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.
[cross-posted from the PFF Blog]
The House of Representatives’ Energy & Commerce Committee released draft legislation yesterday aimed a cleaning up the nation’s telecom and cable laws. A revision of the Telecom Act of 1996 has been in the works for some time and is very much needed, so most parties welcomed this news.
Here at PFF, of course, we’ve been working hard with a group of respected academics and experts to provide a new framework for communications policy reform. That project is called “DACA,” which stands for Digital Age Communications Act.
One thing we largely left out of DACA effort was any in-depth discussion of video regulation. That is, the extensive “public interest” regulatory regime that currently covers the broadcast sector and to some extent cable and satellite services. There were several reasons we left it out of the DACA project; most importantly, we simply felt that most of these rules could easily be sunset in light of growing competition in the multi-channel video marketplace and the media universe more broadly. Under our DACA framework, any “market power” problems that might develop in the future video / media marketplace would be handled with simple competition policy principles borrowed from antitrust law.
So Much for “Hands Off the Net”
Unfortunately, after looking through the House Commerce Cmmt. draft legislation last night, I realize that not everyone shares our opinion about the growing media market competition alleviating the need for extensive “public interest” regulation of the video marketplace. Specifically, Sec. 304 of the bill (which begins on pg. 41 of the discussion draft) is entitled “Application of Video Regulations to Broadband Service Providers.” Section A which immediately follows is appropriately labeled “Comparable Requirements and Obligations,” and then goes on to not how “each of the following provisions of the 1934 [Communications] Act, and the regulations under each such provision, that apply to a cable operator shall apply to a broadband service provider under this title in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Commission…”
Continue reading →
I would like to draw everyone’s attention to a wonderful new blog on the media industry and media economics. “Rebuilding Media” features the musings of some of the brightest minds in the field of media analysis, including my friend Ben Compaine.
Thanks to a link on the “Rebuilding Media” site, I’ve also stumbled upon the excellent “On Demand Media” blog too. Some very interesting essay on that site on the same issues. Check ’em both out when you have time.
[cross-posted from the PFF Blog]
Well it seems that the eBay acquisition of Skype is the hot high-tech issue du jour on the PFF blog, so let me add just a few thoughts to what Kyle and Ray have already said. Specifically, I want to pick up right where Ray left off when he ended his essay wondering what ramifications this alliance might have for the debate over ‘net neutrality’ regulation.
But first, let me just say that I can immediately think of a few ways that this deal will benefit consumers. In fact, as an avid eBay-er who has moved his last 4 cars on the site, I can give you a perfect real-world application. When I am selling or looking to buy a car on eBay, I often trade quick e-mails with others to get or send info about the vehicle. But I sometimes think it would be a heck of lot easier to just pick up the phone and call the person to get the job done. Few people, however, want to put their cell or home phone on the site. But what if eBay offered a secure way for buyers and sellers to make auction-specific phone calls? Now that would be very, very cool. With Skype, eBay can now make that happen. For example, I’m about to sell a BMW that I bought on eBay four years ago. As part of that auction, I would love to be able to provide an VoIP phone number just for this specific auction that bidders could use to contact me for more detailed information about the vehicle. That way, when I get a call on that Skype phone number, I know it’s about the specific car I have for sale, not anything else. And when that auction ends, that specific phone number could disappear or perhaps I would use it for a future auction.
Anyway, that’s just one potentially interesting way that eBay might be able to use Skype to augment its already wonderful auction services. I’m sure they will find many other innovative ways to use the service.
Continue reading →
Yesterday, economist Daniel English and I filed comments at the FCC in the cable ownership caps proceeding. (MM Docket No. 92-264)
In the filing, Daniel and I argue that because of the array of new distribution platforms and the resulting increase in outlets and competition, cable ownership caps are no longer needed. More broadly, we show how the old regulatory model for analyzing media ownership issues is obsolete in light of rapid market evolution and ongoing technological innovations. Any future market power issues that might creep up in the media sector can be better handled by relying on the nation’s antitrust laws, we argue.
In our new media model, we show how media content is no longer tied to specific distribution platforms and receiving devices because of the transition to digital formats and transmission methods. The combination of ongoing digital convergence and an increase in market innovation and entry makes it nearly impossible for any media company to restrict the flow of programming in the market. Simply stated, cable ownership regulations are specifically geared towards an outdated media environment and no longer apply to today’s video marketplace.
Again, the paper can be found here, and you might also be interested in this earlier filing that we did in the Comcast-Time Warner-Adelphia merger proceeding. Daniel and I also recently penned a short paper entitled “Testing ‘Media Monopoly’ Claims: A Look at What Markets Say” in which we evaluate the market performance of five large media stocks (Time Warner, News Corp., Clear Channel, Comcast, and Viacom) over the past five years and show that they have lost 52 percent of their market value (in terms of market capitalization). Moreover, we chart the performance of the entire Dow Jones U.S. Broadcasting & Entertainment Index and show that it is down almost 45 percent below where it stood in 2000. This is another indication that the media industry is not one big monopoly but instead subject to intensely competitive rivalry and new entry / substitutes.
Finally, I’ll just put in another plug for my recent book on these issues, “Media Myths: Making Sense of the Debate over Media Ownership” as well as an important paper by media economist Bruce Owen that we recently published, “Confusing Success with Access: ‘Correctly’ Measuring Concentration of Ownership and Control in Mass Media and Online Services.”
I never ceased to be amazed at the staying power of “Moore’s Law.” Moore’s Law, of course, states that the number of transistors on a chip doubles roughly every 18 months to two years. This “law” continues to hold and most experts continue to believe it will hold for at least two more decades.
As a result, computers today can be found just about everywhere, even in places we don’t realize. Intel’s website, for example, notes that “A musical birthday card costing a few U.S. dollars today has more computing power than the fastest mainframes of a few decades ago.” That’s right, that silly singing birthday card you bought for your grandma last month probably had more computing power than the machines that sent man to the moon in the 1960s. Crazy, isn’t it?
And don’t forget about “Kryder’s Law,” which argues that Moore’s Law holds for computer storage capacity as well. Indeed, according to a recent report in
Scientific American, the density of information on hard drives has been growing at an even faster rate than semiconductor power. The article notes that:
“Since the introduction of the disk drive in 1956, the density of information it can record has swelled from a paltry 2,000 bits to 100 billion bits (gigabits), all crowded in the small space of a square inch. That represents a 50-million-fold increase. Not even Moore’s silicon chips can boast that kind of progress.”
Again, just amazing, don’t you think? OK, maybe you don’t get as easily turned on as I do by numbers such as these, but let me explain to you what makes this nerdy stuff so darn cool for even the average, non-techie consumer. What is really impressive about Moore’s Law and Kryder’s Law is that these laws have translated into absolutely stunning efficiency gains and price savings for every single American.
Continue reading →
Salon is reporting the FCC Chaiman Kevin Martin has been meeting privately with numerous religious and “pro-family” groups to coordinate to “address racy content on cable and satellite television.” One of those who sat in on these meetings, Rick Schatz, president of the National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families, told Salon that during these meetings “[Martin] said the free rein of cable and satellite and satellite radio is not acceptable,” and that Martin is “committed to seeing something is done during his tenure.”
This comes as no surprise, of course. While things have been quiet for the past few months, most industry watchers agreed that the reason for the delay on this front was that the pro-regulatory forces were quietly planning their attack on cable and satellite. As the
Salon article makes clear, censorship proponents know they have an uphill battle and are tightly coordinating their efforts to radically expand the scope of federal indecency law.
Continue reading →
Televangelist Pat Robertson recently made news with some fairly stupid comments about “taking out” Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.
Many critics rightly condemned Mr. Robertson’s suggestion that the United States should consider assassinating leaders of state with which we do not agree. In this case, it’s particularly outrageous since (a) Chavez has said nothing to threaten America directly, and (b) even if he had, it would not qualify as grounds for assassination. After all, it’s just Venezuela we’re talking about here. I don’t think we need to worry about them sending an armada up to invade us anytime soon.
But as stupid as it was for Rev. Robertson to suggest assassination as a solution to whatever “problem” it is Mr. Chavez poses, I certainly think he has the right to raise the issue and debate it with others. But apparently another Reverend doesn’t agree. Rev. Jesse Jackson says that the Federal Communications Commission should fine Rev. Robertson for his comments. “The FCC must have some standard on the advocacy of violence,” Jackson said.
Continue reading →
Do you want to know what the future of television might look like? Then you need to be reading this amazing new column by Diane Mermigas on Hollywood Reporter.com. Few analysts have their finger on the pulse of the modern media industry like she does.
Mermigas begins her column by noting that “with television’s traditional food chain being shaken to its core by technological innovations, industry players on both sides of the content equation are groping for ways to use technology-driven changes to their advantage. But getting there means sifting through some fairly weighty questions that have no easy answers and rewriting the status quo.”
She notes, however, that even if traditional television operators are willing take a stab at rewriting the status quo, the challenge will be formidable in light of the radically expanding universe of media inputs from which consumers can choose. “With television becoming only one, albeit important, spoke in the multimedia wheel, broadcast and cable players are beginning to see the possibilities for leveraging the value of their content elsewhere. They must.”
Continue reading →
We all know how governments enjoy levying “sin taxes” on alcohol and tobacco, so it shouldn’t be at all surprisingly that someone is now proposing to impose one on online porn viewing. Sen. Blanche Lincoln, (D-Ark.) is apparently going to drop a bill next week that would impose a federal excise tax on transactions with for-profit adult Web sites.
I am not about to pen a defense for those people who spend endless hours looking at dirty pictures online, but I really do believe this bill has got to be the silliest idea to come out of Congress in a long time. Specifically, it once again proves that most members of Congress have absolutely no appreciation for what sort of enforcement difficulties they are up against in terms of regulating the Net and online content.
After all, just because a website is for-profit, it doesn’t mean it will be easy to impose such a tax scheme. The tax evasion possibilities here are endless, especially considering how much activity originates overseas. How will the tax be reported? What kind of enforcement regime will be necessary to even collect a small percentage of these taxes? In a world of anonymous electronic transactions, I just can’t see how enforcement would work. I guess Congress could force credit card companies to somehow become their deputized policemen and make them figure out when people are viewing online porn. Of course, there are some serious privacy issues at stake there and there’s still little chance that even the financial intermediaries will be able to track everybody down. Moreover, why should financial intermediaries be forced to become the henchmen of the State in terms of enforcing morality?
Of course, I’m just focusing on the enforcement problems with this measure. I haven’t said a word about the many ways in which this is likely unconstitutional as well. The courts have struck down just about every other effort to regulate online content, so I have a difficult time believing that they’ll allow this one to stand for very long. Taxes on speech have been found to be every bit as unconstitutional as direct speech controls. So this bill is doomed in my opinion.
(By the way, time for a shameless plug… This issue was the subject of my fourth book, Who Rules the Net? Internet Governance and Jurisdiction. Make sure to check our Robert Corn-Revere’s chapter in this book if you are interested in learning more about this subject: “Caught in the Seamless Web: Does the Internet’s Global Reach Justify Less Freedom of Speech?” Here’s another version of it online.)
One of the most common arguments in favor of government censorship of media–whether it’s TV, radio, movies, or video games–is that parents are simply powerless to stop the onslaught of objectionable content that their children might be able to access. As a parent, there are times when I can sympathize with those who feel this way, but I always point out that this is never a good excuse to call in Uncle Sam to dumb down all media to that which is only fit for a child. Let us as parents make choices for our own families.
Luckily, many new tools and technologies are available to help parents make decisions about what their children see, hear and play. But until today, I had not found a single resource that collected all these self-help tools in one spot. Well, I finally found it! It’s called “Pause-Parent-Play” (PauseParentPlay.org) and it formally launches today with a kick-off event on Capitol Hill in Washington.
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.