Diversifying your investments.
We’ll learn soon enough why product lines across the Googlesphere are down this morning, and Google will grow stronger from learning how to protect against or prevent whatever is happening.
Consider this another reason to be dubious of “cloud” computing, though. If your data was on your own server, you’d be accessing it right now.
Wait – looks like it’s back up! Bye!
Middlemen have been criticized as unnecessary for centuries, but as Mike Munger (Chairman of the Duke Political Science department and my undergrad mentor) explains, they are actually “market makers,” rather than parasites (or listen to his appearance on Russ Robert’s excellent EconTalk podcast). Warren Lee explains why ad networks—the middlemen who sell publishers’ (website operators) empty ad inventory to advertisers—serve such a critical role in making “Free!” possible for consumers by sustaining especially the Long Tail of online publishers: Continue reading →
Peter VanDoren (editor of Regulation magazine) points me to some revealing passages in a new article in the Journal of Economic Perspectives. In “Subsidizing Creativity through Network Design: Zero-Pricing and Net Neutrality,” Robin S. Lee and Tim Wu caution against tiered pricing for Internet access services, writing:
[U]nless sufficient bandwidth and quality of service can be guaranteed for the “free” Internet, there is a risk that . . . tiering will serve to sidestep de facto prohibition on termination fees. . . . [A] priced-priority system could simply become a de facto fee charged for all content providers if the “free” Internet was of sufficiently poor quality and consumers shifted their usage behavior accordingly. . . . [T]his might dampen the introduction of new content and services and eliminate the subsidy for content innovation currently provided by net neutrality.
Locking in net neutrality by regulation would lock in a subsidy to content providers. Lee and Wu prefer it, and many of us may like the results, but it’s hard to call a subsidy regime “neutral.”
Tomorrow, Friday, Oct. 2, the Information Economy Project at the George Mason University School of Law will hold a conference on Michael Heller’s new book The Gridlock Economy. Surprisingly Free will be streaming live video of the the conference kick-off debate between Heller and Richard Epstein at 8:30 a.m. (It will also be available for download later for folks allergic to early mornings.)
Called “Tragedies of the Gridlock Economy: How Mis-Configuring Property Rights Stymies Social Efficiency,” the conference will
explore a paradox that broadly affects the Information Economy. Property rights are essential to avoid a tragedy of the commons; defined properly, such institutions yield productive incentives for creation, conservation, discovery and cooperation. Applied improperly, however, such rights can produce confusion, wasteful rent-seeking, and a tragedy of the anti-commons. This conference, building on Columbia University law professor Michael Heller’s book, The Gridlock Economy, tackles these themes through the lens of three distinct subjects: “patent thickets,” reallocation of the TV band, and the Google Books copyright litigation.
In the meantime, check out this video of Michael Heller at Google giving his elevator pitch.
http://www.youtube.com/v/9n89Ec3DFtk&hl=en&fs=1&
To add to everything else that’s been said on TLF about Net neutrality, here is an article I wrote discussing the problems in Chairman Genachowski’s speech of last week. Many NN activists bizarrely think that history proves their argument right, but that is false. The reality is that history shows that when government attempts to regulate in an effort to “create competition,” the opposite often results.
Given this, it was sad to see former Chairman Martin recently endorsing Net neutrality regs (except for wireless). He should know better.
It seems the whole web is incorporating social networking functionality. Microsoft recently led the way in incorporating functionality to search, allowing users to share search results they like with their social networking contacts directly from the search results page through Twitter and Facebook. I’ve also noted that it’s just a matter of time before the same thing happens with advertising—and that Facebook will likely lead the way.
Websites have long used social networking buttons to encourage visitors to join their Facebook group, follow them on Twitter, etc. Facebook recently made this even easier by creating a widget for pages that can easily be embedded on any site. So why is Facebook blocking advertisers from including social networking functionality in ads like this one? Facebook’s terms of service using the new Fan Box widget in ads. Facebook’s spokesperson told InsideFacebook.com:
We want Page owners to have an easy way to connect with fans both on and off of Facebook. In order to protect the the Fan Box widget from being used for the wrong reasons, we do not allow it to be used in third party advertising.
InsideFacebook.com speculates:
it’s safe to assume that Facebook wants to protect the “Become a Fan” experience from becoming too intertwined with aggressive online ads that it hasn’t approved. One can imagine the variety of ways advertisers could (potentially misleadingly) push users to become a fan in an ad unit on a web site, then pollute their Facebook stream later. Facebook wants more control over that experience, even if it means partially restricting growth for Facebook Pages.
So why might policymakers be interested in this? Because, as Fred Vogelstein predicted in Wired this June, Facebook will likely someday soon expand beyond selling ads on its own site to selling ads on the wider Internet that incorporate social networking functionality like the “Become a fan” button above. There is a vast untapped market for online advertising, and if Facebook’s going to get a piece of it, they’ll have to offer something no other ad network can. If and when this happens, Facebook will likely get a lot of grief from the anti-advertising zealots, but this would actually be a good thing for consumers for five reasons: Continue reading →
The House Judiciary Committee’s Crime subcommittee yesterday held a hearing yesterday on the painful issues of cyberbullying (webcast). Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-CA) talked about her bill, the “Megan Meier Cyber Bullying Prevention Act” (H.R. 1966), which would create of a new federal felony to punish cyberharassment, including fines and jail time for violators. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) talked about her bill, the “Adolescent Web Awareness Requires Education Act (AWARE Act)” (H.R. 3630), which would instead allocate $125 million over five years in grants for education and awareness-building about these problems. Without endorsing any particular approach, Adam and I discussed the general advantages of education over criminalization in our “Cyberbullying Legislation: Why Education is Preferable to Regulation” paper published by PFF in June, which we updated and submitted as written testimony. But we really couldn’t have done a better job at making this point than Ranking Member Louie Gohmert (R-TX), who powerfully articulated his opposition to the run-away growth of federal criminal law. Chairman Scott (D-VA) also expressed a commendable reluctance to just pass another law and assume that fixes the problem.
