Articles by Cord Blomquist

Cord Blomquist spends most of his time pining for the singularity. To pass the time while waiting for this convergence, he serves as the New Media Manager at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Before landing this sweet gig, Cord hocked policy writing for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, toiled in the halls of Congress, and even worked in a crouton factory. In college, Cord spent his hours studying political philosophy and artificial intelligence, resulting in an unhealthy obsession with Lt. Commander Data. All of these activities will, of course, be viewed as laughable when he is ported from this crude meatspace into the nanobot cloud.


Who’s Best at Lobbying 2.0?

by on May 16, 2008 · 8 comments

I’m looking for examples of effective tech lobbyists. We’ve seen a lot of people moving from the Valley to the Hill lately. Microsoft has gone from “Jack and His Jeep ” to a giant lobbying shop. Google learned from Microsoft’s mistakes and now has a couple floors down on New York Ave. These guys are making an impact in Washington, but what are the best Baptist and Bootleggers scenarios?

Bruce Yandle was the first to put this name to the common two-man play in Washington. It involves a moral authority and an underwriter with deep pockets to fund a lobbying effort. He used Baptists and bootleggers as the most clear example of this. Baptists called for temperance and prohibition because they genuinely believed that alcohol was a great evil. This provided moral authority. The bootleggers didn’t care much about morals, but they knew they’d get rich if legitimate breweries and distilleries were made illegal.

The same thing seems to be going on now. “Lobbying 2.0” features moral crusaders fighting for net neutrality, the unlocking of cell phones, the unbundling of any service that dare be bundled and other such tech-morality causes. Meanwhile, the real beneficiaries of any regulation to come out of this are big tech companies trying to gain an advantage on one another through regulation rather than through competition and innovation.

So, by “best” stories I mean classic examples of businesses lobbying in favor of regulation as opposed to defending themselves against regulation. Who’s most guilty of being a bootlegger? What individual crusader or group is playing the role of the Baptists?

Your comments are appreciated. Also, be sure to check out this Onion discussion on lobbyists.

SHARE: 8 comments

Do Not Track Registry Likely to Include Exemptions

by on April 25, 2008 · 12 comments

Last week a scad of stories from Reuters to News.com covered the growing push for a “Do Not Track” registry similar to the “Do Not Call” list that serves to protect US households from mid-dinner sales calls. While I understand the concerns expressed by folks like Marc Rotenberg of EPIC and Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy, who were both cited by Anne Broache in the News.com piece from last week, I think that asking the government to hold a master list of IPs and consumer names is a bad idea, or at least one that won’t do much to really protect consumers.

First, tracking people online is a bit different from calling folks in their homes. Telemarketing, while highly effective in terms of sales produced per dollar of marketing money spent, is still orders of magnitude more expensive than spamming or collecting data online without consent. Both of these activities are illegal today, but they still occur. They occur so much that spam-filtering technology contains some of the most advanced natural language recognition and parsing software created. Cory Doctorow has mused that the first artificial intelligences will emerge from Spam and anti-Spam computer arrays.

So this list wouldn’t be the magic wish that privacy advocates and legislators might dream it to be. It would cause law-abiding companies like Google, AOL, and Microsoft to stop collecting data, but so could privately developed and enforced systems.

Anne Broache notes that cookies are a bad solution for stopping data tracking as many anti-spy-ware programs delete cookies, since cookies are often used for the purpose of data tracking. But why not just create a new variety of cookie? Call it a cake, a brownie, a cupcake–maybe even a muffin. Whatever you call it, just specify that a standards-compliant browser must contain a place for something similar to a cookie to be placed that will opt consumers out of tracking schemes. This isn’t a technological problem at all, it’s just a matter of industry deciding to follow this course.

My other concern is something that fellow TLFer and former CEI staffer James Gattuso pointed out in a 2003 piece in regard to the “Do Not Call” list, namely that the government will likely exempt itself from the rules. In our post-9/11 world (whatever that means) we should expect government–the supposed protector of our rights–to make these sorts of moves. But you don’t have to trust my assertion, look no farther than Declan McCullagh’s Wednesday post at New.com. The FBI is pushing hard for Internet companies to retain data so that they can later sift through it. It’s doubtful that the government will place itself on “Do Not Track” list if they believe they can gain useful intelligence by tracking people online.

So, by and large, this proposed registry seems unnecessary and ineffective. Industry can easily work out a way to allow consumers to opt-out and the two groups I’m most afraid of–the Russian Mob and the U.S. Government–won’t pay heed to any registry anyway.

Instead or wringing our hands over advertisers tracking what duvet covers we buy, can we turn our attention to what our freewheelin’ executive branch is trying to pull-over on us? Seems to me they’re cooking up exemptions to more than just this registry–a few of my favorite Constitutional Amendments spring to mind.

SHARE: 12 comments

Localism is the new Fairness Doctrine

by on April 23, 2008 · 28 comments

Just as pink was the new black and The Backstreet Boys were the new New Kids on the Block, the FCC is now turning “Localism” into the new Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine mandated that controversial issues of public importance be presented in a manner deemed by the FCC to be honest, equitable, and balanced. Though Localism isn’t concerned with political speech, both sets of rules interfere with the editorial process, both control and compel speech, and neither passes Constitutional muster.

The FCC has reasons to believe that Localism is a concern, but those reasons lack the weightiness and depth of well-conducted policy research needed for rule making. Commisioner Copps has stated that:

We have witnessed the number of statehouse and city hall reporters declining decade after decade, despite an explosion in state and local lobbying. The number of channels have indeed multiplied, but there is far less local programming and reporting being produced.

Yet only a few short years ago former FCC Chairman Michael Powell made this statement on the issue of localism:

Local newscasts have become the staple of any successful local broadcast tele

vision station, demonstrating that serving the needs and wants of your local community does not just fulfill their public obligations, but also simply make good business sense.

Powell also stated in 2004 that Americans today “have access to more local content than at any time in our nation’s history.” But still, commissioners like Michael Copps don’t approve of how that local news is produced or what it contains.

But events of national and international importance do not occur in accordance with regulators’ preconceived notions of how much coverage ought to be allotted to them. Local news outlets should not be wary of reporting on wars overseas, famine in the developing world, or other non-local issues they deem important for fear of neglecting to comply with bureaucratic dictates.

The Fairness Doctrine had the arguably worse effect of making many broadcasters shy away from political coverage altogether, for fear that–try as they may–their coverage would be considered “unbalanced.” Twenty years after instituting this misguided rule, the FCC finally acknowledged this fact in the wake of a 1985 Supreme Court decision (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364) which found that the rule was “chilling speech.”

The result was an explosion in talk radio content beginning most famously with conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh, but also creating new space for left-liberal voices like Thom Hartmann and Al Franken.

Where the Fairness Doctrine chilled all speech, Localism will compel speech of which FCC Commissioners like Copps approve. In a world of limited broadcast hours, compelling one sort of speech means sacrificing speech of another, effectively censoring speech.

Should we be content to let the FCC tell us what we have to say when we’d never stand for it telling us what we can’t say? Oh wait, I suppose we do let it tell us what we can’t say.

SHARE: 28 comments

Bad Data & Broken Databases at the FCC

by on April 17, 2008 · 6 comments

The FCC is continuing its desperate search for a reason to exist. This year it’s decided to assert its relevance by reengaging an issue that it had ignored since 2004. The “Localism” debate has reemerged and one of the most troubling aspects of this debate is the focus on the supposed lack of ownership of broadcast television and radio stations by women and minorities. While the goal of increasing diversity in the sphere of broadcast media is a noble one, the data being used to justify new rules is specious.

Many have attempted to validate their concerns over ownership diversity by referencing a March 2008 GAO study which focuses on media ownership. However, this report admits freely that FCC data is severely lacking.

Many of you who follow TLF will note that Jerry Brito has done extensive work on government transparency and the importance of making data truly accessible–you know, putting it online rather than in a basement in the Capitol. While it’s no surprise that some agencies haven’t updated their record keeping, it is a little disturbing that the FCC–a commission charged with regulating some of the most advanced technology available–doesn’t keep adequate records. Specifically the GAO sites the problems with Form 323, the FCCs method of collecting information on broadcast station owner gender, race, and ethnicity:

Companies must file the Form 323 electronically. However, FCC allows owners to provide attachments with their electronic filing of the Form 323. These attachments may include the gender, race, and ethnicity data. Since these data are not entered into the database, the data are unavailable for electronic query.

This flaw in data collection is certainly laughable, but the most glaring deficiency is that the FCC doesn’t require sole proprietors, limited partnerships, or non-profits to report on ethnicity of owners—leaving one to wonder how it assesses this information at all. Excluding these legal entities from data collection leaves only incorporated radio stations in the group required to file FCC Form 323 which contains information on race and gender.

But how does one determine the sex or ethnicity of a corporation? Clear Channel Communications—one of the nation’s largest owners of radio stations—has issued nearly 500 million shares of stock. Has Clear Channel polled every share holder about their race or gender? It’s doubtful. It’s also doubtful that any method of determining the race and gender of the owners of corporate stations could ever be done in a way that’s meaningful or anything close to a basis for sound public policy.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 6 comments

Dumb Pipes, a Dumb Idea: Net Neutrality as 21st Century Socialism

by on April 2, 2008 · 8 comments

This week’s C:\Spin (#197), CEI’s tech policy newsletter, casts net neutrality in the appropriate light. Calling out proponents of neutrality for what they are–political predators–my colleague Wayne Crews lays bare the misconceptions and wrong-headed thinking that make up the neutrality debate:

“You know who owns your pipes? Your customers. You have no right to set up a tollbooth.”

– Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), September 17, 2007

Sen. Dorgan’s statement refers to the broadband infrastructure built up by the telcos and their rivals. It lays the “net neutrality” issue bare: if you’re an infrastructure owner or Internet service provider, government people like him shall dictate your relationships with the world at large.

Welcome to infrastructure socialism, 21st century style.

Online activists teamed with superstars like Google seek a perpetual “open access” business model imposed on Internet service. Last summer’s master stroke: to link future wireless spectrum auctions to accommodating the policy.

Comcast recently received letters of inquiry from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to a petition filed by a coalition averse to what it regards as unjustified data discrimination against file-sharers. They seek fines in the millions.

Barack Obama, unveiling his “innovation agenda” late last year, pledged, “I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality. Because once providers start to privilege some applications or web sites over others, then the smaller voices get squeezed out, and we all lose.”

Check out the rest at CEI’s website where you can also read back issues of C:\Spin or sign up to receive them in your email inbox.

SHARE: 8 comments

Rate My Privacy Policy

by on March 27, 2008 · 0 comments

Listening to this latest panel at the 2008 Tech Policy Summit has given me a great idea. This panel is focusing on the topic of privacy and features:

Kara Swisher, Co-Executive Editor, AllThingsD.com (Session Host)
Leslie Harris, President and CEO, Center for Democracy & Technology
Joanne McNabb, Chief, California Office of Privacy Protection
Jules Polonetsky, Chief Privacy Officer, AOL

Anyway, on to my idea. The panel concluded that privacy policies are complicated and incomprehensible, but at the same time they didn’t seem to believe that they could be simple. This makes sense to me. Privacy policies deal with myriad legal issues, they concern lots of information, and that information is constantly changing. So, it seems that we’re never going to boil down these agreements to two or three paragraphs, let alone a crisp, short privacy slogan.

But clearly the economy contains many complicated transactions and complicated products targeted at consumers. People buy cars and computers and both products are improving all the time–suggesting that consumers are selecting the good products leaving the poor products to fade away.

That said, how is it that people pick these things? I know that many people come to me when they buy a computer and I advise them since I know a thing or two about silicon filled boxes. My dad’s a gear-head and advises people about cars. But outside of those informal networks there are other resources for buyers. CNET rates a ton of tech products. Car & Driver rates cars. Consumer Reports rates everything.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 0 comments

Bebo, IP Addresses, and Infinite Workarounds

by on March 27, 2008 · 13 comments

Listening to another panel at the 2008 Tech Policy Summit I heard an interesting point brought up by Rachel O?’Connell the Chief Security Officer of Bebo. When signing up for a Bebo account, users are now shown their IP address and told that they are not anonymous when using Bebo. Presumably the user’s location information could also be displayed along with anything else that can be found doing a reverse DNS lookup.

I thought this was a novel thing to do and may be a real deterrent to cyber-bullies or potential online stalkers. So, I thought I’d post on it. Before I did, I ran a quick search on “Bebo IP address” using Google. Such a query will bring up a host of tools to mask your IP address while using Bebo. Presumably these are TOR type services or other proxies that route your traffic around and therefore obscure your originating IP.

So, is Bebo discouraging online baddies, or reminding them to anonymize their IP?

SHARE: 13 comments

Unclogging the 3rd Pipe

by on March 26, 2008 · 5 comments

So this panel continues to applaud Europe & Asia on the issue of broadband, but is a lack of subsidy, neutrality, and public ownership/regulation really to blame for our lack of a 3rd (wireless) pipe.

Let’s do a little imagining to help think about the broadband landscape in America. The wired landscape is like a bustling city. Though franchising laws and other regulations keep building from going on as much as it might, the landscape is fairly well developed.




Then picture the wireless landscape. Because of the FCC’s iron grip on wireless allocation, this landscape has acres set aside for aging, archaic buildings from bygone eras while other narrow tracts are being feverishly developed with modern skyscrapers. But the most notable thing about this landscape are the brown fields. Mile after mile of land laying fallow and undeveloped.



I don’t know if this mental picture painting helps, but the point is that wireless 3rd pipes don’t arise or at least don’t arise in the quality we’d like because they aren’t allowed to. The FCC allocation system–though it now involves auctions–is a command and control central allocation system that resembles similar board that have existed in places like the USSR or the People’s Republic of China. The FCC is not too far away from a government board that allocates who gets a ton of pig iron this month or a shipment of aluminum next week.

Until wireless spectrum has no restrictions on use and can be bought and sold in a free market, we shouldn’t expect it to be all that efficient.

Side note: I’m trying to find some good policy papers that talk about what Korea actually does with spectrum, which I imagine is similar to the FCC. So far the only thing I have been able to Google is this presentation from Hyun-young Yoon of Seoul National University. It describes what sounds a lot like the FCC’s central planning regime, except that Korea doesn’t seem to have the auction component of the FCC, a reform introduced in 1994 that has eliminated the past practice of favorite picking or what what Hyun-young describes as a “rigid beauty contest.”

Speaking of, perhaps we ought to view subsidies in the same light we view the auction process. Eliminating FCC choice in who gets what spectrum eliminated a lot of corruption and spectrum has been arguably allocated more fairly and efficiently. Subsidies are a step backwards in that they would reintroduce favoritism, allowing government bureaucrats or perhaps Congress to choose who gets the millions in research grants.

That said, I’m interested in good papers that lay out how other countries allocate their spectrum. I know that New Zealand has privatized much of their airwaves with success, but are there other good examples? Please share in the comments section!

SHARE: 5 comments

Korean Subway TV vs. Failed Wi-Fi Schemes

by on March 26, 2008 · 2 comments

I’m sitting in a panel called “The Future of Wide-Area Public Broadband” and Jonathan Taplin, a Professor at USC Annenberg’s School for Communication, just made a point about wireless connectivity. He mentioned that in a class he was teaching a Korean student brought her phone to class–a phone made to work on networks in Seoul. She explained that she could watch 30 minute videos on the phone, seamlessly streaming while walking through the city or riding the subway. He went on to say that in the United States many municipalities are relying–or did rely–on a rather pathetic effort from Earthlink to build out wireless networks.



The problem, it seems, is that the United States doesn’t follow the policies of Korea. Those policies are can be summed up by one word: subsidize. Korea rents computers to poor families for what one questioner cited as $2 per month. This gets many people clamoring for connections, driving demand. I imagine that this demand doesn’t matter as much as it might otherwise were Korean wireless companies not also subsidized.

What’s curious to me is that no one has mentioned the other glaring difference between the U.S. and Korea. Seoul is a dense city–like a neutron star. There are 17,000 people for every square kilometer in Seoul. Back in the states, only Union City and West New York, both cities in New Jersey, have that density or greater. New York city is only 10,000 people per square kilometer–only about 60% of Seoul’s density.

If you look farther down the sheet of America’s most dense cities, you’ll notice that all but the top-five large cities have a density ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 people per square kilometer. With most U.S. large cities at best coming in at one third as dense as Korea’s capital it seems natural that the U.S. would have different approaches to wireless connectivity.

I’m all for sorting out the public policy differences and discussing what regulation help and hurt broadband deployment, but let’s be honest when we’re comparing apple to oranges–or in this case, supercities to plain, old cities.

SHARE: 2 comments

The New Smoots OR Silicon is the New Steel

by on March 26, 2008 · 4 comments

Remember the Smoot-Hawley Act? The famous, or perhaps rightly called infamous, act was seen as a solution to America’s economic woes during the deep economic downturn of the 1920s. The results, much to the confusion and dismay of the bill’s author’s Representative W.C. Hawley and Senator Reed Smoot were nothing short of disastrous.

Why does this matter to us today? Well, we’re seeing a lot of Smoots and a lot of Hawleys running around Capitol Hill these days. With free trade agreements with South Korea and Columbia floating around the offices in Congress offering potential relief from high prices for consumers, members of Congress are increasingly tempted to ignore these consumer benefits in order to benefit their individual constituencies. Rather than seeing trade as something that benefits consumers, Congressmen only see a loss in jobs.

But will blocking agreements help domestic producers? Not tech powerhouses like Apple, Google, Microsoft and Cisco. For these firms to continue to innovate, create investor value, and create jobs, they need to have affordable raw materials.

Much of this raw material comes from places like Korea, a country with a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) currently pending in Congress. By not removing trade barriers with Korea, we not only force consumers to pay more, we also force our domestic tech firms to pay higher prices.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 4 comments

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →