October 2009

Virtual Parentalism

by Joshua Fairfield on October 21, 2009 · 8 comments

Me, as a druid who could turn into my daughter’s pet bear

This is a story about Mary and the Bear. And the FTC. And a paper entitled Virtual Parentalism.

By way of background, Washington & Lee University Law School (where I teach) hosted a symposium entitled Protecting Virtual Playgrounds: Children, Law, and Play Online about a year ago. At that time, it seemed pretty likely that Congress would soon begin thinking about regulating virtual worlds in an attempt to protect children. Sure enough, as TLF’s Adam Thierer notes here in a Metanomics segment, the FTC was asked in an appropriations bill to produce a report concerning children’s access to adult materials in virtual worlds. We got lucky—the papers produced by the symposiasts were ready in time to influence (one always hopes) the debate.

The motivation for the paper was simple: I love playing virtual worlds with my daughters, who are avid explorers of the medium. I wouldn’t consider letting them do this without pretty serious parental supervision, so instead I went with them, joining them in their virtual world adventures. Here’s me talking about it: How Parents can Connect with their Children in Virtual Worlds.

As I began to explore in greater depth, however, it became clear that parents’ involvement in virtual worlds is not a given. The trend is toward segregating children and adults into separate virtual worlds. Thus, my paper, which I have posted for your convenience on SSRN here (Virtual Parentalism), works out some of the dangers replacing parents with parentalist regulation in virtual worlds. Continue reading →

8 comments

Cash-For-TV-Spectrum Scheme vs. A Property Rights Solution

by Adam Thierer on October 21, 2009 · 21 comments

Potentially huge FCC development here, and one they actually has some sense to it. According to Kim McAvoy over at TV News Check.com:

FCC broadband czar Blair Levin earlier this month met with leading TV broadcasters in Washington to discuss the nation’s urgent need for more spectrum for wireless broadband access to the Internet and the possibility of broadcasters’ relinquishing most of their spectrum to help meet that demand. According to sources familiar with the Oct. 8 meeting with the board of the Association for Maximum Service Television (MSTV), Levin suggested broadcasters might want to consider returning their spectrum in exchange for a share in the billions of dollars that would come from the auction of the spectrum to the wireless industry.

Broadcasting would retain just enough spectrum so that each station could provide a lifeline standard-definition service to the millions of TV viewers who still rely on over-the-air reception. Broadcasters could no longer offer over-the-air HD and second channels and mobile video would be off the table, but they could continue to provide a single channel of TV to every home in their markets as they do today — in full-blown HD via cable and satellite carriage and SD via the over-the-air lifeline service.

Wow, this is a very big deal, folks, since we are talking about a mother lode of prime spectrum that could be put to any variety of excellent alternative uses. The problem is, broadcasters will—rightly, in my opinion—protest that they have occupied that spectrum for a long, long time and they have something akin to a property right in their allocations. Of course, paying them to relocate might be a very sensible way to get them off that spectrum voluntarily. But the question is whether they should be forced off of it and whether that is even legal. No doubt, any attempt to force them off would be held up in court for many years because of inevitable legal challenges.

There is another solution: Just give the broadcasters a full, unencumbered property right in their spectrum and let them sell it or use it however they wish. Some will protest that it’s not “fair” and that the broadcasters should never be given a property right in something they did not pay for to begin with. Yet, at some point we have to stop the endless search for what I have referred to as a “spectrum reparations policy” and just get on with life.

I think everyone can now agree that the old command-and-control regulatory regime for “zoning” spectrum has retarded innovation. Imagine if we told Apple back in the 1980s that, because they started in the PC business, they could never leave the PC business and offer other innovations. That would have been nuts! We’d never have the iPhone today. But that’s U.S. spectrum policy for broadcasting in a nutshell. As a broadcaster, it is illegal for you to repurpose your spectrum for alternative uses. Stated different, spectrum innovation is a crime. How pathetic.

It’s time to change the rules and move forward. I applaud Blair Levin and the FCC for offering at least one solution, but if it doesn’t work, we should try the other: property rights and flexible use rights in spectrum. And here are 4 or 5 other ways to get the job done.

