Articles by Adam Thierer 
Senior Fellow in Technology & Innovation at the R Street Institute in Washington, DC. Formerly a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, President of the Progress & Freedom Foundation, Director of Telecommunications Studies at the Cato Institute, and a Fellow in Economic Policy at the Heritage Foundation.
Hmmm.. This sounds like trouble waiting to happen for kids in the UK. According to News.com:
British students aged 14 to 19 will have their school records permanently placed on an electronic database accessible to prospective employers. The project, called Managing Information Across Partners (MIAP), will launch in September. The record will include personal details and exam results and will remain with the pupil for life.
[…]
The system will be based on a Unique Learner Number. “The Unique Learner Number, necessary to acquire a learner record for the diploma is a unique identifier that can be used by a learner for life,” MIAP said on its Web site. “It is a national number that is validated and is therefore deemed to be unique.” The aim is to expand the system to include other information and to allow details already available but scattered across many databases to be brought together, it said.” The pupil would have control over the record and would be able to restrict the information shared.
Maybe. Or maybe not. As the story goes on to point out:
Continue reading →
My Progress & Freedom Foundation colleagues Ken Ferree, president of PFF, and Bret Swanson, a senior fellow with PFF, have filed comments today at the FCC in the heated proceeding about broadband network management policies. [Note: For more background, listen to our recent TLF podcast on the issue.] In their filing, Ken and Bret argue that:
Traffic shaping or channeling by broadband Internet access providers should be no more controversial than the examples provided above. Broadband access is not an unlimited resource. To the contrary, video and other rich media applications are profoundly changing the nature and volume of Internet traffic, straining network capacity. Video applications require between 100 and 1,000 times more bandwidth than static applications involving text, voice, or simple graphics. As video and graphics move to high-definition, many observers believe that web content and applications will grow in data-density by yet an additional factor of 10. Internet and IP traffic in the U.S. could grow more than 50-fold by 2015. The challenge facing providers of broadband access is how to maintain high-speed service for the vast majority of consumers while demands on the network mount.
[…]
Far from some nefarious plot to undermine the communications of their own subscribers, broadband access providers using traffic management tools to maintain the highest level of service for the greatest number of users simply are mirroring the commercially reasonable conduct of service providers everywhere, in nearly every field.
They go on to detail the technical reasons why various types of network management activities are necessary and beneficial:
Continue reading →
Cable and telecom operators have long fought like cats and dogs in the political marketplace. And now that they are competing more intensely for customers in the real marketplace, we can expect relations between the two camps to grow even more acrimonious inside the Beltway.
Case in point: Yesterday, cable operators Bright House, Comcast, and Time Warner filed a complaint at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) alleging that telecom giant Verizon has been offering “unlawful inducements to customers” in an effort to retain those customers looking to switch over to cable-based voice offerings. The cable companies want to FCC to force Verizon to halt those “winback” tactics which take place before a customer switches over. And the cable operators also want the FCC to award damages based on past harm supposedly done to them.
It’s an example of just how cut-throat the marketplace competition has become between the two sectors recently. As Cynthia Brumfield of IP Democracy points out, telecom operators have been hemorrhaging customers in recent years and cable operators have been the primary recipient of those telco-defectors. As Cynthia notes:
Continue reading →
In an essay earlier today, I discussed why I believe that private censorship is superior to public censorship since it lets each family dictate for themselves what is in their own best interest. Public censorship, by contrast, expects regulators to dictate for all families what is best for them by imposing a single arbitrary standard on the entire nation. The ideal state of affairs, I argued, would be a nation of fully empowered parents who have the ability to perfectly tailor their family’s media consumption habits to their specific values and preferences. That would include the ability to not only block objectionable materials, but also to more easily find content they feel is appropriate for their families.
But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that this ideal state of affairs exists but that many parents continue to allow their children to experience some types of media content that others believe is harmful. What should be done about that?
