Articles by Adam Thierer

Avatar photoSenior 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.


Report from the “E3” (Video Game Industry) Trade Show

by on May 12, 2006

I’ve been out in Los Angeles this week attending “E3,” the video game industry’s annual trade show. It’s the first time I’ve been able to attend the show and I am finding it very interesting. Indeed, as I walk the halls of the L.A. convention center and chat with gaming companies and gamers themselves, I am struck by several things:

(1) This is one heck of an innovative industry. There are some remarkably creative minds working in the electronic gaming sector. As a life-long gamer who was part of the “Pong” and “Pac-Mac” generation, I am just flabbergasted by how much more highly developed games are today (in terms of graphics, narrative and gameplay) than they were 30 years ago when I first started gaming. There was a moment in my life when I thought that games just couldn’t get much more sophisticated than Activision’s “Pitfall” or Atari’s “Adventure.” What a fool I was! Some of the massive multi-player online roll-playing games (“MMORPGs”) I saw at the show were just jaw-dropping in terms of their graphical detail and narrative sophistication. And all of the new high-definition titles for the X-Box 360 and PlayStation 3 are nothing short of stunning. Old favorites of mine like “Madden” football and “Gran Turismo” are now rendered in ultra-crisp 1080p HD resolution. There are moments during those games when you really think you’re watching a live feed from a real football game or road race.

And even the games which featured a more simple premise were exciting. Consider “Table Tennis” by Rock Star Games. The same company that brought us the infamous “Grand Theft Auto” is now producing a decidedly less controversial title based on the classic game of Ping Pong! If you think it sounds silly, wait till you play it. It is addicting in a “Tetris-like” fashion. I hope they eventually make it for my PlayStation Portable!

Continue reading →

SHARE:

How Net Neutrality Regs Could Threaten Online High-Def Video

by on May 8, 2006 · 4 comments

Last week, Slate ran an article my friend (and frequent intellectual sparring partner) Tim Wu entitled “Why You Should Care About Network Neutrality.” Ironically, the best answer is not found not in Tim’s essay, but instead in this Slate article today by Sean Captain entitled “Forget YouTube: Your Laptop Will Never Replace Your TV.”

Captain’s essay laments the second-rate quality of today’s online video content & delivery systems and suggests some alternatives to improving the situation as high-definition offerings proliferate. As someone who appreciates the beauty of high-resolution (720p or 1080i) HDTV on the big screen in my house (I have a HD projector that beams a beautiful 8-foot picture on the wall), like Sean Captain, I am troubled by the quality of current Internet video offerings. I enjoy watching short Net films & videos on iFilm and other sites, but it pains me as I squint to see the tiny screen with its horrendous picture and frequent interruptions.

Consumers deserve better, and as the quality of the home theater experience continues to improve, they will demand it. Net neutrality regulation is not going to help bring it about. We need multiple business models and pricing plans to put the right incentives in place to deliver high-quality cyber-video.

Although I think I will always prefer watching a movies and shows on the big screen in my home, I might be willing to watch them on my wonderful Toshiba multi-media laptop if the feed was good enough. After all, the monitor on my laptop actually sports a higher resolution than any of the TVs in my home! So I’m itching to use it to its full potential, but right now about all I can get in terms of true high-def video online is the stuff over at Microsoft’s “WMV HD Content Showcase.” But it takes forever and a day to download that stuff. (Moreover, I can only take so many IMAX movies before I doze off from the boredom!)

If Net neutrality mandates are slapped on broadband service providers and they are prohibited from configuring or prioritizing Net traffic to accommodate higher-bandwidth video applications, the only other realistic alternative left is for them to charge consumers significantly higher fees for big bandwidth applications & content. Personally, I don’t have any problem with that. In fact, I think a metering solution may present the best way to solve this issue. But I think there are two obvious downsides: (1) Many consumers will cry foul and vociferously protest higher fees for higher-definition online video applications; and, (2) Policy makers will hear those cries and claim the metering of the pipe is unfair or will lead to a new “digital divide.” They might even suggest price regulation in response.

This is why I believe that Net neutrality regulation is worst than a solution in search of a problem. It is a problem in its own right in that it might forbid exactly the sort of marketplace experimentation and innovation we so desperately need today.

SHARE: 4 comments

Why Communications and Media Markets Will Probably Never Be Deregulated

by on May 5, 2006 · 20 comments

There was a time in my life when I was actually quite optimistic about the prospects for getting the heavy hand of government regulation out of telecommunications and media markets. This was around 15 or so years ago when I first started covering policy developments in this area. I’d go to work each day thinking that some day soon our lawmakers would come to appreciate the amazing technological and marketplace changes happening around us and then take steps to liberalize these markets, just as they had for other over-regulated sectors before (like airlines, railroads, banking, and so on).

That illusion was shattered one day long ago when a copy of the Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) directory first landed on my desk. The FCBA is the organization that was originally made up of the lawyers who practice telecom and media law. Since the early 1990s, however, many others (economists, consultants, lobbyists, engineers, etc.) have also been allowed to join. I don’t remember how many people were included in that first FCBA directory I saw years ago, but I just got the 2006 edition and it contains over 2,700 names. (And there’s also a huge directory of all the companies and organizations that cover these issues–including my own–included in the book).

Now don’t get me wrong; the FCBA is not some sinister group with nefarious intentions. Indeed, quite the opposite is the case. As I flip through the pages of the annual FCBA directory, I see the names of countless friends and even current and former work colleagues. I go to the annual FCBA dinner each year and hang out with these folks on a regular basis (even in my free time). They’re all good people. They have noble intentions. But the problem is that they all have different interests and the combination of those interests typically leads to the expansion of government control over the communications and media sectors.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 20 comments

Net Neutrality = A Financial Services Industry Free-Ride?

by on May 3, 2006

When it comes to the issue of Net neutrality–or what my PFF colleagues more appropriately call “Net neutering“–it seems like a lot of people are forgetting the old lesson that there is no such thing as a free lunch in this world. The latest example of this is summarized in this Reuter’s article discussing the possibility of the financial sector potentially gearing up to jump into the “Capitol Hill fight over the future of the Internet [to] stop an effort it says could add billions in costs just to maintain current offerings.”

The article mentions that Washington lawyer Philip Corwin, a partner at the law firm Butera & Andrews, has been circulating a memo to financial services industry officials warning that “Net neutrality is an issue that (financial services) firms ignore at their peril” because it would supposedly give Internet service providers a green light to impose big new fees on financial companies. Corwin says “all will suffer” and that today’s ISPs will become “gatekeepers” and an “electronic post office.” To counter this supposed parade of horribles, the Corwin memo counsels that the financial services sector should immediately push legislation in the House and Senate committees they regularly deal with that would assure the continuation of flat high-speed Internet pricing for online financial services.

What we’re talking about here, of course, is price controls for the Internet. Corwin’s memo and recent editorial in The American Banker both confirm what I’ve long suspected: that the entire Net neutering debate is really a debate about pricing freedom. And now, the financial services industry–one of the pillars of the American capitalist system–is apparently thinking about taking this freedom away from another corporate sector to advantage itself.

Continue reading →

SHARE:

Some Thoughts on the New Senate Telecom Reform Draft

by on May 1, 2006 · 16 comments

Earlier today the Senate Commerce Committee released its eagerly awaited “staff working draft” aimed at reforming the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It’s tough to know where to begin evaluating this new 135-page monster, which is entitled the “Communications, Consumer’s Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006.” In true “everything-and-the-kitchen-sink” fashion, the measure tries to say a little bit about just about every aspect of modern communications and media law, and a whole heck of lot more about other issues not even found in the ’34 and ’96 Acts.

For example, you’ll experience your first “this-is-not-your-father’s-telecom-bill” moment when you open to page 4 and find that Title I is labeled “War on Terrorism.” There’s also a big subtitle dealing with copyright controversies and the so-called “video and audio flags.” There’s also a beefy section on “Sports Freedom” pertaining to local TV sports agreements. (Thank God our leaders are doing something to guarantee us our inalienable right to sports on TV!)

Again, that’s just SOME of the new stuff the bill takes on. There’s plenty more new rule-making authority found in the measure that would empower the Federal Communications Commission to deal with both new and old policy issues alike.

But instead of nitpicking about the trees here–I’m sure we’ll be doing plenty of that at PFF over the next few weeks–I want to instead step back and look at the forest for a moment. It seems to me that the fundamental problem with efforts like this Senate draft is that our lawmakers often get obsessed with working out the smallest details of complicated communications / broadband / media marketplace developments. When pondering reform, a lot of very smart lawmakers and their staffers get together and wring their hands agonizing over hundreds of “What If?” scenarios about future market developments and then concoct a legislative response to each of them. This is how we end up dozens of pages of new rules on universal service policy (Title II of the bill), video service regulation (Titles III and IV) and digital television transition rules (Title VII) in addition to the new things mentioned above.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 16 comments

EVENT: GMU Spectrum Discussion Featuring Vernon Smith (tomorrow 4:00)

by on May 1, 2006

For those of you in the DC area TOMORROW at 4:00, The George Mason University School of Law’s Information Economy Project is launching its “Big Ideas about Information” series with a discussion on “FCC License Auctions: Lessons from a Tumultuous Twelve Years.” The event will feature a conversation with Vernon Smith, Professor of Economics & Law at George Mason University and 2002 Nobel Laureate in Economics, and David Porter, Professor, Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science at George Mason University. Both men are internationally renowned experts on the structure of auctions.

The event will be held at the George Mason University School of Law (Room 120). The GMU law school is located on 3301 Fairfax Drive in Arlington, Virginia and is right next to the Virginia Square-GMU Metro (Orange Line).

You can find more info and register at: http://www.law.gmu.edu/events/upcoming.php?ID=420

SHARE:

EVENT: PFF’s “Internet Security Summit” (May 10th, 9-5)

by on May 1, 2006

For those of you who will be in the DC area on Wed., May 10, Progress & Freedom Foundation is hosting a big “Internet Security Summit” at the Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill from 9:00 – 5:00. The event includes an impressive array of policy experts, corporate representatives and public officials, including keynoter Deborah Majoras, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission.

You can find the complete agenda and register online at: http://www.pff.org/events/upcomingevents/051006internetsecurity.asp

SHARE:

Cellular Content Controls

by on April 27, 2006

There’s an interesting story on B1 of today’s Wall Street Journal about cellular companies establishing very restrictive standards for wireless media content transmitted over their devices. I have yet to see the final guidelines that the Journal gained access to, but it sounds like Verizon, Cingular, Sprint and others will be imposing some very stringent controls in an attempt to curtail nudity and sexual content, foul language, violent programming and even hate speech.

As I pointed out in my recent PFF study, “Parents Have Many Tools to Combat Objectionable Media Content,” this is just another example of the sort of steps that media providers and distributors are taking to help parents and consumers restrict or curtail objectionable content before they call upon government to do that job for them. Of course, one could argue that the only reason they are taking such steps is to avoid potential government scrutiny in the future. (Then again, the FCC does not currently possess the legal authority to regulate “indecent” or “violent” content on cellular / mobile networks or devices.) Regardless, I think it’s great that companies are establishing some voluntary guidelines and controls.

One thing that is still a bit unclear to me, however, is exactly how cellular carriers plan to police all the media content that will increasingly be flowing over their networks. The Journal article says that carriers are currently relying mostly on ad-hoc phone calls or e-mails to specific media providers to remove or edit certain types of potentially objectionable content. But even if the cellular carriers allocate more resources to such ad-hoc enforcement efforts, it certainly won’t be fool-proof. It will be easier to police content provided by large players (such as MTV or Playboy, for example), but what about all the organic, bottom-up, user-generated content?

This is the problem News Corp. has been facing in recent months with MySpace.com. Millions of average people (mostly teenagers) are posting countless bits of personal material on their sites. Some of it can get a little raunchy or offensive. That’s created a significant challenge for MySpace, but they are trying to do their best to keep up with it.

Cellular carriers will face that same challenge in coming years as more and more media goes mobile. It will be interesting to see how they deal with it and what the response of the legislative / regulatory community will be to these self-regulatory efforts. Stay tuned; another major First Amendment battle could be developing over that tiny TV screen in your pocket !

SHARE:

Do You Really “Save the Internet” By Regulating It?

by on April 25, 2006 · 4 comments

A new pro-Net neutrality coalition has formed called the “Save the Internet Coalition.”

Hey, who can be against that? Well, I can.

You see, this coalition’s idea of “saving the Internet” is premised on regulators doing the saving. The coalition proclaims that “Congress must include meaningful and enforceable network neutrality requirements” in whatever communications reform legislation it passes this session “to ensure that the Internet remains open to innovation and progress.”

Oh, I get it… Let’s call in our benevolent-minded regulators to oversee the daily workings of something as complicated as Internet network management. Brilliant !!

Haven’t we learned anything from seven decades of communications regulation? Empowering bureaucrats to micro-manage the operation of broadband networks and Internet activities isn’t going to lead to communications nirvana; it’s going to lead to just another regulatory hell. Supporters of Net neutrality mandates are essentially saying we need more government regulation in order to be free. It’s the beginning of another sad chapter in the “burn the village in order to save it” story of modern communications regulation.

And in what I regard as an absolutely despicable contortion of the true meaning of the First Amendment, the Coalition’s “statement of principles” on its website states that: “Network neutrality is the Internet’s First Amendment. Without it, the Internet is at risk of losing the openness and accessibility that has revolutionized democratic participation, economic innovation and free speech.”

Please! How dare you employ the First Amendment in defense of your Big Government plan for Internet control. In case the members of the “Strangle the Internet”… er, uh… “Save the Internet Coalition” have forgotten, the First Amendment could not be any more clear about the role it envisions for government when it says: “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW…”!

We used to talk about “Hands Off the Internet.” But groups like this are leading us down the path to “Hands ALL OVER the Internet.” To use the First Amendment in service of this regulatory agenda is outrageous.

If the folks in this coalition want to take a stand in favor of the REAL First Amendment, perhaps they can come join me in my daily fight against the FCC on the speech control front. Those same benevolent bureaucrats that the “Save the Internet” coalition wants to empower to regulate Net have been very busy lately regulating speech in the broadcast sector.

You might say there’s no connection between these two issues. Nonsense. We gave the regulators an inch on the broadcast front and they took a mile. Once we empowered them to regulate broadcast infrastructure, the regulation of the speech delivered via broadcast platforms followed. It’s an example of what Vanderbilt law professor Christopher Yoo has labeled “architectural censorship.” Simply stated, if government can regulate the soapbox, it can regulate the speech delivered from that soapbox as well. Do you really think things will be different once we invite the bureaucrats in to regulate the Internet?

I say if we’re going to “save the Internet,” let’s start by saving it from silly ideas like Net neutrality regulation.

SHARE: 4 comments

A Paranoid Parent Ponders GPS Tracking His Kids

by on April 19, 2006 · 12 comments

Well it didn’t take long for a young, rebellious punk to turn into a paranoid, condescending parent. I’m already talking to my kids in ways that used to make me resent my own parents. And I’m already beginning to think about how to watch over their every move like a hawk to make sure that they stay out of trouble.

The difference between raising a kid today versus the past, however, is that technology–much to the dismay of independent-minded children–makes this task even easier for parents. In my recent paper discussing how”Parents Have Many Tools to Combat Objectionable Media Content,” I mentioned how new cell phones targeted to kids come embedded not only with a variety of parental controls, but also GPS / geo-location technology. This enables parents to monitor the movements of their children wherever they may go.

Even though my kids are still too young to have their own cell phones, I’ve already begun thinking about how I might use such tracking technologies in the future. Even though both of my kids are under five years of age, I sometimes sit around thinking about what they are doing or exactly where they are at. This is despite the fact that I know exactly where my kids are: My daughter is always at her pre-school and my son is always at home with our nanny. Yet, I’m still paranoid, and sometimes find myself wondering if they are exactly where they should be. Could they have wondered off? Are the teachers or my nanny taking the kids places I don’t know about? Has someone snatched them?!?

I know this is all quite pathetic in one sense, but that’s the sort of paranoid thinking that sometimes goes on in the heads of parents. And in my most paranoid moments, I sometimes think how cool it would be if I could just convert the wi-fi radar on my laptop (which searches for nearby hotspots and maps them on a big radar screen on my computer) into a kid-tracker instead. It could track their cell phones, or their GPS-enable watches or lunchboxes. Or perhaps even the RFID chip I could plant under their skin!

Again, this is the sort of stuff that what have driven me into to hyper-rebellion as a kid, especially as a teenager. The thought of my parents tracking my every move would have driven me nuts, and I my computer-nerd brother and I probably would have worked hard to defeat or trick any geo-location technologies that our parents might have tired to use with us. (My brother would have probably reprogrammed them to trace our cats instead of us.)

Is there a happy balance here? I think so.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 12 comments

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →