We’ve talked here before about the dangers of a government-subsidized press as a way of “saving journalism.” But I don’t think I’ve ever read anything quite as eloquent on the issue as Seth Lipsky’s editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal entitled “All the News That’s Fit to Subsidize.” Mr. Lipsky is a member of the adjunct faculty at the Columbia Journalism School. In his essay today, he warns of the very real slippery slope associated with proposal to have government step in and somehow bailout newspapers as they find themselves in a time of crisis.Specifically, Mr. Lipsky addressees a new report (“The Reconstruction of American Journalism“) by Leonard Downie (former executive editor of the Washington Post) and co-author Michael Schudson (also of Columbia Journalism School), in which the authors call for a mixture of legal and regulatory changes as well as government subsidies to help prop up failing news operations.
Mr. Lipsky argues that they have “stepped onto an exceptionally slippery slope”: Continue reading →
Two recent trends evidence the importance of targeted Internet advertising–more money going toward Internet ads, and fewer people that click on display banner ads.
First, the good news is that Internet advertising is rebounding (or at least seeing a reversal in the the decline of ad $). Tough economic times has decreased ad dollars among all marketing mediums. But online ads will be the first to see new demand from marketers. And some online companies are weathering the bad economy just fine. Google’s ad revenue rose 7 percent in the third quarter.
Compare with McClatchy (the U.S.’s 3rd largest newspaper company), where according to the AP article print advertising plunged 32 percent in the third quarter, but its online ad sales increased 3 percent.
So ad dollars are increasing. Where will money be spent? On targeted ads.
comScore released a study earlier this month that showed most people don’t click on display advertisements. As someone who never does either, I don’t find this surprising. According to comScore:
“The act of clicking on a display ad is experiencing rapid attrition in the current digital marketplace,” said Linda Anderson, comScore VP of marketing solutions and author of the study. “Today, marketers who attempt to optimize their advertising campaigns solely around the click are assigning no value to the 84 percent of Internet users who don’t click on an ad.”
This is huge. Online companies rely on advertisements to pay the bills and will need to better target ads to their users if they want to stay in business.
If we want to see the next generation of online content and services, then we need to stay vigilant to convince members of Congress (Boucher) and the FTC not to impose more restrictions on interest-based advertising, such as opt-in requirements.
This morning, I testified before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet about “Video Competition in a Digital Age.” The focus of the hearing was to “examine competition in the video programming marketplace, including access by multichannel video programming providers and consumers to programming both via television and the Internet.” Testifying along with me were: Verizon Vice President Terrence Denson; Sunflower Broadband CEO Patrick Knorr; “Battlestar Galactica” executive producer Ronald Moore; Disney Media Networks President of Global Distribution Benjamin Pyne; and Cablevision Chief Operating Officer Thomas Rutledge.
I my remarks, I argued that the critical question that should govern debates about the state of the media marketplace is: “Do citizens have more news, information, and entertainment choices at their disposal today than in the past?” As told the Committee, “all the evidence suggests the answer to that question is, unambiguously, “yes.””
Indeed, although humans have lived in a state of extreme information poverty for most of history, we now live in a world of unprecedented media abundance: Increasingly, we can obtain and consume whatever media we want, wherever and whenever we want. Citizens of all backgrounds and beliefs benefit from this modern media cornucopia.
Nowhere has this abundance been more evident than in video programming. … we have more video options and diversity at our disposal today than ever before, and generally at falling prices. In sum, there’s more competition for our eyes than ever before. […]
America’s video marketplace should be viewed as a pro-consumer success story. With an abundance of choices, competition, and diverse viewing options, the only real scarcity remaining today is our personal time and attention spans—not video options.
My full testimony, including all the exhibits and tables I referenced in my remarks, is pasted down below. Continue reading →
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 →
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.
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 articleortwo about what is happening with Vietnamese bloggers.
And here’s the current WashingtonWatch.com vote on H. Res. 672.
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.
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!
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.
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.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology. Learn more about TLF →
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.