Savvy TLF Readers probably realize that the TLF was preceded by the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. I suspect neither group has much of a sense of humor (although I’m glad to see from their Wikipedia pages that neither organization appears to have actually killed anyone, despite their use of terrorist tactics).
A TLF reader just called my attention to another group that most definitely does have a sense of humor: the Beard Liberation Front. I also discovered the The Hamster Liberation Front through Google. Then there’s the classic People’s Liberation Front of Judea (or is it the Judean People’s Liberation Front?) from Monty Python’s The Life of Brian:
I often ponder what the TLF is all about. Of course, our official mission is “keeping politicians’ hands off the ‘net and everything else related to technology.” You can read more on our “About Us” page. But this quote from Robert Heinlein‘s 1973 classic Time Enough for Love (among my top five favorite novels) really hits the nail on the head for me:
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as “bad luck.”
“Man is the measure of all things,” said Protagoras of Abdera (c. 480-410 B.C.). So it is for me: technology is ultimately a means—indeed, the means—by which the condition of humanity is improved. By “liberating technology”—i.e., defending the freedom to innovate and to profit from bringing innovation to the marketplace—we’re all doing our small part to prevent “right-thinking people” from squelching the creative minority whose toils will sometday take the species to the stars.
I can’t wait to see what the coming decades will bring. In the words of the immortal 1970s rock band, Bachman-Turner Overdrive: You ain’t seen nothing yet!
(The full version of the video—not the embedded player—includes an ad to buy the song, a new YouTube feature. Heinlein would be proud.)
Statue at FTC Headquarters: “Man Controlling Trade” (We’re rooting for the horse!)
Adam Thierer and I have just released a new PFF paper entitled “Targeted Online Advertising: What’s the Harm & Where Are We Heading?” (PDF) about the FTC’s new “Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising.” Adam lampooned some of the attitudes at play in this debate in a great rant yesterday.
But we give the FTC credit for resisting calls to abandon self-regulation, and for its thoughtful consideration of the danger in stifling advertising-the economic engine that has supported a flowering of creative expression and innovation online content and services. That said, we continue to have our doubts about the FTC’s approach, however-well intentioned:
Where is this approach heading? Will a good faith effort to suggest best practices eventually morph into outright government regulation of the online advertising marketplace?
What, concretely, is the harm we’re trying to address? We have asked this question several times before and have yet to see a compelling answer.
What will creeping “co-regulation” mean for the future of “free” Internet services? Is the mother’s milk of the Internet-advertising-about to be choked off by onerous privacy mandates?
We stand at an important crossroads in the debate over the online marketplace and the future of a “free and open” Internet. Many of those who celebrate that goal focus on concepts like “net neutrality” at the distribution layer, but what really keeps the Internet so “free and open” is the economic engine of online advertising at the applications and content layers. If misguided government regulation chokes off the Internet’s growth or evolution, we would be killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.
The dangers of regulation to the health of the Internet are real, but the ease with which government could disrupt the economic motor of the Internet (advertising) is not widely understood-and therein lies the true danger in this debate. The advocates of regulation pay lip service to the importance of advertising in funding online content and services but don’t seem to understand that this quid pro quo is a fragile one: Tipping the balance, even slightly, could have major consequences for continued online creativity and innovation.
The WSJ reports on the intensifying economic pressure on local TV stations: declining viewership, ad revenue and the threat that national networks might go straight to cable.
Many stations are looking to the Internet for salvation:
Stations are scrambling to find new revenue streams. Some are testing out technology that will send their signals to cellphones and mobile devices, and beefing up their Web sites to boost online advertising. Others say rather than shrinking local news coverage, they’re expanding it, since it’s the only original content they still have…. Nexstar Broadcasting Group Inc., a Texas-based company that owns or manages 51 stations around the country, launched highly local “community” Web sites. Stations owned by NBC Universal are piping content and ads to TV screens in supermarkets, taxi cabs and their own Web sites.
