March 2011

AT&T/T-Mobile highlights artificial spectrum scarcity

by on March 21, 2011 · 10 comments

Many folks will no doubt be writing a lot about the competitive issues surrounding the announced AT&T/T-Mobile merger, so instead I thought I’d weigh in on what I know best: spectrum.

To the extent you’re worried about the concentration of the wireless market, you should really be concerned about the government policies that make entry and expansion so difficult.

First, if a carrier wants to acquire more spectrum to meet consumer demand for new services, it can’t thanks to the artificial scarcity created by federal policies that dedicate vast swaths of the most valuable spectrum to broadcast television and likely inefficient government uses. It’s gratifying to see the FCC now confronting the “spectrum crunch,” but waiting for a deal to be brokered on incentive auctions is a luxury carriers don’t have. So, buying a competitor might be the only way left for them to acquire more spectrum.

Second, if a carrier wants to put up a new tower, or add antennas to existing towers, it has to get permission from the local zoning board. This can be an extremely onerous process as different localities will have [different reasons to hold up the process](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/06/BAT01E8QTQ.DTL). Buying a competitor is therefore also an obvious way to get access to more towers.

Again, I’m not sure this merger will have a negative effect on competition. Many high sunk costs industries are [perfectly competitive with just two or three players](http://techliberation.com/2010/05/23/wireless-networks-lemonade-stand-economics/). (I’m look forward to a good analysis on that question, perhaps from our own Geoff Manne of Josh Wright.) What I do know is that if you are worried about competition, antitrust policy is not going to solve the long-term issue of artificial scarcity, which is the real problem here.

Entry is possible. In fact, a new entrant in the wireless market is waiting in the wings in the form of the cable industry with the spectrum they acquired in the AWS auction. Before they can start offering services, however, they must move incumbent users of the bands they acquired. There is also Clearwire, part owned by Comcast, Time Warner, and Google–serious competitors to the Bells.

If we really got serious about reallocating broadcast and inefficiently used federal spectrum, we might not have to worry competition. We’d likely see new entry, and access to spectrum would be less of a reason to acquire a competitor.

SHARE: 10 comments

AT&T and T-Mobile: The Anti-Antitrust Terrorists

by on March 21, 2011 · 1 comment

In the rush of ink that flowed yesterday over AT&T’s announced merger with T-Mobile USA, I posted a long piece on CNET calling for calm, reasoned analysis of the deal by regulators, chiefly the Department of Justice and the FCC.

Since the details of the deal have yet to be fleshed out, it’s hard to say much about the specifics of how customers will be affected in the short or long term. My CNET colleague Maggie Reardon, however, does an excellent job laying out both the technical and likely regulatory issues in a piece posted today from the CTIA conference. Continue reading →

SHARE: 1 comment

The Quest to Find Privacy Market Failure

by on March 19, 2011 · 0 comments

I guess the search for market failure in the privacy area is interesting to me. I wrote about it the other week too. It’s nice that those who prefer regulation feel obligated to justify that preference. It’s acknowledgment of the fact, increasingly well-accepted worldwide, that functioning free markets do a better job of discovering and satisfying consumers’ interests than any other method for organizing societies’ resources.

A recent market failure blog post called “Privacy and the Market for Lemons, or How Websites Are Like Used Cars,” seems to have piqued Adam’s interest. (See the comments.) In it, privacy and anonymity researcher Arvind Narayanan makes the case for privacy market failure. (Evidently, it’s an argument that others have made before.)

“In the realm of online privacy and data collection,” he says, “information asymmetry results from a serious lack of transparency around privacy policies. The website or service provider knows what happens to data that’s collected, but the user generally doesn’t.” Several economic, architectural, cognitive and regulatory limitations/flaws “have led to a well-documented market failure—there’s an arms race to use all means possible to entice users to give up more information, as well as to collect it passively through ever-more intrusive means.”

Alas, there’s no link at “well-documented.” I would like to see that documentation. But more importantly, what Narayanan appears to be speaking of as market failure—an arms race to get more information from Web users—is not one. That’s market action that Narayanan doesn’t like.

