I’m VERY impressed with my Droid, particularly its browser capabilities. I can even run the backend of WordPress inside the browser (“Look, Ma, no app!”) to blog! (The WPtoGo app helps, as there are a few things that don’t work quite perfectly inside the browser.)
My Droid is a pretty darn good substitute for a desktop PC. In fact, since my desktop’s motherboard died the other day, the Droid is all I have at home right now–and it satisfies most of my computing needs, at least for home use. So… that means every wireless carrier with a strong android/iphone-class device is a substitute, meaningfully, but of course not perfectly, for traditional ISP options like DSL, cable, fiber, etc. So why don’t 3G networks get counted at all when assessing whether broadband markets are so uncompetitive that only net neutrality regulations can save us from corporate abuse?
Oh, and did I mention that, if my thumbs get tired, I will soon be able to tether my Droid to bring Verizon’s data network to my PC?
by Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer
The latest call for “search neutrality” and “cloud neutrality” comes from Andrew Odlyzko of the University of Minnesota’s School of Mathematics & Digital Technology Center—and probably among the top ten most influential academics in Internet policy. In his latest Review of Network Economics article “Network Neutrality, Search Neutrality, and the Never-ending Conflict between Efficiency and Fairness in Markets,” Odlyzko shows (discussed by Ars) just how slippery the slippery slope of Net neutrality regulation will be—exactly as we predict in our recent paper “Net Neutrality, Slippery Slopes & High-Tech Mutually Assured Destruction.” Odlyzko concludes:
for pervasive infrastructure services that are crucial for the functioning of society, rules about allowable degrees of discrimination have traditionally applied, and are likely to be demanded for the Internet in the future. Those rules have often been set by governments, and are likely to be set by them in the future as well. For telecommunications, given current trends in demand and in rate and sources of innovation, it appears to be better for society not to tilt towards the operators, and instead to stimulate innovation on the network by others by enforcing net neutrality. But this would likely open the way for other players, such as Google, that emerge from that open and competitive arena as big winners, to become choke points. So it would be wise to prepare to monitor what happens, and be ready to intervene by imposing neutrality rules on them when necessary.
Odlyzko identifies search and cloud computing as the next most likely targets of “neutralization” and explains how calls for regulating these virtual “networks” would flow logically from the current arguments for neutrality mandates at the infrastructure layer:
The net neutrality debate is often pictured as a contest between the two most prominent corporate champions of the opposing sides, AT&T and Google. But the underlying issue predates both companies by centuries. It was never resolved completely, since it arises from a conflict between society’s drives for economic efficiency and for fairness. There is no reason to expect that this conflict will lessen, and instead there are arguments that suggest it will intensify. Should something like net neutrality prevail, the conflict would likely move to a different level. That level might become search neutrality. (And allegations about discriminatory behavior of a web search provider have surfaced recently in China, Tschang (2009).) Or, to take another currently popular concept, if “cloud computing” does become as significant as its enthusiasts claims, it could lead to dominance of a single service provider. The effective monopoly of that dominant player could then become perceived as far more insidious than any of the “walled gardens” or “intelligent network” that telcos would like to build.
There is, of course, an entirely different approach to the issue that does not involve the sort of across-the-board cyber-meddling that Odlyzko suggests: Freedom for all players at all layers of the Net to invest and innovate in the “networks” or “platforms” that offer content, connectivity and services. Continue reading →
Mercury News Columnist Chris O’Brien warns Beware the hype around mergers! O’Brien catalogs the many failed that ultimately ended in divestitures in the tech sector in recent years citing data provided by PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Bryan McLaughlin, who estimated tha:
in the third quarter, which ended in September, about 40 percent of the acquisition deals involved some kind of divestiture, up from 25 percent for the same period one year ago. That is, companies weren’t buying smaller, stand-alone outfits; they were buying essentially the castoffs of other companies.
And a recent survey by Pricewaterhouse found that 69 percent of the 215 companies polled expected divestiture activity to either stay the same or increase over the next year.
Many of these divestitures are the fruit of ill-considered acquisitions made over the past few years. This failure rate should come as a surprise to no one in the board room or executive cubicle. A few years ago, McKinsey & Co. published a study indicating that 70 percent of mergers failed to generate the expected returns. Hope, however, seems to spring eternal in boardrooms as companies keep making deals.
Let’s try to keep these failure rates in mind as we see increased antitrust fervor about blocking or otherwise restricting or simply bogging down mergers. The truth is that most mergers don’t work out in the end. But that’s an argument against aggressive antitrust enforcement scratch that intervention, rather than for it, because some mergers do create great value for consumers through greater efficiencies and government bureaucrats are unlikely to be able to guess which are which. If they could, they’d be making a fortune in the private sector advising companies how to avoid boneheaded deals! This problem is particularly acute in the tech sector, where today’s leaders tend to become tomorrow’s laggards because of the inevitability of disruptive innovation, which big companies manage poorly.