21 comments

Freedom for Vietnam’s Bloggers

by Jim Harper on October 21, 2009 · 8 comments

Today the House of Representatives is debating H. Res. 672, which would call on the government of Vietnam to release imprisoned bloggers and respect Internet freedom.

Here is an article or two about what is happening with Vietnamese bloggers.

And here’s the current WashingtonWatch.com vote on H. Res. 672.

8 comments

Artificial sweeteners

by Jerry Ellig on October 21, 2009 · 2 comments

Anti-technology urban legends abound in regard to food. The historical record includes butter producers who wanted to ban margarine and straight whiskey producers who wanted blended whiskey that contained fewer toxins to be labeled “imitation whiskey.” Looks like the chatter about artificial sweeteners being more harmful than sugar can finally be laid to rest; check this out.

Serving suggestion: The article in the link in the sentence above says that saccharine has a metallic aftertaste. Not in all applications, though. I’ve found that if I substitute saccharine for simple syrup in tiki drinks, the alcohol and tart fruit juices completely mask the aftertaste.

2 comments

A positive agenda to promote sustainable net neutrality

by Jerry Ellig on October 21, 2009 · 0 comments

I like the idea of having a neutral Internet that allows me to go where I want to go and read what I want to read, all for the price of my monthly subscription. Sure, it took me awhile to figure out why anyone would want to access skype on an iphone (after all, an iphone is already a phone!), but now I can see why some people might enjoy making free international calls without having to plop down in front of the ol’ PC wedged into the guest bedroom.

At the same time, I don’t see a pressing need for regulation to ensure that we get whatever degree of neutrality is practical. Even in his speech announcing that he would propose net neutrality rules, FCC Chairman Genachowski could cite only the same three old anecdotes that have been tirelessly trotted out by others as proof that new regulation is required. Sure, by Washington standards, that’s two more anecdotes than are usually required to justify issuing a regulation. But it’s hardly proof of a broad, systemic problem that requires new rules (as Jerry Brito and I argued here.)

Nevertheless, as the saying goes, “You can’t beat something with nothing.” So I suggest a positive agenda to promote sustainable net neutrality.

Many of the arguments for a non-neutral net are based on the assumption that last-mile bandwidth is, at least sometimes, congested — or may soon become that way as people use more bandwidth-intensive applications. One solution is for the network operator to prioritize some packets over others, so if I have a heart attack, my wife’s VOIP call for an ambulance doesn’t get crowded out by the neighbor’s kid playing video games with his buddies in Australia. Another solution, though, is to make sure the network operators have adequate ability and incentive to build plenty of bandwidth. As an economist, I understand that some network management or usage-based pricing might be less expensive for consumers than building massive bandwidth. But that’s no reason to persist with policies that artificially constrain bandwidth.

For wired broadband, a positive agenda to promote sustainable net neutrality means avoiding regulations that impair incentives for investment that increases the capacity of the last-mile network. For wireless broadband, that means freeing up more spectrum to be auctioned for commercial wireless services.

And while you’re at it, FCC, maybe you can do something about the NIMBY problem that prevents me from receiving a decent 3G broadband signal in my house. Now that would expand last-mile bandwidth and promote competition to boot!

0 comments

George Ou & Bret Swanson on Berkman Broadband Report

by Adam Thierer on October 21, 2009 · 15 comments

Last night here on the TLF, Bret Swanson raised a number of objections with this FCC-commissioned report about international broadband comparisons, which was conducted by some folks at Harvard University’s Berkman Center. Meanwhile, over at the Digital Society blog, George Ou also offers a hard-nosed look at the Berkman broadband report and concludes “The underlying data cited by Berkman study is simply too flawed to be of any use.” I recommend everyone check out both essays. It will be interesting to hear how the Berkman folks respond. Some of these international broadband comparisons are really fishy. [Here’s a podcast we did on that issue two years ago.]