Problems with Criminalization
Three lawyers on the panel generally agreed on the thorny speech and due process concerns raised by criminalization and agreed that the Sánchez bill would require serious revision to pass constitutional muster. UVA Law Prof. Robert O’Neil (testimony) suggested that of the exceptions to free speech protection recognized by the Supreme Court, the only one that could likely be used to do what advocates of cyberbullying criminalization want to accomplish is the intentional infliction of emotional distress. But O’Neill emphasized that this is generally a tort, not a criminal action—which seems like a pretty big distinction to me, especially when the criminal sanction might involve a felony conviction, as Sánchez has proposed. Felony convictions are the “Mark of Cain” in modern life, exceeded only in their lasting effect by being required to register on a sex offender registry. Cato Adjunct Fellow and civil rights lawyer Harvey Silverglate (testimony) highlighted the serious problems raised by vagueness and over-breadth in attempting to define harassment—as evidenced by speech codes at many universities. Harvard Law Prof. John Palfrey (testimony) generally echoed these concerns.
Criminalizing what is mostly child-on-child behavior simply will not solve the age-old problem of kids mistreating each other, a problem that has traditionally been dealt with through counseling and rehabilitation at the local level. For all the talk of how to craft a criminal law (especially its definitions) to minimize constitutional problems, I was very surprised that no one at the hearing raised the critical issue of just who it is we’re trying to protect and from whom. Continue reading →
Today is the filing deadline in a somewhat unusual Federal Communications Notice of Inquiry that asks how the commission should revise its framework for evaluating competition in mobile wireless communications. Among other things, the FCC asks how it should measure wireless companies’ profits. It’s clear from an earlier public notice issued by the FCC’s Wireless Bureau that regulators are looking for a way to identify “abnormal” profits that might justify new regulation.
For 13 years, Congress has required the FCC to issue annual reports on wireless competition. These reports have usually found that wireless is pretty competitive by most conventional measures. There are now four national competitors, numerous regional ones that are growing larger, and a bunch of resellers. The FCC’s most recent report provides numerous examples of innovation in technology, pricing, and services.
About the only fly in the ointment is federal policies that severely limit the amount of spectrum allocated for “flexible use.” Limits on the amount of flexible use spectrum are like taxi medallions: they hinder entry and limit the amount of service the wireless firms can offer.
Nevertheless, the wireless industry’s performance has been impressive. Adjusted for inflation, average revenue per minute fell by 87 percent between 1997 and 2007, and average voice revenue per minute fell by 90 percent. Just during the last five years, inflation-adjusted average revenue per minute fell by 53 percent, and average voice revenue per minute fell by 61 percent.
Could regulation improve on these outcomes? In our comments to the FCC, Jerry Brito and I offer a little thought experiment. Suppose the wireless industry were subject to enlightened, highly efficient, and perfectly operating price regulation. Specifically, suppose the FCC had mandated a version of “incentive” regulation that allowed the wireless companies to increase their prices by no more than the rate of increase in the consumer price index minus an annual 7 percent offset to reflect increased productivity. (Seven percent is the highest productivity offset we’ve seen any telecommuncations regulator in the U.S. use in any context.) Would this be better or worse than what the market actually produced?
This graph shows the answer. If wireless had been subject to incentive regulation, even a 7 percent productivity offset would have reduced wireless revenue per minute by only 36 percent since 1997 and by 19 percent since 2002. In other words, the lightly regulated wireless market produced price reductions nearly 2.5 times as large as those that could have been expected under severe, highly efficient, perfectly operating regulation. And these results measure only the price effects, not the explosion of innovation that accompanied the price reductions.
Would the results have been even better if more spectrum were available for wireless services? Probably. But beyond that step, it’s doubtful that regulators could have done much else to improve on the 90 percent price reduction we’ve seen in the past decade.
Last Wednesday, Holman Jenkins penned a column in The Wall Street Journal about net neutrality (Adam discussed it here). In response, I have a letter to the editor in today’s The Wall Street Journal:
To the Editor: Mr. Jenkins suggests that Google would likely “shriek” if a startup were to mount its servers inside the network of a telecom provider. Google already does just that. It is called “edge caching,” and it is employed by many content companies to keep costs down. It is puzzling, then, why Google continues to support net neutrality. As long as Google produces content that consumers value, they will demand an unfettered Internet pipe. Political battles aside, content and infrastructure companies have an inherently symbiotic relationship. Fears that Internet providers will, absent new rules, stifle user access to content are overblown. If a provider were to, say, block or degrade YouTube videos, its customers would likely revolt and go elsewhere. Or they would adopt encrypted network tunnels, which route around Internet roadblocks. Not every market dispute warrants a government response. Battling giants like Google and AT&T can resolve network tensions by themselves. Ryan Radia Competitive Enterprise Institute Washington
To be sure, the market for residential Internet service is not all that competitive in some parts of the country — Rochester, New York, for instance — so a provider might in some cases be able to get away with unsavory practices for a sustained period without suffering the consequences. Yet ISP competition is on the rise, and a growing number of Americans have access to three or more providers. This is especially true in big cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and Washington D.C.
Instead of trying to put a band-aid on problems that stem from insufficient ISP competition, the FCC should focus on reforming obsolete government rules that prevent ISP competition from emerging. Massive swaths of valuable spectrum remain unavailable to would-be ISP entrants, and municipal franchising rules make it incredibly difficult to lay new wire in public rights-of-way for the purpose of delivering bundled data and video services.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.