Martin Cooper, the inventor of the cell phone, is giving a talk tomorrow on spectrum policy for the 21st Century as part of Tom Hazlett’s “Big Ideas About Information” lecture series. It’ll take place at George Mason University School of Law in Arlington, VA. More info here. According to Wikipedia,
Cooper is considered the inventor of the first portable handset and the first person to make a call on a portable cell phone in April 1973, to the bewilderment of passers-by in a road of New York. The first call he made was to his rival, Joel Engel, Bell Labs head of research. Cooper later revealed that watching Captain Kirk talking in his communicator on the tv-show Star Trek inspired him to research the mobile phone.
Sunday’s Washington Post featured a story entitled, “Cable War Fails to Offer Rate Relief in Montgomery.” The gist of the story is that Comcast, the incumbent cable provider in Montgomery County, Maryland, is raising rates by 4 percent and residents are distraught that the much vaunted competition from Verizon has done nothing to curb prices.
So much for the idea that “competition will bring down rates,” said Montgomery County Council President Marilyn Praisner (D-Eastern County), who has long clashed with the industry over regulation. “That clearly hasn’t happened.”
David Isenberg links to the story under the headline “Benefits of Competition my Ass” and asks, “Are you listening Kevin Martin?”
You would think Verizon has been providing service in the country for years and has settled into a cozy duopoly with Comcast. So when did Verizon get permission from the county to start competing with Comcast? November 28, 2006. That’s right folks, less than three months ago.
As the
Post story notes, Comcast serves 200,000 households to Verizon’s 1,000. However, it will build out to most homes in four years. The story also notes–albeit in paragraph 14–competition on margins other than price: “Comcast, for instance, has improved its Internet speeds four times over the past three years without increasing its prices.”
Dear readers: Now you can get the Technology Liberation Front in your e-mail inbox. Subscribers get one e-mail each day with all posts from that day. Never miss a word from your favorite tech pundits.
Just enter your e-mail address below to subscribe.
You can also subscribe to Tech Liberation Front’s RSS feed.
You should bookmark The American, a new daily online and quarterly print magazine from AEI. In the few weeks I’ve followed it, it has surprised me with lots of good stories and ideas, usually by young writers, and quite often about technology. Just this week there’s a piece by Jens Laurson and George Pieler nominating Milton Friedman as the patron saint of blogging since the blogosphere is a free market of ideas where “price signals” abound in the form of links and comments and the best commentary rises to the top. Then there’s this piece by Joshua Tauberer on his Open House Project, which seeks to put Congressional records on the web and as structured data so they’ll be subject to computer-aided scrutiny. From the print magazine, Amy Cortese did some reporting on why internet wine sales are still in regulatory hell even after Granholm v. Heald. Other pieces are brilliant, too, so check it out.
Today Lawrence Lessig released the second in his series of presentations about what Congress should do on internet policy. The first installment was about orphan copyrights, and I addressed it here. Today, Lessig writes about “deregulating spectrum,” which is an apt title if by deregulating you mean regulating. Lessig likens the current command-and-control system of spectrum regulation to communism, and I think he’s right. He goes on, however, to argue that a property system is no longer the right alternative to regulation.
Instead, Lessig suggests a market not in spectrum, but in devices that use free spectrum without causing interference to any other user. As he says in his presentation, this system would require “minimal rules governing the devices.” What he doesn’t say is who would set these “minimal rules” and what exactly would guarantee that these rules would remain minimal or even rational. The answer, as I explain in my new paper out this week from the Stanford Technology Law Review, is that government will set the rules, and the only tools that government has to make rules is its inefficient command-and-control processes. A “commons” model is not a third way between regulation and property, it is just another kind of regulation.
Lessig also exhibits lots of outrage at the fact that the current regulatory system is manipulated by special interests to suit their own purposes and not the interests of consumers generally. Well, how will things be any different when government goes about setting his “minimal rules”?
Continue reading →
Google has lost its copyright appeal against Belgian newspaper publishers. There seem to be conflicting reports about what exactly Google was found liable for. Here’s the WSJ:
A Belgian court ruled Tuesday that Internet search engine Google Inc. violated Belgian copyright law when it published snippets and links to Belgian newspapers on its Web site without permission.
And here’s the AP:
A Brussels court ruled in favor of Copiepresse, a copyright protection group representing 18 mostly French-language newspapers that complained the search engine’s “cached” links offered free access to archived articles that the papers usually sell on a subscription basis.