So where’s the market failure? Continue reading →

SHARE: 0 comments

Congress Should Reject Privacy-Killing Do Not Track Mandate

by on March 16, 2011 · 3 comments

Today, the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on “The State of Online Consumer Privacy.”

The push for online privacy regulation has real momentum, as proposed privacy legislation from numerous lawmakers, a Department of Commerce report proposing a compulsory Do Not Track mechanism to regulate business marketing practices, and the Obama Administration’s proposed “Privacy Bill of Rights” all indicate.

However, Congress should be very wary of such proposals. A politically defined Do Not Track regime risks undermining targeted advertising, impeding business transactions that occur between strangers, and stifling mobile ecosystems that are barely out of the cradle. Rattling consumers needlessly by encouraging them to opt-out of largely beneficial information collection is an especially unwise idea in our uncertain economic climate – especially when major industry participants are developing such mechanisms on their own.

The opportunity to undermine online marketing – wrongly called “surveillance” – appeals to some, but such privacy purists have no right to call the shots for anyone but themselves and those who agree with them. The right to use information acquired through voluntary transactions is no less important than the right to decide whether to disclose information in the first place.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 3 comments

The Net, Info Overload, & Our Fragmented Attention Spans

by on March 16, 2011 · 3 comments

My thanks to Linton Weeks of NPR who reached out to me for comment for a story he was doing on the impact of the Internet and digital technology on culture and our attention spans. His essay, “We Are Just Not Digging The Whole Anymore,” is an interesting exploration of the issue, although it is clear that Weeks, like Nick Carr (among others), is concerned about what the Net is doing to our brains. He says:

We just don’t do whole things anymore. We don’t read complete books — just excerpts. We don’t listen to whole CDs — just samplings. We don’t sit through whole baseball games — just a few innings. Don’t even write whole sentences. Or read whole stories like this one. We care more about the parts and less about the entire. We are into snippets and smidgens and clips and tweets. We are not only a fragmented society, but a fragment society. And the result: What we gain is the knowledge — or the illusion of knowledge — of many new, different and variegated aspects of life. What we lose is still being understood.

After reading the entire piece I realized that some of my comments to Weeks probably came off as a bit more pessimistic about things than I actually am. I told him, for example, that “Long-form reading, listening and viewing habits are giving way to browse-and-choose consumption,” and that “With the increase in the number of media options — or distractions, depending on how you look at them — something has to give, and that something is our attention span.”

Luckily, however, Weeks was kind enough to also give me the last word in the story in which I pointed out that it would be a serious mistake to conclude “that we’re all growing stupid, or losing our ability to think, or losing our appreciation of books, albums or other types of long-form content.” Instead, I argued: Continue reading →

SHARE: 3 comments

The Pretense of Judicious Deliberation on the Rush to Impose Privacy Regulation at Any Cost

by on March 16, 2011 · 0 comments

National Journal reports that the Department of Commerce (NTIA) will, at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing today, call for a “consumer privacy bill of rights”—a euphemism for sweeping privacy regulation:

“Having carefully reviewed all stakeholder comments to the Green Paper, the department has concluded that the U.S. consumer data privacy framework will benefit from legislation to establish a clearer set of rules for the road for businesses and consumers, while preserving the innovation and free flow of information that are hallmarks of the Internet,” [NTIA Administrator Larry] Strickling said in his prepared testimony obtained by Tech Daily Dose.

