Sirius XM Satellite Radio—the company born from the merger of Sirius Satelllite Radio and XM Satellite Radio—has “been working with advisers to prepare for a possible bankruptcy filing,” according to the New York Times.
Some may say that Sirius XM was never a fit business to begin with—many of their new subscribers came from the bundling of subscriptions into the sale of new automobiles—but it’s hard to say what might have been had federal regulators not delayed the merger for 18 months and then added insult to injury by subjecting them to seemingly arbitrary restrictions.
My colleagues Wayne Crews and Ryan Young wrote about this last year at Real Clear Markets noting the conditions that the merged company had to adhere to:
One condition of appeasement for the Sirius-XM merger is that they hand over 8 percent of their channels to noncommercial and “public service” programming. Internet radio does not face this requirement.
Another condition is that they freeze their prices for three years. Meanwhile, their competitors are still free to set their own prices to reflect changing market conditions.
A third condition is that XM-Sirius must introduce á-la-carte subscription models. If this were economical, they would have done this already.
The motivation for these conditions was just as absurd as the conditions themselves—regulators worried that the combined company might overcharge and otherwise abuse consumers. That’s right, regulators actually believed that consumers would just pay and pay for satellite radio if the prices were raised, rather than abandon the fledgling technology for competing technologies. Regulators thought this despite the fact that we have no shortage of alternatives. Traditional radio, iPods, streaming music on our cell phones, Pandora, Last.fm, CDs, MP3s, and the hundreds of other ways that music and talk entertainment can enter our ears.
Continue reading →
Mozilla Foundation chairperson Mitchell Baker believes that Microsoft’s bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows represents an “ongoing threat to competition and innovation on the Internet.” But as Adam explains in an earlier post, and Ryan Paul argues over at ArsTechnica, Baker’s portrayal of the browser marketplace is way off base.
Perhaps the most interesting rebuttal to the Mozilla Foundation’s take on bundling IE with Windows comes from a surprising source: Mike Connor, Firefox’s chief software architect. Here’s what he had to say a couple days ago in an interview with PC Pro:
Connor said, referring to Firefox’s ever improving market share, which now stands at just over 20% worldwide. “It’s asserting that bundling leads to market share. I don’t know how you can make the claim with a straight face,” he said.
“As people become aware there’s an alternative, you don’t end up in that [monopoly] situation. You have to be perceptibly better [than Internet Explorer],” Connor added.
Right on. It’s common knowledge that there are lots of alternatives to Internet Explorer out there. Firefox is a household name at this point, and anybody dissatisfied with IE can easily download FF–or any other competing browser.
Continue reading →
. . . with calls to televise the conference committee on the economic stimulus bill.
A good idea, with reservations which I discuss on the WashingtonWatch.com blog.
The WSJ reports on the intensifying economic pressure on local TV stations: declining viewership, ad revenue and the threat that national networks might go straight to cable.
Many stations are looking to the Internet for salvation:
Stations are scrambling to find new revenue streams. Some are testing out technology that will send their signals to cellphones and mobile devices, and beefing up their Web sites to boost online advertising. Others say rather than shrinking local news coverage, they’re expanding it, since it’s the only original content they still have…. Nexstar Broadcasting Group Inc., a Texas-based company that owns or manages 51 stations around the country, launched highly local “community” Web sites. Stations owned by NBC Universal are piping content and ads to TV screens in supermarkets, taxi cabs and their own Web sites.
“These tough times really force you to look at everything,” says John Wallace, president of NBC Local Media, the cadre of stations owned by NBC. “It remains to be seen how this is going to evolve, but I do believe there will be a market for local television well into the future.”
“Open government” can mean various things to different people, but a couple of articles I’ve recently
read suggest that solutions for opening the government vault of information should focus on the “way” and not the “what.”
Why is this distinction important? Well, it takes the initial focus away from vendors lobbying that their products are more “open” and forces governments to reexamine how they collect, store and disseminate data. It is this hard look that will really make the difference, I think. And there are two interesting articles that highlight processes toward openness.
The first is an article by Daniel Ballon at PRI, where he writes about the perils of being too vendor focused when making government more open. He developed an illustrative table where he breaks down three purposes for technology in promoting transparency (transparency, government communication with citizens, and government collaboration with third-party sites). There will be different government processes needed for each purpose — for instance, creating ways for private systems to more easily data mine public databases.
The second is an article by Douglas McGray of New America Foundation in the Jan/Feb edition of the Atlantic Monthly. McGray hypes up the importance of API documentation. Governments should publish API information and allow the development of third-party applications to more easily synchronize with government databases. While McGray confuses open formats (such as releasing data in text, comma delimited format) with APIs (documentation that tells programmers how to interact with a specific application), the article is still instructional.
Seeing Adam’s recent post on the stimulus and its advocates, I had to toss in my two cents.
2008 was the year of Schumpeter. Creative destruction was doing its thing, getting rid of many unproductive old-economy companies that were simply creating economic waste by keeping inputs from going to their highest-value use. But this scared a lot of people who had grown used to the benefits capitalism had given them and who were therefore quite risk-averse. Even the entrepreneurs, upon whose ingenuity growth rested, had grown risk-averse and were demanding bail-outs of their own. As the government gave into demands for stability, the risk-taking class upon which prosperity rested began withering away.
If 2008 was the year of Schumpeter, 2009 may be the year of Hazlitt. In Economics in One Lesson, Hazlitt describes a mode of argument all too common in politics: the broken window fallacy. The notion is that by taking money from some and spending it, the government is “creating jobs” and enhancing productivity because money is circulating. Of course, this ignores what the people whose money was taken would have done with it. In other words, it is not beneficial to just spend money, no matter how badly. That is precisely the point that Eugene Robinson and other stimulus proponents seem to have missed.
Sorry, this has nothing to do with tech policy, but I just had to comment on Eugene Robinson’s latest column in the Washington Post singing the praises of an unbounded stimulus plan. For those of you not familiar with Robinson’s work, you’re really missing a treat. Eugene Robinson and his colleague Harold Meyerson compete on a weekly basis in the Post for the title of “World’s Most Rhetorically Outrageous (and Economically Illiterate) Newspaper Columnist.” It’s a heated race. These guys really know no shame. [Note my earlier essay about Meyerson’s effort to equate media reinvention efforts with terrorism!]
Anyway, in his latest column, Robinson firmly establishes himself as the new leader in this ongoing race with the following gem:
The House of Representatives loaded up the bill like a Christmas tree as powerful Democrats found room for their pet projects. This was a good thing, not an outrage. Hundreds of millions of dollars for contraceptives? To the extent that those condoms or birth-control pills are made in the United States and sold in U.S. drugstores, that spending would be stimulative in more ways than one.
Oh, wow. Just wow. Taxpayer funding for birth control as a stimulus to drugstores and domestic pill makers. By that same reasoning, “stimulating” the sale of sex toys would benefit adult bookstores and the domestic dildo industry.
Hey, why not. The more spending the better, right? Who cares if we’re bankrupting our children.
Over at Ars, Ryan Paul has an appropriately sharp-tongued response to the Mozilla Foundation’s troubling move to become a cheerleader for the European Commission’s ongoing antitrust efforts against Microsoft. Apparently Mozilla will assist the EC’s investigation “by offering expertise about the browser market.”
Paul focuses on what’s wrong with this in both a micro and macro sense. He rightly points out that the potential remedies here do not bode well for the future of this sector, since regulatory tinkering with high-tech product standards is bound to end badly and create a terrible precedent for future interventions. “It’s hard to find a rational argument in favor of mandatory standards enforcement,” Paul says. “It would be punitive and unhelpful to the advancement of the web.” Moreover, Paul notes that things have never looked better on the browser front:
Claims that Microsoft’s monopoly status has eliminated competition in the browser market sound hollow in the face of the profoundly vibrant browser market that exists today. The record-setting launch of Firefox 3 added up to over 8 million downloads in the first 24 hours alone. Firefox’s global market share continues to climb every month and the browser has grabbed almost 30 percent of the European market.
And let’s not forget about those two little companies called Google and Apple who have competing products in the field! They’re making serious inroads in the browser wars. Moreover, Microsoft is struggling to hold on to whatever “dominance” they have left in their core market: OS. As Paul concludes:
To the observant tech enthusiast, all signs seem to indicate that Microsoft’s monopoly is on its way out. The Redmond giant is in no danger of annihilation, but it’s definitely not positioned to dictate terms to the rest of the industry anymore.
But what is perhaps most shocking about Mozilla’s call for intervention is the way that Mozilla Foundation chairperson Mitchell Baker minimizes the importance of not just Firefox, but the entire open source movement, when justifying EC intervention in this marketplace.
Continue reading →
On this episode of “Tech Policy Weekly,” we’re launching a new format called “Tech Book Corner” that will feature occasional conversations with the authors of important new books about technology policy and the other issues that we debate frequently at the Tech Liberation Front blog.
On this debut episode of Book Corner, we are joined by John Palfrey, a professor of law at Harvard University and the co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard. Along with his Berkman Center colleague Urs Gasser, Prof. Palfrey has recently co-authored Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives, which was published last summer by Basic Books and which you can find out more information about at www.borndigitalbook.com. [Incidentally, I reviewed Born Digital here last October and I also named it one of the most important technology policy books of 2008.]
In our discussion, Prof. Palfrey explains who exactly counts as a “digital native” and tells us why he decided to write a book about them. He discusses why he believes that there has been some overreaction by older generations to fears about this Digital Generation and he argues that we need “to separate what we need to worry about from what’s not so scary” and “what we ought to resist from what we ought to embrace.” He then outlines how we should think about these issues and concerns going forward, and he stresses the importance of “balancing caution with encouragement” as we do so. Finally, he then applies that framework to three specific issues: privacy, child safety, and copyright.
It’s an interesting conversation and you can begin listening to it immediately by downloading the MP3 file here or by just clicking the play button below!
[display_podcast]
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.