Snippets and entire cached pages are very different things. But whatever the case, what this case highlights is how unsettled copyright law is as it applies to search engines (and I’ll limit myself to just the U.S.). As for snippets, sure, there’s
Kelly v. Arriba Soft, which found that indexing photographs and displaying their thumbnails is a fair use. But that’s just one circuit’s opinion, which is very persuasive, but not controlling in other circuits. Then there’s Perfect 10 v. Google, which cuts in the opposite direction.
Continue reading →
Tim Wu will be presenting his paper “Wireless Net Neutrality” at an FTC workshop on network access tomorrow on Wednesday. (BTW: The workshop is free and open to the public.) Basically he’s arguing for Carterfone to be applied to the cell phone industry. The Washington Post has a write-up of the ideas behind the paper and reaction from both sides of the debate.
Until federal regulators issued a landmark ruling in 1968, Americans could not own the telephones in their homes, nor attach answering machines or other devices to them. Now, a growing number of academics and consumer activists say it’s time to deliver a similar groundbreaking jolt to the cellphone industry, possibly triggering a new round of customer options and technical innovations to rival the one that produced faxes, modems and the Internet.
Wireless carriers, which limit what customers may do with their phones, say the move is unnecessary and potentially harmful. But in articles, blogs and speeches, a number of researchers are asking why the companies are allowed to force consumers to buy new handsets when they change carriers, pay a specified carrier to transfer photos from a camera phone, or download ring tones or music from one provider only.
Carterfone was a great decision when it applied to Ma Bell, the quintessential monopoly, and wouldn’t compute for today’s wireless carriers. True, cell phones are locked (except when they’re not, as the article points out, because carriers will often unlock them for you when your contract expires). The one thing the article doesn’t mention is that cell phones are also subsidized. You can always buy an unlocked phone for a premium. I would love to see a greater market in unlocked phones, but if there’s no demand from consumers, I’ll just have to wait along with the proponents of regulation. Question: Unlocked phones are the norm in Asia and Europe. How are they priced there? How do service plan prices compare to U.S.?
The Washington Post runs an article today about police tracing online criminals–mostly pedophiles–to a physical address only to find an unsecured Wi-Fi hotspot and not the criminal. The good news in the article is that the police seem to understand that just because something illegal happened over your IP address, it doesn’t mean you did it. The bad news is the “there oughta be a law” implication present in the article. Here’s how the reporter, not a quoted source, describes Wi-Fi:
Open wireless signals are akin to leaving your front door wide open all day–and returning home to find that someone has stolen your belongings and left a mess that needs cleaning.
One way to combat it is for people to secure their wireless networks by making them password-protected. But, authorities said, businesses and cities that offer free connections need some way to track the users, such as filtering measures that could scan to see who is accessing the network.
I don’t get the “stolen belonging” analogy, and the “mess that needs cleaning” is a stretch. I’ll let our resident piggybacking expert explain why. Police should be supported in their pursuit of criminals, but there are a lot more innocent people using coffee shop hot spots than pedophiles.
Yesterday I explained that in my view first responders don’t need more spectrum to address their interoperability problem, but instead a different approach to using the spectrum they already have. So if Congress shouldn’t allocate more spectrum for public safety, what should it do to address the problem?
Cyren Call is absolutely right about a lot of things: That we should opt for national networks, rather than 50,000 individual and incompatible radio systems for each locality or agency. That everyone benefits when public safety spectrum is shared with commercial users (as long as first responders have priority). That given the opportunity, the private sector will build public safety networks that first responders can subscribe to. Where Cyren Call goes wrong is in insisting that we need new spectrum to achieve this.
What Congress can do is very simple. Open up spectrum already allocated for public safety and allow private companies to build networks on that spectrum. Allow the FCC to assign spectrum allocated for public safety to commercial carriers (like Verizon or Cyren Call or whoever) directly. Require in the licenses1 that the carrier build a network up to public safety specs. Allow the carriers to sell excess capacity to commercial users, but ensure that first responders have priority. Voila, commercial provision of public safety communications. Don’t want to stop there? There’s more Congress can do.
Continue reading →
Ahead of tomorrow’s Senate Commerce Committee hearing on public safety communications, the Consumer Electronics Association released a report (PDF) it commissioned from Criterion Economics analyzing the Cyren Call plan. The report concludes that the Cyren Call plan would upturn Congress’s carefully crafted DTV transition scheme. It also calls into question whether the private sector would build a more expensive broadband network than it would otherwise have to in order to meet the more rigorous needs of public safety.
Like I said, the study was commissioned by a special interest and it should be read in that light. (And by all means, read it yourself and make up your own mind.) However, the study does outline some basic facts that support something I’ve been saying for a long time: public safety communications does not need more spectrum, what it needs is spectrum reform. Here’s a sampling from the report:
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.