In other words: “We’ve taken the time to think this through very carefully and have reluctantly come to the conclusion that regulation is necessary.” Sorry, but I’m just not buying it—not just the wisdom of the recommendation but the process that produced it. Let’s consider the timeline here:

  • October 27, 2010 – NTIA Administrator Strickling announces Green Paper is coming but says nothing about timing and little about substance
  • December 16, 2010 – NTIA/Commerce releases its Privacy Green Paper
  • January 28, 2011 – deadline for public comments (28 non-holiday business days later)
  • ??? – Commerce decides regulation is necessary
  • March 16, 2011 – Commerce is ready to ask Congress for legislation (31 non-holiday business days later)

The Commerce Department gave the many, many interested parties the worst four weeks of the year—including  Christmas, New Year’s and Martin Luther King Day—to digest and comment on an 88 page, ~31,000 tome of a report on proposed regulation of how information flows in our… well, information economy. Oh, and did I mention that those same parties had already been given a deadline of January 31, 2011 to comment on the FTC’s 122 page, ~34,000 word privacy report back on December 1 (too bad for those celebrating Hanukkah)? In fairness, the FTC did, on January 21, extend its deadline to February 18—but that hardly excuses the Commerce Department’s rush to judgment. Continue reading →

SHARE: 0 comments

Hayden: Less secrecy for a public conversation on cybersecurity

by on March 15, 2011 · 0 comments

One of the arguments [I’ve been making](http://techliberation.com/2010/10/20/what-is-the-evidence-for-cybersecurity-regulation/) about proposed cybersecurity regulation and legislation is that despite a lot of hype about a massive online threat, there is little evidence to corroborate the dire warnings. Almost every article I’ve read revealing a breach or cyberattack only quotes anonymous government sources, then defense contractors and politicians point to these articles and proclaim, “If you only knew what we know, you’d be taking action now!”

Fear, however, is poor driver of public policy. Before we start telling private companies how to run their security, we should analyze the threat and asses whether there is a legitimate concern and whether government could do a better job. That’s impossible as long as most evidence of a threat is classified.

So I’m glad to see former NSA and CIA chief Gen. Michael Hayden call for less secrecy in order to get better analysis. In the [new issue](http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/spring11.asp) of Startegic Studies Quartley, he writes [[PDF]](http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2011/spring/hayden.pdf):

>Let me be clear: This stuff is overprotected. It is far easier to learn about physical threats from US government agencies than to learn about cyber threats. In the popular culture, the availability of 10,000 applications for my smart phone is viewed as an unalloyed good. It is not—since each represents a potential vulnerability. But if we want to shift the popular culture, we need a broader flow of information to corporations and individuals to educate them on the threat. To do that we need to recalibrate what is truly secret. Our most pressing need is clear policy, formed by shared consensus, shaped by informed discussion, and created by a common body of knowledge. With no common knowledge, no meaningful discussion, and no consensus . . . the policy vacuum continues. This will not be easy, and in the wake of WikiLeaks it will require courage; but, it is essential and should itself be the subject of intense discussion. Who will step up to lead?

Who indeed. Congress may be getting secret briefings that outline a potential cyberthreat. If they are, they should recognize that they may be only getting one view of the issue. Also, the people on whose behalf they are legislating also deserve to have a clear understanding of the risks against which Congress might legislate. “Trust us,” is not good enough. By reducing the over-classification Hayden writes about, Congress could allow economists, computer scientists, and other academics delve into the weeds of determine what is the true nature of the threat and whether a market failure exists that calls for government intervention.

SHARE: 0 comments

Wireless sin taxes discourage cell phone use

by on March 15, 2011 · 5 comments

Over at [Neighborhood Effects](http://neighborhoodeffects.mercatus.org/), the Mercatus Center’s state and local policy blog, my colleague Dan Rothschild [compares wireless taxes to sin taxes](http://neighborhoodeffects.mercatus.org/2011/03/14/cell-phones-cigarettes/). His analysis is too good not to reprint here in large part:

The purpose of taxes is to raise money for necessary governmental functions. To that end, economists frequently prescribe that rates be low and broad in order to minimize the impact on consumers’ behavior — so-called tax neutrality. This is because taxation should be about raising revenue, not changing behavior.

Some economists tweak this prescription through the Ramsey Rule, which holds (in a nutshell) that the more influenced by tax rates consumers are (demand elasticity) the less something should be taxed (and vice versa).

Sin taxes are the opposite; they’re about reducing a behavior that policy makers judge to be morally offensive (like many people view smoking).

