Articles by James Gattuso 
James Gattuso is a Senior Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy in the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Gattuso also leads the Enterprise and Free Markets Initiative at Heritage, with responsiblity for a range of regulatory and market issues. Prior to joining Heritage, he served as Vice President for Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and also as Vice President for Policy Development with Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE). From 1990 to 1993, he was Deputy Chief of the Office of Plans and Policy at the Federal Communications Commission. From May 1991 to June 1992, he was detailed from the FCC to the office of Vice President Dan Quayle, where he served as Associate Director of the President's Council on Competitiveness. He lives in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife Dana, 8 year-old son, Peter (whom he relies upon to operate his VCR), and his four year-old daughter Lindsey (who does the DVD player.) He has no known hobbies, but is not nearly as boring as he seems.
The New York Times has come up with a nifty online feature — a presidential debate analyser that allows you to see word-by-word what the candidates at this week’s GOP presidential debate said about what, and how many times.
It’s worth a look. Those looking for statements by the contenders on Internet or telecommunications policy, however, are likely to be disappointed. A few quick searches reveal that — although this was bill as an economic policy debate — anything having to do with digital world seems absent. “Telecommunications”? 0 mentions. “Net neutrality”? Not there. Television? Surprisingly absent. FCC? Mentioned only once, by the moderator, Chris Matthews.
The word “Internet” was mentioned six times, after Matthews asked Rudy Giuliani how he would police the Internet culturally. He stated firmly that he wouldn’t tax the Internet (reassuring, but not really responsive), and indicated broadly that existing laws should be sufficient to police child predators and the like. Matthews persisted, asking directly whether we need a new, FCC-style agency for the Internet. Oddly, Giulianai hedged a bit on that, hinting that maybe he would if things got “worse.” Kudos to John McCain, who seemed to practically chew through his microphone at that point to say his answer was “absolutely not.”
There’s also an analyser for the September 26 Democratic debate. Internet mentions there? Zero.
The Times analyzer is a fascinating gizmo, even if the content isn’t encouraging.
Like Generalissimo Francisco Franco, the Fairness Doctrine is still dead. But will it remain that way? Supporters of disterring the doctrine were thrashed in a House vote this summer, but the debate continues in Congress over legislation to permanently bar the FCC from re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters.
In the Senate, the effort is being led by Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota. Coleman spoke on the issue last week at The Heritage Foundation. If you want to see it, you can tune in here.
In a post last June, I noted that the FCC had — after 78 days – finally begun it’s 180 day “shotclock” for ruling on the Sirius-XM merger. The piece concluded by noting that the FCC had 176 more days to make a decision, “unless it decides to stop the clock again.”
I meant that as sarcasm, but now comes news that opponents of the merger are asking for just such a pause. The National Association of Broadcasters this week asked the FCC to formally toll its 180-day timetable for reviewing the merger, in order to allow NAB to review documents being released to it pursuant to a FOIA request. What are these new documents? Formerly unknown studies on the consumer effects of the merger? Information on pricing or product quality? Nope. The documents don’t pertain to the effect of the merger on consumers at all, but on whether Sirius or FM have violated FCC technical rules on the “operation of FM modulators/translators and/or terrestrial repeaters.” U.S. Electronics has also asked for a delay, citing a grabbag of reasons, including “monopolistic equipment access, rule violations, interoperable requirements, the handling of ex parte communications, the scheduling of agenda items and (last but not least) delays in access to “decision-makers” (quote from Orbitcast).
What is this? The 1972 Olympic basketball finals? Should the FCC stop the clock every time it looks like one side is going to lose?
Continue reading →
Lately, it’s been like the 1990s all over again at the FCC. Forget the endless battle over net neutrality — since mid-summer the Commission has been in the midst of an all-out telecom war over telephone rates and broadband regulation — with the Bell companies squaring off against Sprint, competititive access providers such as Covad, and others. Their are two overlapping issues: should the FCC reverse it’s deregulation of of “special access” lines used by CLECs, cell carriers and large businesses, and (going in the other direction) should the FCC further deregulate high-capacity broadband services to large enterprises. Last year, AT&T filed a petition for such deregulation. Under federal law, if the Commission doesn’t act on that petition by midnight tonight, it automatically becomes law. For an excellent run-down of the issue, see fellow TLFer Hance Haney’s post here, as well as his op-ed from today’s Washington Times here.)
For months now, the two sides in this debate have been slinging statistics back and forth on the state of competition in these markets. Regulation proponents point to the high number of buildings that only are served by one carrier. But these numbers can be deceptive. As AT&T and Verizon point out, a high proportion of customers seem to be clustered in buildings with competing lines. More important, the market can’t be seen in static terms — the mere existence of a competitor nearby can constrain prices, as can the growing availability of wireless and other alternative technologies.
Continue reading →
Do Google execs get special treatment on YouTube? Maybe. Last month, Eric Schmidt, Google’s CEO, spoke at the Progress and Freedom Foundation’s annual conference in Aspen. Among the topics covered were the value of an open Internet and the need for net neutrality rules. Soon thereafter, the Google public policy team posted their bosses’ speech on the (Google-owned) YouTube site. No problem with that, except that the clip runs some 55 minutes. Since early 2006, YouTube – to the consternation of many users — has limited videos to 10 minutes.
It’s not clear how the clip – one among several over-limit pieces by Schmidt on YouTube -made it past YouTube’s time limit cops. The policy itself seems clear. A notice on the YouTube “Help Center” site states clearly:
“You can no longer upload videos longer than ten minutes regardless of what type of account you have. Users who had previously been allowed to upload longer content still retain this ability, so you may occasionally see videos that are longer than ten minutes.”
Continue reading →
Net neutrality regulation has often been described as a “solution without a problem.” While supporters produce hypothetical concerns like little chocolate doughnuts, real-life examples of abuse have been virtually impossible to find. That probably explains the excitement in the pro-regulation camp over an incident last week involving the unlikely combination of AT&T and Pearl Jam.
It all started one week ago Sunday, during the annual Lollapalooza music festival in Chicago. Pearl Jam was singing the ancient hit “Another Brick in the Wall,” updating it to include some not-so-complimentary verses about George Bush. So far so good. But, as it turns out, some of the Bush references were bleeped out of the webcast of the event being shown on AT&T’s “Blue Room” website (attblueroom.com).
The incident has been seized on by pro-regulation advocates as their long-sought “smoking gun” on the need for neutrality rules. “Over the weekend, AT&T gave us a glimpse of their plans for the Web when they censored a Pearl Jam performance that didn’t meet their standard of “Internet freedom,” reported SavetheInternet.com. “See what the Internet would look like without Net Neutrality,” advertised Free Press.
Pearl Jam itself declared itself a political victim, issuing a statement stating that: “What happened to us this weekend was about something much bigger than the censorship of a rock band.”
Actually, the incident was about something much smaller than that.
Continue reading →
Does Rupert Murdoch’s purchase of Dow Jones face serious obstacles at the FCC? The almost universal opinion has been “no”. Big as it is, News Corporation and Dow Jones don’t really compete against each other in any significant markets. The only real FCC concern would be the newspaper-television crossownership rule. But, although New Corp owns a station in New York City, the nationally-circulated Walll Street Journal — under FCC precedent –is not considered a New York paper.
Nevertheless, Michael Copps — a Democratic commissioner at the FCC — warned that the deal was not a “slam dunk.” “Not so fast,” he wrote in a statement issued from his office yesterday. “What’s good for shareholders of huge media conglomerates isn’t always what’s good for the public interest or our civic dialogue. We should immediately conduct a careful factual and legal analysis of the transaction to determine how it implicates specific FCC rules and our overarching statutory obligation to protect the public interest.”
The overall message here is clear. Translated from regulator-speak, it’s like the cop on the beat who stops someone to say “I don’t like the way you look. I can’t think of anything to charge you with now, but given enough time I’m sure I can find something”.
Continue reading →
The Economist has an interesting overview of Rupert Murdoch’s purchase of Dow Jones this week. The piece, “Murdoch Gets His Trophy,” highlights the negotiating skill exhibited by Murdoch in the whole affair, from the timing of the offer to his spot-on reading of the Bancroft family’s internal politics.
That said, the magazine questions the wisdom of the purchase. It’s unlikely, The Economist argues, that Dow Jones will provide to New Corporation anything near the $5 billion Rupert paid.
“Which is why,” it says,” some News Corporation shareholders suspect that they are just excuses, and that Mr Murdoch has put his longtime desire to own the one of the world’s great newspapers before any serious consideration of value for money.”
Wouldn’t it be ironic — after all the hand-wringing over the undue power the acquisition supposedly gives New Corporation — if the biggest loser turns out to be News Corporation itself?
Randy May of the Free State Foundation has a good piece out today, picking up on an prediction by the investment firm of Stifel Nicolaus that the exact meaning of “open access” under yesterday’s 700 MHz decision likely won’t be determined for years. Stifel Nicolaus says 2009 is the likely date — that strikes May (and me) as optimistic, given the eight years it took to settle the unbundling rules under the 1996 telecom act.
This definitional long tail has consequences, May points out. This is because that veritable economic theorem that “people don’t want to provide a pig in a poke” holds true, even for the FCC. “Think about it,” he says. “In how many auctions have you bid when the rules concerning what you can do with your winning bid won’t be known until several years later?”
A good, but hardly reassuring, point. So you might as well get comfortable. This may go on for a while.
After weeks of intense lobbying, the FCC today set rules for the auction of former UHF TV channels 60-69 (in the prime 700 MHz range of frequencies). The full details are not yet out, but the decision seems to be largely what was expected: a “public-private partnership” for newly-allocated public safety spectrum, and — for commercial spectrum — new regulations that impose “open access” rules on 22 megahertz of the allocated frequencies.
No one was completely satisfied. Google and other wireless net neutrality proponents notably failed in their bid for more expansive regulation — with the Commission rejecting their calls for mandated interconnection and wholesale leasing of spectrum.
This loss — in part — may be due to a tactical fumble by Google itself. Its pledge last week to bid a minimun of $4.6 billion if the Commission adopted four proposed rules for these frequencies was perceived (rightly or wrongly) as an ultimatum to the FCC. Had the Commission then adopted the Google’s proposed rules, the agency’s own credibility and independence would have been put at risk.
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.