“These tough times really force you to look at everything,” says John Wallace, president of NBC Local Media, the cadre of stations owned by NBC. “It remains to be seen how this is going to evolve, but I do believe there will be a market for local television well into the future.”
Google has—as I noted it would last June—finally released (PCWorld, Google’s policy blog) its eagerly-awaited suite of tools available for free (of course) at MeasurementLab.net that allow users to monitor how their ISP might be tweaking (degrading, deprioritizing, etc.) their traffic—among other handy features. Huzzah!
So, now that we have visibility into traffic management practices on a large scale, remind me again why the FCC would need to mandate “net neutrality” requirements? Why not just leave the matter up to the FTC to enforce each ISP’s terms of use under the agency’s existing authority to punish unfair and deceptive trade practices? Won’t the threat of users switching to another broadband provider discipline ISPs’ traffic management? (As long as ISPs have traffic nationwide traffic management policies, even those users in areas lacking meaningful broadband competition will be protected from discriminatory network management practices by pressure in other markets.)
“If you believe that network neutrality government regulation is not needed, if you believe that the market will handle this … then you should also welcome Measurement Labs,” [Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy director Ed] Felten said. “What you are appealing to is a process of public discussion … in which consumers move to the ISP [Internet service provider] that gives them the best performance. It’s a market that’s facilitated by better information.”
Yes, it’s true (as PCWorld article linked to above points out) that a consumer might not be able to discern whether apparent degradation of their traffic was actually caused by the ISP or whether it might be the result of, say, spyware or simple Internet congestion. But they don’t need to figure that out for themselves. Although the relatively small percentage of users who install this tool are likely to be highly sophisticated (at least the early adopters), all they need to is “sound the alarm” about what they think might be a serious violation of “net neutrality” principles, and a small cadre of technical experts can do the rest: examining these allegations to determine what ISPs are actually doing.
Sure, there will be false alarms and of course many advocates of “net neutrality” regulation will still insist that ISPs shouldn’t be allowed to practice certain kinds of network management, no matter how transparently the ISPs might disclose their practices. But the truth will emerge, and in the ongoing tug-of-war between public pressure and ISPs’ practical needs to manage their networks smartly, between the desire of some to have practices disclosed very specifically and the ISPs’ desire to maintain operational flexibility, I suspect we’ll find a relatively stable (if constantly-evolving) equilibrium. It won’t be perfect, but do we really think government bureaucrats will do a better job of finding that happy medium?
This ongoing series has focused on the growing substitutability of Internet-delivered video for traditional video distribution channels like cable and satellite. YouTube has recently begun exploring adding traditional television programming to its staggering catalogue of mostly amateur-generated content.
But now YouTube is going one step farther by exploring the possibility of signing Hollywood professionals to produce “straight-to-YouTube” content:
The deal would underscore the ways that distribution models are evolving on the Internet. Already, some actors and other celebrities are creating their own content for the Web, bypassing the often arduous process of developing a program for a television network. The YouTube deal would give William Morris clients an ownership stake in the videos they create for the Web site.
This kind of deal would make Internet video even more of a substitute for traditional subscription channels—thus further eroding the existing rationale for regulating those channels.
But what’s even most interesting about this development is that YouTube’s interest seems to be driven primarily by the possibility of reaping greater advertising revenues on such professional content than on its currently reaps from its vast, but relatively unprofitable, catalogue of user-generated content:
YouTube’s audience is enormous; the measurement firm comScore reported that 100 million viewers in the United States visited the site in October. But, in part because of copyright concerns, the site does not place ads on or next to user-uploaded videos. As a result, it makes money from only a fraction of the videos on the site — the ones that are posted by its partners, including media companies like CBS and Universal Music.
The company has shown interest in becoming a home for premium video in recent months by upgrading its video player and adding full-length episodes of television shows. But some major television networks and other media companies are still hesitant about showing their content on the site. The Warner Music Group’s videos were removed from the site last month in a dispute over pay for its content.
Speaking of transparency… My colleague Barbara Esbin has a great piece on the PFF blog about changes being implemented by Acting Chairman Copps to make the agency less dysfunctional and more open to the public:
the new Acting Chairman has confirmed what FCC insiders, outside practitioners, and the House staff investigating former Chairman Kevin Martin’s management practices have long known: Commission staffers were not permitted to freely communicate either with one another, or with the other Commissioners. The liberation of the staff, together with changes concerning how the Bureaus and Offices work with each other and how the Commission communications with the public, certainly falls under the category of “change we can believe in…”
Acting Chairman Copps has outlined other important changes in how the FCC does business, including establishing a calendar for regular open meetings in advance, and updating the FCC’s website to be more user-friendly, particularly its Digital TV Transition pages. These and other changes and commitments together constitute an extremely promising start for Acting Chairman Copps, and his commitment to transparency and order bode very well for the FCC, its staff, the companies the agency regulates, and the American public.
Great news. Let’s hope the FCC also gets to work soon on updating its painfully antique website, with its proliferation of databases.
I’m delighted to welcome to the TLF my colleague Adam Marcus, Research Fellow & Senior Technologist at The Progress & Freedom Foundation. Adam’s already written a few posts here on the TLF about edge caching and cloud computing—cross-posted over the last few months by Adam Thierer and me. He also appeared on TechPolicy Weekly 38 to discuss “The Google Kerfuffle — Edge Caching & Net Neutrality.”
Adam (a/k/a “Marcus”) brings an exceptional technological sophistication to bear on policy issues. He’s already been a real asset to our work at PFF as a sort of “technical ombudsman,” helping us delve into the nitty-gritty details behind the debates. I hope he’ll play somewhat the same role here on the TLF: keeping us honest and checking our facts.
But he’s not just another geek: With a J.D. from Santa Clara University and an MA in Communications, Culture & Technology from Georgetown University, Adam has lots to say about the legal and policy issues covered by the TLF.
I hope you all enjoy getting to know him—whether through the blog or in person at our semi-regular Alcohol Liberation Fronts—as much as I have.
Sid Rosenzweig, who recently joined PFF to study patent issues, has a very thoughtful piece about Apple’s new patent on the multi-touch interface on the iPhone, which ends as follows:
It is striking how protection for user interfaces has changed over the years. It is not clear that patent protection for user interfaces is a step in the right direction, even for iconic breakthroughs in interfaces such as for the iPhone and iPod Touch. The 300 diagrams in this Apple patent call to mind the 189 graphical user-interface elements of the Apple v. Microsoft copyright infringement case from the early 1990s. The Apple v. Microsoft case prevented Apple from obtaining the protection on the overall look-and-feel of its software, and instead treated as discrete each element of the user interface. This patent, and others like it, purport to cover the combination of several elements — here the web scrolling with the photo-album browsing — and not the discrete elements themselves. With the Apple v. Microsoft case largely having thrown copyright out the window, and with trade dress protection excluding functional elements, patents are really the only option for companies like Apple, until and unless another solution is found.
On this week’s show, we discuss government transparency—a topic a number of us here at the TLF have written about lately. Among other things, we discuss:
Why transparency is important
What data the government should provide and how
Good and bad examples of transparency
President Obama’s promise to have the most accountable administration in history
Obama’s plans to appoint a Chief Technology Officer
John Wonderlich of the Sunlight Foundation, the leading e-Government non-profit whose “non-partisan mission [is to use] the revolutionary power of the Internet to make information about Congress and the federal government more meaningfully accessible to citizens”
You can subscribe to our podcast here or through iTunes here. Or, you can play or download this podcast using the online player below.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology. Learn more about TLF →
Savvy TLF Readers probably realize that the TLF was preceded by the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. I suspect neither group has much of a sense of humor (although I’m glad to see from their Wikipedia pages that neither organization appears to have actually killed anyone, despite their use of terrorist tactics).
I often ponder what the TLF is all about. Of course, our official mission is “keeping politicians’ hands off the ‘net and everything else related to technology.” You can read more on our “
I’m delighted to welcome to the TLF my colleague 
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.