Google has just announced its 2010 Fellowships, open to students 18+ (as of January 1st, 2010) eligible to work U.S. Among the participating organizations are three think tanks home to TLFers: The Progress & Freedom Foundation (Adam & I), the Competitive Enterprise Institute (Ryan Radia) and Cato (Jim Harper). Applications are due December 28th, 2009, so apply today to help us in the fight for real Internet freedom!
Adam Thierer and I will be participating in two separate panels at the FTC’s December 7 “Exploring Privacy” workshop discussing, respectively, surveys & expectations and online behavioral advertising. Below is the cover letter I filed as part of my comments (PDF & Scribd), along with four past PFF publications and a working paper on the benefits of online advertising.
Privacy Trade-Offs: How Further Regulation Could Diminish Consumer Choice, Raise Prices, Quash Digital Innovation & Curtail Free Speech
In general, we at PFF have argued that any discussion about regulating the collection, sharing, and use of consumer information online must begin by recognizing the following:
- Privacy is “the subjective condition that people experience when they have power to control information about themselves and when they exercise that power consistent with their interests and values.”[1]
- As such, privacy is not a monolith but varies from user to user, from application to application and situation to situation.
- There is no free lunch: We cannot escape the trade-off between locking down information and the many benefits for consumers of the free flow of information.
- In particular, tailored advertising offers significant benefits to users, including potentially enormous increases in funding for the publishers of ad-supported content and services, improved information about products in general, and lower prices and increased innovation throughout the economy.
- Tailored advertising increases the effectiveness of speech of all kinds, whether the advertiser is “selling” products, services, ideas, political candidates or communities.
With these considerations in mind, policymakers must ask four critical questions:
- What exactly is the “harm” or market failure that requires government intervention?
- Are there “less restrictive” alternatives to regulation?
- Will regulation’s costs outweigh its supposed benefits?
- What is the appropriate legal standard for deciding whether further government intervention is required? Continue reading →
One might have thought European Commission antitrust regulators had their hands full with harassing Microsoft about the “Browser Ballot” (our comments) and fining Intel, but apparently they’re already looking for new targets so they can “stay busy”: Sun disclosed on Monday that the EC had objected to the “combination of Sun’s open source MySQL database product with Oracle’s enterprise database products and its potential negative effects on competition in the market for database products.”
It’s difficult to see how Oracle’s takeover of Sun would reduce competition in the intensely competitive database market. Since Sun’s MySQL software is open source and uses the strongly “copyleft” GNU General Public License (GPL) v2, Oracle will have little control over its future evolution. If Oracle decided to stop updating MySQL tomorrow, anyone in the MySQL development community could simply “fork” the project. Oracle knows this. (Do the European regulators?) If anything, Oracle’s proposed acquisition of Sun indicates that they are embracing the business model of commercial open source. In Sun’s case, that has meant striving to lead the best collaborative project possible and making money on providing the best product support.
European antitrust regulators should be celebrating this deal, rather than obstructing it.
buck buck buck
Flock Fox Dr. Fox buck
Lucky lucky buck buck buck buck Flock!
Lucky you! thought you!
thought this stupid program!
talking a!
mother Fokker!
should ship ship ships shipped!
In case you were wondering, that’s me trying to swear using Nuance Communications’s Dragon NaturallySpeaking, the leading voice recognition software. It’s bad enough that I can use my left wrist to type anymore because of cartilage damage without pain, and won’t be able to at all for the next few months after my wrist surgery next week. But does Nuance really have to try to clean up my potty mouth?
Now, many users would at this point cry “CENSORSHIP!” They might even suggest that the government should do something about this “violation of my First Amendment rights!” But this is a great example of the difference between what governments often do—block or restrict speech, however indirectly, through the coercive power of the state, ultimately backed by force of arms (real censorship!)—and what private companies sometimes do: hinder my ability to send or receive information that want to sanction. Simply put, government has the power to put me in jail for saying George Carlin’s Seven Dirty Words,while companies like Nuance just make it (somewhat) harder for me to “express myself” using the wealth of my oh-so-extensive vocabulary. Continue reading →
IDG News reports that the European Parliament has negotiated a telecom bill that “now contains a new Internet freedom provision that states that access to the Internet is a human right of every E.U. citizen, and that if authorities take away that right people must have the opportunity to defend themselves.” If indeed the bill merely creates what Americans would recognize as a “due process” right against government action, that may not be such a bad thing. IDG notes that, “The issue is very sensitive, and not just in Europe, where a number of countries including France and U.K. are passing laws threatening to sever users’ Internet connections if they are found to have breached the copyright on music or movies.” Whatever one thinks of such “three strikes” laws as a remedy for copyright infringement, it seems reasonable that users should indeed have the right to “defend themselves” if accused of copyright violations before their Internet access is turned off.
But we should all be uncomfortable anytime government purports to invent a new “fundamental right” if that right is a “positive” one—i.e., a moral entitlement to a particular product or service that must be guaranteed by other taxpayers paying for something someone can’t afford or simply doesn’t value enough to pay for out of their own pocket. That’s precisely what Finland recently did, guaranteeing Finns the “right” to a 1 megabit broadband connection. That sort of entitlement is pure cyber-collectivism. Cyber-libertarianism recognize instead that:
true “Internet freedom” is freedom from state action; not freedom for the State to reorder our affairs to supposedly make certain people or groups better off or to improve some amorphous “public interest”—an all-to convenient facade behind which unaccountable elites can impose their will on the rest of us.
So if the Europeans want to guarantee a due process right, I hope they would find another term for that concept doesn’t have such cyber-collectivist implications.
Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot Privacy Dashboard, so hot,
I know of no reason
Why the Gunpowder Treason Privacy Dashboard
Should ever be forgot.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist, this being Guy Fawkes day (a major traditional holiday for Britons and, more recently, geeky American libertarians such as myself, who dress up as V for Vendetta for Halloween). Google’s announcement of its Privacy Dashboard (TechCrunch) is a major step forward in both informing users about what data Google has tied to their account in each of Google’s many products and in empowering users to easily manage their privacy settings for each product. If users decide they’d rather “take their ball and go home,” they can do that, too, by simply deleting their data.
Users can access the dashboard at www.google.com/dashboard (duh). Or, from the Google homepage, you just have to:
- Click on Settings at the top right > Google Account Settings
- Click on “View data stored with this account” next to “Dashboard”
Once you log-in (for extra security), you can:
- See what data is associated with your account in 23 of Google’s products (Google notes that it will incorporate its 18 other products in the near future).
- Directly access the privacy management settings for that account.
- Access more information—”Links to relevant help articles and information pages.”
Some critics have complained in the past that it’s too hard to find privacy settings links on Google and other sites. Indeed, Google could have made it easier—and now they have! Google has taken another major step forward in user education and empowerment—just as it pioneered transparency into its interest-based advertising product with the Ad Preference Manager launched in March (which I applauded here). (The Dashboard is only for data tied to a user’s Google account, while the APM is tied only to a cookie on the user’s computer.)
The Dashboard really couldn’t be much easier to use—yet we can be sure it won’t be good enough for some privacy zealots who arrogantly presume that their fellow homo sapiens are basically vegetables with hair—unable to use any tool online, no matter how simple, and barely able to tie their own shoelaces without government reminding them how. The principled alternative is to “Trust People & Empower Them.” Because privacy is so profoundly subjective and because there is an inherent trade-off between clamping down on data and the many benefits enjoyed by Internet users from sharing their data, Adam Thierer and I have argued for that “household standards” set by individuals should trump “community standards” imposed on everyone from above: Continue reading →
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
So declared the Party in George Orwell’s classic novel 1984. The corruption of language with a constant theme of Orwell’s work, most notably his 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language.” So Orwell would not have been surprised to see the term “Internet Freedom” captured by those who advocate an increased role for government (i.e., Big Brother) online. Nor would Orwell had been surprised to see these advocates claim Orwell for themselves, insisting that opponents of government regulation are the ones corrupting language. There is perhaps no better example of this than MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow’s comments in an interview with Boing Boing’s Xeni Jardin about the divisive issue of “Net Neutrality” regulations:
Rachel Maddow [dripping with sarcasm]: Sen. McCain’s bill, as you mentioned, is actually called the “Internet Freedom Act of 2009,” and he’s deriding the government effort to keep telecoms from walling off the Internet as “government intrusion” and “trying to regulate the Internet.” What that means is that he’s picked better branding, he’s picked better names. It doesn’t really relate the facts of what he’s doing. I’m wondering if it’s too late for a rebranding of the other side here. We need to get better about talking about this, because the language seems sort of corrupt at this point.
What makes Maddow’s comments so stunning is not her view that corporate America, rather than government, is the real enemy of freedom. That view is simply part of the long-regnant political orthodoxy. No, what’s stunning is that she actually thinks that her side is losing the “war of words” just because Sen. McCain had the gall to use the term “Internet Freedom” as a rallying-cry for the outdated, bourgeois notion that “freedom” means the absence of coercion by the one entity that can enforce its commands at the point of a gun and call it “justice”: that coldest of all cold monsters, the State. That’s precisely what “liberalism” used to be about until people like Rachel appropriated that word and words like “liberty” and “freedom” as slogans for control. Xeni Jardin picks up where Rachel left off by appropriating the concept of rights, too:
Xeni Jardin: the Internet really is a basic right, it’s a necessity,such a fundamental way for communicating and accessing information now. Telecoms shouldn’t be able to throttle, to block, to slow down our access to something that might not be in their corporate interests.
This is pure, unadulterated cyber-socialism: Rights become not the sacred defense of the individual, but a positive assertion of entitlement to a vaguely defined principle of access: by guaranteeing this access through ever-expanding “neutrality regulation”, government gains unlimited control over the Internet itself.
As Adam Thierer and I have warned, that way lies madness: Inviting the government to regulate online content and services in the name of “neutrality” (or “privacy” or any of the many “glittering generalities” ending in “-y” Orwell would have denounced) would be the death of real Internet Freedom, which requires a strict “Separation of Web and State.” 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.