One quick point… Like Bret, I also found it shocking that–even though the report reads like an ode to forced access regulation–the Berkman folks didn’t spend much time discussing the result of America’s previous open-access regime. “The gaping, jaw-dropping irony of the report,” Bret argues, “was its failure even to mention the chief outcome of America’s previous open-access regime: the telecom/tech crash of 2000-02. We tried this before. And it didn’t work!” Indeed, America’s regulatory experiment with forced access regulation involved a lot of well intentioned laws and regulation, and too many acronyms to count–CLECs, TELRIC, UNE-P, etc– but it did not result in serious, facilities-based competition. Instead it offered us the fiction of competition through network-sharing, or what Peter Huber once referred to as building “networks out of paper.” The results were disastrous for investment during that period since regulatory uncertainly led to a lot of stunted innovation.

In sum, sharing is not competing. You can socialize and commoditize old pipes for awhile and get decent results in the short-term, but you’ll sacrifice long-run investment and innovation if you do. [For more background, see my recent essay on “The Fiction of Forced Access ‘Competition’ Revisited” and this old Cato piece on “UNE-P and the Future of Telecom “Competition” as well as Jeff Eisenach’s PFF white paper, “Broadband Policy: Does the U.S. Have It Right After All?”]

15 comments

Intel “Holiday Mobile Etiquette” Poll

by Adam Thierer on October 20, 2009 · 3 comments

I’ve ranted on here before about technological etiquette, or that lack thereof by many people. (See my tedious screed from 3 years ago: “A Few Snooty Words about Technological Etiquette.” Man, I was really angry when I wrote that piece!) As much as I love technology and defend its unrestricted use, I think it’s important to encourage social norms about proper technology use to make it less likely people will call government in to act as a nanny.

That’s why I found this new “Intel Holiday Mobile Etiquette” poll so intriguing. According to the poll, which was conducted by Harris Interactive and sponsored by Intel:

most online U.S. adults (80 percent) feel there are unspoken rules about mobile technology usage, and approximately 7 in 10 (69 percent) agreed that violations of these unspoken mobile etiquette guidelines, such as checking e-mails, sending text messages and making phone calls while in the company of others, are unacceptable.

Hmmm… While I’m glad that such a large majority still have a sense of propriety about such things, this sounds like a case of people saying one thing when they likely do quite another. Then again, my perspective might be biased by life in a big city where people have PDAs practically glued to their hands full-time. I’ve even grown accustomed to people staring at their digital devices more than me during conversations and meetings. Of course, that could just be because I am so damn boring. [My colleague Jim Harper will, no doubt, suggest the latter.] Regardless, I just remain shocked by how people feel they simply must take every call, answer every email, or do whatever else on their devices in the presence of crowds or others. In my rant from 3 years ago, I offered “Two Simple Rules of Techno-Etiquette” that I will reiterate here as the first steps down the path to techno-etiquette recovery:

(1) If you absolutely MUST take that cell phone call or answer that e-mail right away, try saying this: “Excuse me, do you mind if I do this real quick?”

(2) Do not EVER, under any circumstances, answer a cell phone call while you are in a restaurant, movie theater or other public establishment where relative quiet is expected. If you have to take the call, go outside.

Seriously, would that be so hard?

3 comments

Don’t Cry for Media, Argentina! (pun repeated passim)

by Jim Harper on October 20, 2009 · 3 comments

It won’t be easy, you’ll think it strange, when Libby Jacobsen tries to explain how traditional journalism still wants your money after all that it hasn’t done.

On the OpenMarket blog, she critiques a report released Monday calling for the traditional journalism industry to be propped up various ways. And she does so with gusto:

Outrageously, [former Washington Post editor Leonard Downie, Jr.] also wants to put telecoms on the hook for bailing out reporting, suggesting that the FCC collect fees from internet service providers to be used for a national “Fund for Local News.” He’s blind to the fact that telecoms and ISPs have done nothing but help disseminate news and information. There is more reporting, more information, more news available to us today than there ever has been in the history of civilization. It’s true that there’s a lot of garbage out there, but there’s a lot of very good online journalism as well. Nearly everything published online is subject to peer-review from a massive amount of people, and the success of sites like Wikipedia are proof that accountability, credibility, and accuracy matter just as much online as they do offline.

Have I said too much? There’s nothing more I can think of to say to you. But all you have to do is look at Libby’s post to know that every word is true.

(Just one thing, Libby. What happens when a bad pun ruins a perfectly good blog post?)

3 comments

Maine Committee Does the Right Thing, Recommends Repeal of Marketing Law

by Braden Cox on October 20, 2009 · 7 comments

maine capitol bildg Sometimes legislators vote along political party interests, sometimes in their self interest, and as we saw in Maine–sometimes legislators will have the constitutional interests of free speech and the commerce clause in mind.

I traveled with my NetChoice colleague Steve DelBianco to Augusta last week to testify at a joint judiciary committee hearing of the Maine legislature. Our mission: persuade the committee members to repeal the Predatory Marketing Act, which became law just two months ago–and a law so bad that it ranked #1 on NetChoice’s iAWFUL top ten list of worst legislation.

This law’s potentially sweeping (negative) impact is a big deal. So big that the Maine legislature met out-of-session to re-consider it. It dedicated a webpage to the hearing and received over 30 comments from various interests — including comments from NetChoice.

The law seriously restricts the exchange of information between Web 2.0 services and their users by making it unlawful to knowingly collect or receive health-related or personal information for marketing purposes from a minor, without first obtaining verifiable parental consent. In effect, the law restricts advertising that is most relevant to user interests.

We arrived confident but with a “tail between our legs” feeling — after all, we had just sued the state of Maine and agreed to a court order that said very favorable words about our chances to win on the merits. In the court case, NetChoice was joined by Reed Elsevier, the Maine Independent Colleges Association, and the Maine Press Association in calling for an injunction against the law, arguing that it tramples First Amendment rights while wreaking havoc with interstate commerce.

So here we were, with but a day or two to show how the existing law broadly harms a number of online services. Continue reading →

7 comments

Internet Companies’ Bogus Plea for Regulation

by Jim Harper on October 20, 2009 · 9 comments

Some of the most prominent Internet companies sent a letter yesterday asking for protection from market forces. Among them: Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Twitter.

A Washington Post story summarizes their concerns: “[W]ithout a strong anti-discrimination policy, companies like theirs may not get a fair shot on the Internet because carriers could decide to block them from ever reaching consumers.”

No ISP could block access to these popular services and survive, of course. What they could do is try to charge the most popular services a higher tarriff to get their services through. Thus, weep the helpless, multi-billion-dollar Internet behemoths, we need a “fair shot”!

Plain and simple, these companies want regulation to ensure that ISPs can’t capture a larger share of the profits that the Internet generates. They want it all for themselves. Phrased another way, the goal is to create a subsidy for content creators by blocking ISPs from getting a piece of the action.

It’s all very reminiscent of disputes between coal mines and railroads. The coal mines “produced the coal” and believed that the profitability of the coal-energy ecosystem should accrue only to themselves, with railroads earning the barest minimum. But where is it written that digging coal out of the ground is what creates the value, and getting it were it’s used creates none? Transport may be as valuable as “production” of both commodities and content. The market should decide, not the industry with the best lobbyists.

What happens if ISPs can’t capture the value of providing transport? Of course, less investment flows to transport and we have less of it. Consumers will have to pay more of their dollars out of pocket for broadband, while Facebook’s boy CEO draws an excessive salary from atop a pile of overpriced stock holdings. The irony is thick when opponents of high executive compensation support “net neutrality” regulation.

Another reason why these Internet companies’ concerns are bogus is their size and popularity. They have a direct line to consumers and more than enough capability to convince consumers that any given ISP is wrongly degrading access to their services. As Tim Lee pointed out in his excellent paper, The Durable Internet, ownership of a network service does not equate to control. ISPs can be quickly reined in by the public, as has already happened.

A “net neutrality” subsidy for small start-up services is also unnecessary: They have no profits to share with ISPs. What about mid-size services—heading to profitability, but not there yet? Can ISPs choke them off? Absolutely not.

Large, established companies are not known for being ahead of trends, for one thing, and the anti-authoritarian culture of the Internet is the perfect place to play “beleagured upstart” against the giant, evil ISP. There could be no greater PR gift than for a small service to have access to it degraded by an ISP.

The Internet companies’ plea for regulation is bogus, and these companies are losing their way. The leadership of these companies should fire their government relations staffs, disband their contrived advocacy organization, and get back to innovating and competing.

9 comments

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →