to girls, but let’s assume that they do cause some harm. Does that mean the site administrators should be held responsible for the actions of others who read those sites? The French law says “yes.” It would, according to Reuters:
impose penalties of two years plus a fine of 30,000 euros ($47,450) for “incitement to excessive thinness by publicizing of any kind.” The penalties would rise to three years in jail plus 45,000 euros fine in cases where a death was caused by anorexia. The bill was adopted by the lower house of parliament on Tuesday and must go before the Senate before it becomes law.
Continue reading →
Fantastic:
And while I’m on the subject, I can’t resist linking to my all-time favorite techno-bashing animation.
Chairman Martin and his FCC colleagues testified today before the House Energy and Commerce Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee on the just-completed 700 MHz spectrum auction. At the top of the agenda was the failed D Block auction. According to Martin, all options are on the table. According to the WSJ, however, some have definite ideas for the block:
Some Republican members on the committee said they believed the 10 megahertz of spectrum should be sold off to the commercial wireless industry, and part of the proceeds then given to public safety so they could solve their communications shortcomings on their own.
Those who advocate this solution have argued that public safety entities already control more than enough spectrum allocated to them by Congress over the years, but that it is being used ineffectively.
Those “some republicans” seem to include ranking member Joe Barton.
This is a bad idea. While I’m sympathetic to the argument that “public safety entities already control more than enough spectrum allocated to them by Congress over the years, but that it is being used ineffectively,” throwing more money at the problem isn’t going to fix it, either. Bringing commercial providers into the public safety sphere can help begin to break down the collective action problem that is the cause of the ineffective use of spectrum. If a commercial solution is successful, maybe then Congress can take a second look at all the spectrum public safety now holds and do something akin to the DTV transition: auction the spectrum while moving public safety to better, more efficient technologies.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.