October 2015

UK Competition & Markets Authority on Online Platform Regulation

by on October 30, 2015 · 0 comments

I wanted to draw your attention to this important address on online platform regulation by Alex Chisholm, the head of UK’s Competition and Markets Authority. That’s the non-ministerial department in the UK responsible for competition policy issues. Chisholm delivered the address on October 27th at the Bundesnetzagentur conference in Bonn. It’s a terrific speech that other policymakers would be wise to read and mimic to ensure that antitrust and competition policy decisions don’t derail the many benefits of the Information Revolution.

“Today, as regulators, we have the responsibility but also the great historical privilege of playing an influential role in the deployment throughout the economy of the latest of these defining technological eras,” Chisholm began. “As regulators, we must try to minimise the inevitable mismatch between how we’ve done things before and the opportunities and risks of the new,” he argued.

He continued on to specify three recommendations for those crafting policy on this front: Continue reading →

SHARE: 0 comments

Webinar about the Title II Lawsuit, Chevron, and the First Amendment

by on October 27, 2015 · 0 comments

On October 7th I appeared on a webinar hosted by Prof. Barry Umansky and Ball State’s Digital Policy Institute about the FCC’s Title II case before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, US Telecom Association v. FCC. The other panelists were Andrew Schwartzman of Georgetown University and Stuart Brotman of Harvard Law School and the Brookings Institution. Check it out, but here’s a brief summary of our hour-long discussion. Continue reading →

SHARE: 0 comments

Bipartisan Bill Can Help Avoid EU Internet Blockade

by on October 21, 2015 · 0 comments

This article originally appeared at techfreedom.org

Today, the House voted to extend key, but narrow, privacy rights to citizens of “covered countries.” The Judicial Redress Act, passed by a voice vote, would allow the Attorney General to work with other federal agencies to determine countries whose citizens can enforce their data protection rights in U.S. courts under the Privacy Act of 1974. Since that statute specifically exempts sensitive issues regarding law enforcement and national security, extending Privacy Act rights to citizens of selected countries poses no significant concerns.

“Today, the House took one small step toward repairing America’s tarnished image on data privacy,” said Berin Szoka, President of TechFreedom. “Since the Snowden disclosures, our government’s inaction on surveillance reform has provoked an international crisis — one that could lead to a European blockade of American Internet companies.”

Two weeks ago, in the Schrems case, the European Court of Justice struck down the Safe Harbor agreement that has, since 2000, allowed U.S. companies to receive and use data about European citizens. Lack of redress rights for Europeans is among the chief reasons why the ECJ found that the Commission had failed to update its finding that U.S. privacy protections were “adequate.”

Without a new agreement, U.S. companies will be at the mercy of each and every European Data Protection Authority, which, under Schrems, can now decide how to regulate cross-border data flows. This burden will likely fall heaviest on U.S. tech startups, who can ill afford this risk. If the Digital Protection Authorities (DPAs) start cracking down, American companies may simply decide to forego the European market, or to split their services into two pieces that don’t allow users to interact — especially new companies that haven’t yet launched their services. That, in turn, could mean a regionalization of what has, until now, been an inherently global medium.

“Passage of the Judicial Redress Act is ‘table stakes’ for the U.S.,” continued Szoka. “Without it, the State Department will have no credibility at the bargaining table in negotiating with the Europeans over a replacement for Safe Harbor. However, Privacy Act rights are necessary but not sufficient: Congress will need to move on to other privacy reforms immediately, starting with ensuring that law enforcement must obtain a warrant before accessing stored data of both American and European citizens. Congress will also need to finish the surveillance reforms it started with USA FREEDOM, specifically regarding Section 702.”

###

We can be reached for comment at media@techfreedom.org. See more of our work on privacy, especially:

  • “Only Congressional Privacy Reforms Can Prevent  EU Internet Blockade of US,” a statement from TechFreedom on the ECJ striking down Safe Harbor

SHARE: 0 comments

Quick Thoughts on FAA’s Proposed Drone Registration System

by on October 19, 2015 · 1 comment

DroneToday, the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced that it will soon require Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) or private drones, used for both personal and commercial purposes, to be registered in a national database. To facilitate this process, the agencies announced the creation of a new federal task force that will develop recommendations for a UAS registration process. Rules are to be published by November 20th (presumably to cover new devices sold before Christmas).

Here are some quick initial reactions on the proposed registration rules: Continue reading →

SHARE: 1 comment

Deregulation of Television Finally Bearing Fruit for Consumers

by on October 14, 2015 · 2 comments

Last Friday I attended a fascinating conference hosted by the Duke Law School’s Center for Innovation Policy about television regulation and competition. It’s remarkable how quickly television competition has changed and how online video providers are putting pressure on old business models.

I’ve been working on a project about competition in technology, communications, and media and one chart that stands out is one that shows increasing competition in pay television, below. Namely, that cable providers have lost nearly 15 million subscribers since 2002. Cable was essentially the only game in town in 1990 for pay television (about 100% market share). Yet today, cable’s market share approaches 50%. This competitive pressure accounts for some cable companies trying to merge in recent years.

Much of this churn by subscribers was to satellite providers but it’s the “telephone” companies providing TV that’s really had a competitive impact in recent years. Telcos went from about 0% market share in 2005 to 13% in 2014. This new competition can be tied to Congress finally allowing telephone companies to provide TV in 1996. However, these new services didn’t really get started until a decade ago when 1) digital and IP technology improved, and 2) the FCC made it clear by deregulating DSL ISPs that telephone companies could expect a market return for investing in fiber broadband nationwide.

Pay TV Market Share TLF

UPDATE:

And below is market share data going back ten more years to 1994 using FCC data, which uses a slightly different measurement methodology (hence the kink around 2003-2004). I’ve also omitted market share of Home Satellite Dish (those large dishes you sometimes see in rural areas). Though HSD has negligible market share today, it had a few million subscribers in the mid-1990s. I may add HSD later.

Pay TV Market Share TLF 1994-2014

SHARE: 2 comments

Will LTE-U Mark the End of the Unlicensed Spectrum Commons?

by on October 14, 2015 · 2 comments

Those of us with deep reservations about the push for ever more unlicensed spectrum are having many of our fears realized with the new resistance to novel technologies using unlicensed spectrum. By law unlicensed spectrum users have no rights to their spectrum; unlicensed spectrum is a managed commons. In practice, however, existing users frequently act as if they own their spectrum and they can exclude others. By entertaining these complaints, the FCC simply encourages NIMBYism in unlicensed spectrum.

The general idea behind unlicensed spectrum is that by providing a free spectrum commons to any device maker who complies with certain simple rules (namely, Part 15’s low power operation requirement), device makers will develop wireless services that would never have developed if the device makers had to shell out millions for licensed spectrum. For decades, unlicensed spectrum has stimulated development and sale of millions of consumer devices, including cordless phones, Bluetooth devices, wifi access points, RC cars, and microwave ovens.

Now, however, many device makers are getting nervous about new entrants. For instance, Globalstar is developing a technology, TLPS, based on wifi standards that will use some unlicensed spectrum at 2.4 GHz and mobile carriers would like to market an unlicensed spectrum technology, LTE-U, based on 4G LTE standards that will use spectrum at 5 GHz.

This resistance from various groups and spectrum incumbents, who fear interference in “their” spectrum if these new technologies catch on, was foreseeable, which makes these intractable conflicts even more regrettable. As Prof. Tom Hazlett wrote in a 2001 essay, long before today’s conflicts, when it comes to unlicensed devices, “economic success spells its own demise.” Hazlett noted, “Where an unlicensed firm successfully innovates, open access guarantees imitation. This not only results in competition…but may degrade wireless emissions — perhaps severely.”

On the other hand, the many technical filings about potential interference to existing unlicensed devices are red herrings. Prospective device makers in these unlicensed bands have no duty to protect existing users. Part 15 rules say that unlicensed users like wifi and Bluetooth “shall not be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to continued use of any given frequency by virtue of prior registration or certification of equipment” and that “interference must be accepted.” These rules, however, put the FCC in a self-created double bind: the agency provides no interference protection to existing users but its open access policy makes interference conflicts likely. Continue reading →

SHARE: 2 comments

The Failure of Good Intentions: Bike Helmet Laws Edition

by on October 13, 2015 · 0 comments

One of my favorite themes, and not just in the field of tech policy, is the “Unintended Consequences of Well-Intentioned Regulations.” I believe that all laws and regulations have dynamic effects and that to fully appreciate the true impact of any particular public policy, you must always closely investigate the potential opportunity costs and unintended consequences associated with those policies. Because all too often laws and regulations are hastily put on the books with the very best of intentions in mind, only to later be shown to produce the opposite of what was intended.

Today’s case in point comes from a Wall Street Journal article by Rachel Bachman and it involves how the growing wave of cycling helmet laws are having a net negative impact on public health because they discourage ridership in the aggregate. Thus, those potential riders are then either (a) just less active overall or (b) driving their cars to get where they need to go. And both of those results are, ultimately, riskier than cycling without a helmet. For that reason, Bachman reports, cycling advocates “are pushing back against mandatory bike-helmet laws in the U.S. and elsewhere. They say mandatory helmet laws, particularly for adults, make cycling less convenient and seem less safe, thus hindering the larger public-health gains of more people riding bikes.” Supporting evidence comes from this 2012 paper in the journal Risk Analysis by Piet de Jong, a professor in the department of applied finance and actuarial studies at Sydney’s Macquarie University. His paper included an empirical model that showed how mandatory bike-helmet laws “have a net negative health impact.”

This strikes me as one of the very best examples of how to do dynamic benefit-cost analysis and show the full range of societal impacts associated with well-intentioned regulations. And it reminds me of the playground example I use in several of my papers: Laws and liability threats discouraged tall playground climbing structures in the ’80s and ’90s. Continue reading →

SHARE: 0 comments

White House Support for Strong Encryption Could Discourage Digital Protectionism

by on October 9, 2015 · 1 comment

This Wednesday, TechFreedom joined Niskanen Center and a coalition of free market groups in urging the White House to endorse the use of strong encryption and disavow efforts to intentionally weaken encryption, whether by installing “back doors,” “front doors,” or any security vulnerabilities into encryption products.

The coalition letter concludes:

We urge your Administration to consider the full ramifications of weakening or limiting encryption. There is no such thing as a backdoor that only the US government can access: any attempt to weaken encryption means making users more vulnerable to malicious hackers, identity thieves, and repressive governments. America must stand for the right to encryption — it is nothing less than the Second Amendment for the Internet.

“The White House’s silence on encryption is deafening,” said Tom Struble, Policy Counsel at TechFreedom. “The President’s hitherto failure to endorse strong encryption has given ammunition to European regulators seeking to restrict cross-border data flows and require that data on EU citizens be stored in their own countries. Just yesterday, the European Court of Justice struck down a longstanding agreement that made it easier for Europeans to access American Internet services. If the White House continues to dawdle, it will only further embolden ‘digital protectionism’ across the pond.”

The letter’s signatories include: Niskanen Center, TechFreedom, FreedomWorks, R Street Institute, Students For Liberty, Citizen Outreach, Downsize DC, Institute for Policy Innovation, Less Government, Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights, and American Commitment.

SHARE: 1 comment

What We’ve Been Up To: An Update on TechFreedom

by on October 6, 2015 · 0 comments

The last several months have been a busy time for tech policy. Major policies have been enacted, particularly in the areas of surveillance and Internet regulation. While we haven’t checked in here on TLF in some time,TechFreedom has been consistently fighting for the policies that make innovation possible.

  1. Internet Independence: On July 4th, we launched  the Declaration of Internet Independence, a grassroots petition campaign calling on Congress to restore the light-touch approach to Internet regulation that resulted in twenty years of growth and prosperity.
  2. Internet Regulation: This February the FCC issued its Open Internet Order, reclassifying broadbandas a communications service under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act, despite opposition from many in the tech sector, including supporters of our “Don’t Break the Net” campaign. In response, we’ve joined CARI.net and several leading internet entrepreneurs in litigation against the FCC   to ask the Court to strike down the Order.
  3. Surveillance: Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which authorized bulk collection of phone records, sunset this May, giving privacy advocates the opportunity to enact meaningful surveillance reform. TechFreedom voiced support for such reforms, including the USA FREEDOM Act, which will end all bulk collection of Americans’ telephone records under any authority.
  4. Broadband Deployment: Making fast, affordable Internet available to everyone is a goal that we all share. We’ve been urging government at all levels to make it easier for private companies to do just that through policies like Dig Once conduits, while cautioning that government-run broadband should only be a last resort.
  5. FTC Reform: The FTC is in dire need of reform. We’ve recommended changes to ensure that the agency fulfills its duty to protect consumers from real harm without a regulatory blank check, which stifles innovation and competition. While progress has been made, there’s still a long way to go. The agency can start by helping to unshackle the sharing economy from legacy regulations.

SHARE: 0 comments

Unintended Consequences of the EU Safe Harbor Ruling

by on October 6, 2015 · 0 comments

The big news out of Europe today is that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has invalidated the 15-year old EU-US safe harbor agreement, which facilitated data transfers between the EU and US. American tech companies have relied on the safe harbor to do business in the European Union, which has more onerous data handling regulations than the US. [PDF summary of decision here.] Below I offer some quick thoughts about the decision and some of its potential unintended consequences.

#1) Another blow to new entry / competition in the EU: While some pundits are claiming this is a huge blow to big US tech firms, in reality, the irony of the ruling is that it will bolster the market power of the biggest US tech firms, because they are the only ones that will be able to afford the formidable compliance costs associated with the resulting regulatory regime. In fact, with each EU privacy decision, Google, Facebook, and other big US tech firms just get more dominant. Small firms just can’t comply with the EU’s expanding regulatory thicket. “It will involve lots of contracts between lots of parties and it’s going to be a bit of a nightmare administratively,” said Nicola Fulford, head of data protection at the UK law firm Kemp Little when commenting on the ruling to the BBC. “It’s not that we’re going to be negotiating them individually, as the legal terms are mostly fixed, but it does mean a lot more paperwork and they have legal implications.” And by driving up regulatory compliance costs and causing constant delays in how online business is conducted, the ruling will (again, on top of all the others) greatly limits entry and innovation by new, smaller players in the digital world. In essence, EU data regulations have already wiped out much of the digital competition in Europe and now this ruling finishes off any global new entrants who might have hoped of breaking in and offering competitive alternatives. These are the sorts of stories never told in antitrust circles: costly government rulings often solidify and extend the market dominance of existing companies. Dynamic effects matter. That is certainly going to be the case here. Continue reading →

SHARE: 0 comments

← Previous Entries