Relatedly, Pigouvian taxes seek to bring the costs to society (the social cost) in line with the costs born by a buyer. (For instance, some people advocate higher alcohol taxes on the theory that drinkers impose costs on others, though this argument is fraught with difficulties.)

Cell phone taxes above regular sales taxes levied by states and localities do not fit any of the four rationales provided here. On the one hand, taxing them at over twenty percent of a user’s bill is hardly neutral. Nor does it likely fit the Ramsey Rule prescription; consumers respond to cell phone taxes by buying less of it or by avoiding taxes by pretending to move. (Just look around you at how consumer takeup and use of cell phones has changed as prices have fallen over the last decade.) Cell phones are not sinful or offensive. And there’s no serious case to be made that the social cost of cell phones exceeds the cost born by users. In short, by any principle of public finance, high cell phone taxes are a bad bad bad idea.

Now here’s hoping he takes this awesome analysis and turns it into a paper!

SHARE: 5 comments

Virginia Postrel Takes on the Zittrain Thesis

by on March 14, 2011 · 0 comments

On numerous occasions here and elsewhere I have cited the enormous influence that Virginia Postrel’s 1998 book, The Future and Its Enemies, has had on me.  Her “dynamist” versus “stasis” paradigm helps us frame and better understand almost all debates about technological progress. I cannot recommend that book highly enough.

In her latest Wall Street Journal column, Postrel considers what makes the iPad such a “magical” device and in doing so, she takes on the logical set forth in Jonathan Zittrain 2009 book, The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It, although she doesn’t cite the book by name in her column. You will recall that in that book and his subsequent essays, Prof. Zittrain made Steve Jobs and his iPhone out to be the great enemy of digital innovation — at least as Zittrain defined it. How did Zittrain reach this astonishing conclusion and manage to turn Jobs into a pariah and his devices into the supposed enemy of innovation? It came down to “generativity,” Zittrain said, by which he meant technologies or networks that invite or allow tinkering and all sorts of creative uses. Zittrain worships general-purpose personal computers and the traditional “best efforts” Internet. By contrast, he decried “sterile, tethered” digital “appliances” like the iPhone, which he claimed limited generativity and innovation, mostly because of their generally closed architecture.

In her column, Postrel agrees that the iPad is every bit as closed as Zittrain feared iPhone successor devices would be. She notes: “customers haven’t the foggiest idea how the machine works. The iPad is completely opaque. It is a sealed box. You can’t see the circuitry or read the software code. You can’t even change the battery.” But Postrel continues on to explain why the hand-wringing about perfect openness is generally overblown and, indeed, more than a bit elitist: Continue reading →

SHARE: 0 comments

A Vision of (Regulatory) Things to Come for Twitter?

by on March 13, 2011 · 2 comments

Twitter could be in for a world of potential pain. Regulatory pain, that is. The company’s announcement on Friday that it would soon be cracking down on the uses of its API by third parties is raising eyebrows in cyberspace and, if recent regulatory history is any indicator, this high-tech innovator could soon face some heat from regulatory advocates and public policy makers. If this thing goes down as I describe it below, it will be one hell of a fight that once again features warring conceptions of “Internet freedom” butting heads over the question of whether Twitter should be forced to share its API with rivals via some sort of “open access” regulatory regime or “API neutrality,” in particular. I’ll explore that possibility in this essay. First, a bit of background.

Understanding Forced Access Regulation

In the field of communications law, the dominant public policy fight of the past 15 years has been the battle over “open access” and “neutrality” regulation. Generally speaking, open access regulations demand that a company share its property (networks, systems, devices, or code) with rivals on terms established by law. Neutrality regulation is a variant of open access regulation, which also requires that systems be used in ways specified by law, but usually without the physical sharing requirements. Both forms of regulation derive from traditional common carriage principles / regulatory regimes. Critics of such regulation, which would most definitely include me, decry the inefficiencies associated with such “forced access” regimes, as we prefer to label them. Forced access regulation also raises certain constitutional issues related to First and Fifth Amendment rights of speech and property. Continue reading →

SHARE: 2 comments

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →