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.
Berin Szoka and I will be in Berkeley, CA tomorrow attending the FTC’s 2nd “Exploring Privacy” roundtable event. The event will take place at the University of California-Berkeley School of Law. Here’s the agenda and speaker bios. The event will be webcast for those who cannot make it. But for those of you who going, make sure to come say hi to Berin and me. We were thinking about trying to get a group together afterward to grab a beer somewhere nearby.
Incidentally, Berin and I testified at the FTC’s first Exploring Privacy workshop, which took place on December 7th. You can find webcasts of the panels here, and here are Berin’s comments and my summary of what we had to say that day.
As always, this year’s “State of the Net” conference features a variety of breakout sessions from which to choose and, sadly, until I figure out a way to clone myself, I can’t cover them all. So, I decided to sit in on the panel about “Antitrust in the Internet Era,” since it’s a subject I find of great interest. It featured the following lineup:
- David Balto, Center for American Progress (moderator)
- Brian Bieron, Senior Director of Federal Affairs, eBay
- Joseph Farrell, Director of the Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission
- Roberta Katz, U.S. Department of Justice
- Catherine Sandoval, Santa Clara University School of Law
Here’s a summary of some of the highlights:
Continue reading →
At the “State of the Net” conference this morning, Alan Murray of The Wall Street Journal interviewed Brian Roberts, Chairman & CEO of Comcast. Here are some highlights. [You can follow all of my live Tweeting at: @AdamThierer]
- Stresses synergies from combination of Comcast cable channels & NBC broadcast properties (ex: Golf Channel & NBC Sports)
- Program access rules “should give fair amount of comfort” to critics who fear that content will be withheld
- “Businesses have to transform & reinvent themselves all the time” NBC part of that transformation for Comcast
- Internet is more friend than foe; broadband has transformed the business for the better
- Businesses grappling w/ ways to extend traditional services to consumers in new ways & still make $$$ (ex: TV Everywhere)
I’m attending day 2 of the 2010 “State of the Net” conference today. CDT founder Jerry Berman kicked off the show and, echoing Ithiel de sola Pool, said that the Internet is a “technology of freedom” but that it needs stewardship and protection to thrive. He specifically mentioned how First Amendment protections were vital.
Jerry then introduced Rep. Rick Boucher of the House Commerce Committee and the Co-chair of the Congressional Internet Caucus. Here are some of the highlights: [And you can follow my ongoing live Tweeting from the State of the Net conference @AdamThierer] Continue reading →
Worth It?
OK, time for a quick rant. What is all this confusion and consternation over early termination fees (ETFs) for high-end smartphones? I mean, seriously, how hard is this process to understand? The FCC has worked itself into a lather over this and is bombarding wireless operators and Google with hate mail letters of inquiry harassing asking them about their ETF policies. I just don’t get it. Let’s review some simple realities:
- Smartphones — especially high-end devices like the iPhone, the Droid, and the Nexus One — are basically mobile mini computers.
- Mini mobile computers do not grow on trees; someone has to make them and sell them at a profit or else no one would offer them to begin with.
- But the people who make and sell these devices (and wireless service for these devices) want to ensure rapid, widespread distribution to win over customers and recoup their costs.
- So, they offer a classic business inducement — an upfront subsidy for the product in exchange for monthly payments to amortize the upfront “loan” they have given the customer;
- AND THEN THEY FORM A CONTRACT WITH THE BUYER TO MAKE THE DEAL WORK. And that contract obligates both sides to live up to their end of the deal.
- Hey… did I mention they need to form a contract to make the deal worth it? OK, good, wanted to make sure I got that point across.
- Then they give you a nice shiny new mobile mini-computer that for some reason we Americans still insist on calling a cell phone.
- Then you start paying off the “loan” they’ve given you for that device over the span of the service contract. This is called “prorating.”
- But, if you default on that loan by breaking your contract, you’ll be hit with a penalty — an early termination fee — since it would leave the carrier without a way to recoup the cost of that shiny new mobile mini-computer that they handed you on the cheap when you just absolutely had to have the hot new toy in town.
Is this process really all that complicated? And why is it so controversial? It certainly shouldn’t be. Prorating happens every day in countless ways in a capitalist economy. And yet in the apparent techno-entitlement society we live in these days, some people seem to think there’s something scandalous about this process when it happens with our beloved mobile devices. In reality, the smartphone subsidy and prorated contract system is really one of the great pro-consumer accomplishments of our time. Continue reading →
Panel #2 at this year’s “State of the Net” pre-conference featured a lively debate about net neutrality and investment. It included a debate between Hal Singer of Empiris LLC and Michael Livermore of the New York University Law School. It also featured the comments of Markham Erickson of the Open Internet Coalition and Christopher Yoo of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. The panel was ably moderated by Susan Crawford. Here are some highlights of what proved to be a fun and feisty debate, which began with the comments of Hal Singer:
Hal Singer, Empiris LLC
- FCC wants to constrain pricing flexibility for networks
- Not clear we need price regulation for service delivery in absence of clear market power
- FCC offers novel “collective action” theory to justify regulation, but doesn’t make sense and doesn’t apply here
- Investment at edge of network will not decline in absence of Net neutrality regulation
- Outlawing priority delivery would discourage investment in new networks AND applications
- “Net neutrality would harm the very folks it seeks to protect”; end users will see price hikes
- Investment at core is crucial
Continue reading →
FCC Commissioners Michael Copps and Meredith Attwell Baker kicked off the 2010 Congressional Internet Caucus “State of the Net” conference this afternoon with two brief keynote addresses. Below I’ve summarized the highlights here from my live Tweeting at the event (@AdamThierer):
Commissioner Copps
• “every great challenge this country faces… has a broadband component at its core if it’s going to be successfully dealt with”
• Broadband is the great enabler; Private sector will lead, but national objectives and visionary public policy also have to be at core
• “sins of recent public policy past” got in way of us doing things that needed to get done
• Worries about wider new “divides between us”; have opportunity to close them
• Praises Hillary Clinton’s Internet freedom speech from last week
• Hard to conceptualize the changes that next 5-10 years hold in light of the developments of past 5-10
• Worried about open Internet; “unreasonable discrimination”… doesn’t want to allow “too much latitude” to private operators… says it is threat to “openness” (he never really defines the term, however)
• Passionate views on both sides of Net neutrality debate
• Need big pipes and more spectrum to grow capacity (I certainly agree on that one! But Net neutrality isn’t going to help us much in that regard)
• He fears consolidation
• Says minority and women voices are not getting heard online (he says we should measure it by audience measurements & ad $$ but doesn’t bothering mentioning how much wider the gap was in the old mass media era when none of those voices could get heard at all)
• How do we assure what we’re doing “actually works for democracy” and the “public interest” (but never defines what that means)
• Says media is failing us today; victims are public; investigative journalism is dying (but never discusses how current FCC regulation affects the equation)
• cites Founders (Jefferson, Madison) re importance of media … and then favorably cites McChesney & Nichols new book (ugh, someone needs to tell Commissioner Copps that McChesney is a neo-Marxist who wants to destroy all private media providers!)
Continue reading →
Lots of good things in The Washington Post today following up on U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s historic address last week about the importance of global Internet freedom. First, The Post has published a powerful supporting statement from Sweden’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Carl Bildt, entitled, “Tear Down These Virtual Walls.” Bildt notes that:
Two decades ago a wall made of concrete, built to divide the free and unfree, was torn down. Today it is the freedom of cyberspace that is under threat from regimes as keen as dictatorships past to control and limit the possibilities of their citizens. They are trying to build firewalls against freedom. At the end of the day, I am convinced they are fighting a losing battle — that cyber walls are as certain to fall as the walls of concrete once did.
He then goes on to argue that, following Secretary Clinton’s address last week, “We should now forge a new transatlantic partnership for protecting and promoting the freedoms of cyberspace. Together, we should call for all these walls to be torn down.” He continues:
Much like the way the rule of the law is critical to protecting the freedoms we enjoy as citizens in our societies, and international law protects the peace between our nations, we must seek to shape the rules that will protect the rights and the freedom of cyberspace.
Importantly,
The Washington Post itself also editorialized today about “The Internet War.” Continue reading →
Most of you have probably already seen this but Pingdom recently aggregated and posted some amazing stats about “Internet 2009 In Numbers.” Worth checking them all out, but here are some highlights:
- 1.73 billion Internet users worldwide as of Sept 2009; 18% increase in Internet users since previous year.
- 81.8 million .COM domain names at the end of 2009; 12.3 million .NET & 7.8 million .ORG
- 234 million websites as of Dec 2009; 47 million were added in 2009.
- 90 trillion emails sent on the Internet in 2009; 1.4 billion email users worldwide.
- 26 million blogs on the Internet.
- 27.3 million tweets on Twitter per day as of Nov 2009.
- 350 million people on Facebook; 50% of them log in every day; + 500,000 active Facebook applications.
- 4 billion photos hosted by Flickr as of Oct 2009; 2.5 billion photos uploaded each month to Facebook.
- 1 billion videos served by YouTube each day; 12.2 billion videos viewed per month; 924 million videos viewed per month on Hulu in the US as of Nov 2009; + the average Internet user in the US watches 182 online videos each month.
And yet some people claim that digital generativity and online innovation are dead! Things have never been better.
Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC essentially stands for the proposition that free speech is free speech regardless of the speaker. The 5-4 majority for the Court ruled that “We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead us to this conclusion.” (at 25) Echoing its early decision in Bellotti, the Court noted that “Political speech is ‘indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual.’” (at 33) “All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech. The First Amendment protects the resulting speech, even if it was enabled by economic transactions with persons or entities who disagree with the speaker’s ideas.” (at 35) “There is simply no support for the view that the First Amendment, as originally understood, would permit the suppression of political speech by media corporations.” (at 37)
Somehow this has proven controversial, even radical, to some. But, as George Will correctly notes, “This was radical only because after nearly four decades of such ‘reform’ the First Amendment has come to seem radical. Which, indeed, it is. The Supreme Court on Thursday restored First Amendment protection to the core speech that it was designed to protect — political speech.” Essentially, the decision gets Congress out of the game of picking who, or what platform, deserves full First Amendment protection when it comes to uttering political speech. And there’s nothing radical about that.
Indeed, as Justice Kennedy noted for the majority, there is nothing surprising about this reasoning once you realize that almost every other type legislative or regulatory speech restriction has been struck down as a violation of the First Amendment. “The law before us is an outright ban [on political speech], backed by criminal sanctions,” Kennedy noted (at 20). “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” (at 33) Think about this for a second: Criminal sanctions or jail time for political speech! How in the world did we get to the point in this nation where criminalizing political speech became acceptable to our legislators? Ignoring the obvious answer—it’s all about protecting incumbents—what is really “radical” here is not that the Supreme Court setting us back on the right path, but that our legislative branch has veered so far off of it.
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.