I ask because I was just reading through this month’s
Federal Communications Law Journal, which includes the transcript of a Federalist Society symposium on the “Expansion of Indecency Regulation.” The discussion included remarks from FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and Robert W. Peters, the President of Morality in Media among others. During the discussion, both Chairman Martin and Mr. Peters suggested that it if we really wanted to get serious about protecting children from media content somehow deemed “harmful to minors,” then we might need to consider criminal sanctions for parents who voluntarily bring such fare into their homes.
Continue reading →
Everybody loves to blame the media for the woes of the world. Is your candidate losing? Blame the media. Is the war in Iraq not going the way you want? Blame the media. Is the economy slowing down and heading into recession? Blame the media.
Indeed, one of the entertaining things about being a media policy analyst is that you get to hear various media critics say the most outlandish things about the role of media in our society. And that’s not just the case for news; it’s even truer for culture and entertainment, of course. There’s never been a shortage of self-appointed culture cops in our society who want to tell us that they–or at least some benevolent ruling class acting on their behalf–are in the best position to dictate standards of decency and quality entertainment. And sometimes the antics of such critics are as entertaining as they are outrageous.
Take this recent press released by Concerned Women for America entitled, “Oh, Be Careful Little Eyes What You See: The Influx of Broadcast Indecency.” So desperate are they to expand the scope of government regulation over media that they’ve now resorted to equating broadcasters to murderers and thieves: “If we allow the networks to set the standards of public decency, isn’t that like allowing the criminal to decide what’s illegal?”
Seems a bit over-the-top to me, but let’s try to answer that question by answering another question CWA sets forth in their press release: “Who decides the standards by which we protect our children and ourselves from indecent broadcasts over the public airwaves?”
That is an excellent question, and one that I have devoted much of my life’s work to answering. What CWA is implying in that question is that if the government does not set “standards” to protect society from “indecent broadcasts,” then society will essentially descend into a nihilistic moral abyss. Only by empowering regulators to police “the public airwaves” can we restore and defend moral order.
This assertion is incorrect on multiple counts. I could focus on the constitutional challenges associated with defining “indecent” and “moral” content in a pluralistic society such as ours. Or I could focus on the practical considerations of regulating broadcasters uniquely in our multi-media, multi-platform world. But I would rather focus on that “Who Decides?” question set forth by CWA in their essay, because that’s what is really at the center of all these debates. And here’s the way I counter that logic in my book on “Parental Controls & Online Child Protection”:
Continue reading →
I have an editorial appearing on CNet News today about “New Mexico’s video game nanny tax.” Quick background: The New Mexico legislature has introduced a new tax measure that would force consumers to pay a 1 percent excise tax on purchases of video games, gaming consoles, and TVs. The revenue generated from the game and TV tax would be used to fund a new state educational effort aimed at getting kids out of the house more. True to the aim of the measure, they have even given the bill the creative title, “The Leave No Child Inside Act.” In my editorial, I argue that:
legislators shouldn’t be using the tax code to play the role of nanny for our kids. It is the responsibility and right of parents to determine how their kids are raised. Many of us would agree that more outdoor time is a laudable goal. But should the government be using the tax code to accomplish that objective?
I point out that the proposal raises serious fairness questions that makes a constitutional challenge likely since older court cases dealing with other media have also made it clear that public-policy makers are forbidden from using the power to tax in an effort to discriminate against speech or expression that they disfavor. Moreover, on the fairness point:
Why just blame video games for kids not getting enough time outdoors? How about a tax on social-networking Web sites or instant messaging? Many kids are spending almost as much time online right now as they do playing video games. And what about other types of non-digital games that might keep kids indoors? My daughter spends a lot of time playing Sudoku puzzles, for example. Perhaps we should tax Sudoku books, chess boards, and even arts and crafts! After all, the goal here is to do whatever it takes to get kids outside, right? Or is it really just to get kids to stop playing video games?
Read the entire piece here if you are interested.
I’ve covered this before as part of my ongoing media DE-consolidiation series, which aims to show how media markets are far more dynamic that critics care to admit, but Time Warner has finally made the split off of its AOL division official. Again, to appreciate the significance of this shakeup, one must recall that when this marriage was struck back in 2000, media critics where in full-blown Chicken Little mode over the deal. Critics claimed the AOL-Time Warner deal represented “Big Brother,” “the end of the independent press,” and a harbinger of a “new totalitarianism.”
It was all complete nonsense, of course, but it was all too typical of the sort of irrational emotionalism that characterizes debates over media policy in this country. I’ve been doing my best to deflate some of that hot air with my ongoing “Media Metrics” series of essays, which illustrate exactly how much better off citizens are today than ever before in terms of the media options at their disposal. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] And this ongoing “Media DE-Consolidation series” has shown that there are just as many major media marketplace crack-ups as their are build-ups. It’s a very dynamic marketplace regardless of what the critics say.
Whatever one thinks of the merits of the Microsoft-Yahoo merger and Google’s immediate and vociferous opposition to it, Ed Felten is 100% right when he says of Google’s actions:
“Complaining has downsides for Google too — a government skeptical of acquisitions by dominant high-tech companies could easily boomerang and cause Google its own antitrust headaches down the road.”
That’s a drum we beat a lot around here at the TLF, but no one in the corporate world seems to listen. On the days their own butts are on the line, they tell us the antitrust authorities are villainous scum that must be defeated at all cost! The next day–when their competitors are in the crosshairs–the antitrust officials are regarded as benevolent knights possessing Solomonic wisdom, and we’re told that we should trust them to guide us to an economic promised land called “perfect competition.”
It’s all a big political game that does nothing more that make a lot of lawyers and consultants very rich.
Though not yet complete, the 110th session of Congress has already witnessed an explosion of legislative proposals dealing with online child safety, or which seek to regulate media content or Internet communications in some fashion. More than 30 of these legislative proposals are cataloged in a new joint legislative index that was released today by the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) and the Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF).
John Morris, Senior Counsel at CDT, and I compiled this index to help ourselves and others keep track of the growing volume of legislative activity on these fronts. Each bill is indexed according to title and topic, the chamber in which it was introduced, and the agency or organization that the measure affects or empowers. The entry for each bill includes: a concise summary of the legislative proposal, a link to the legislation, and links to relevant analysis by CDT or PFF. The compendium will be placed on both the CDT and PFF websites and updated as needed. The index will hopefully make it easier for the public and the press to analyze ongoing legislative developments pertaining to online child safety or free speech.
Although an exact count of related legislative activity in previous sessions of Congress is not available, there is little doubt that lawmakers have been more active on this front during this session of Congress than ever before. That, in and of itself, is probably cause for some concern since it means the Internet, media operators, and other speakers run the risk of being subjected to greater regulatory burdens.
In addition our joint index, John and I have also separately released papers today outlining what we each felt were some of the most problematic bills introduced so far in this session. John’s report is here, my paper is here. After the fold, I will summarize some of the bills I am concerned about.
Continue reading →
I found this article by Ernesto over at TorrentFreak (“Decluttering The Tubes, Solutions to the BitTorrent “Problem”?“) to be very interesting and open-minded, but his readers are really taking him to task for it. In the piece, Ernesto outlines the upsides and downsides of 6 possible ISP responses to the “BitTorrent Problem,” which has been in the news a great deal lately. (These models were apparently suggested to Ernesto by Art Reisman, who is chief technical officer at APConnections):
1) Ask for voluntary cooperation.
2) Keep connections within the providers network.
3) Usage based quotas.
4) Limit the total connections allowed at one time per user.
5) Build out networks to handle the increased load and pass the cost onto the consumer.
6) Cancel the service of users who abuse their privileges. There have been reports of providers doing this already.
[Again, see full article for explanation of strengths and weaknesses of each.]
I think many of these solutions sound quite constructive and could possibly be used in some combination to alleviate network congestions problems. But the reader response over at TorrentFreak, which obvious skews towards the heavy BitTorrent user, is perhaps all too predictable: Just give us more capacity!
Continue reading →
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.