I felt like I was reading a story from the future when I read this lead from a news article about a Microsoft exec. pleading why desktop software is still relevant:
A top Microsoft executive defended desktop application software, the
source of the company’s revenue for three decades, arguing on Tuesday
that even services-based companies such as Google still need it.
But then I just realized that I’m old, and time and the competitive software marketplace has moved quickly the past few years.
Nevertheless, I’m so intrigued by all the new business models that are vying for both the business customer and consumers like you and me that I’m currently writing a paper on it. My public policy bent is nuanced, but relevant: do new business models (not a single technology, not a specific technology, but a particular way of doing business like licensing, services, ad-based) need a regulatory helping hand to compete? I’m talking about interoperability mandates, spectrum auction rules, standards…you get the drift. Of course, I’m going to have to say that even if you can think of a reason for antitrust regulation, FCC intervention, etc., there are countervailing reasons against government regulation that are likely more compelling. Back to paper writing….
The Financial Times has an interesting email discussion between Richard Epstein and Harry First on the merits of antitrust actions against Microsoft.
Last week was a whirlwind of activity for the telecommunications, media and technology project with which I had been engaged since August 2006.
The folks at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard were kind enough to invite me to speak in their luncheon series on Tuesday, October 9. I discussed “Media Tracker, FCC Watch, and the Politics of Telecom, Media and Technology.” I’m happy to report that the event is now archived on Media Berkman as a webcast.
I spoke about the work of the “Well Connected” Project at the Center for Public Integrity for which I was responsible. I devoted most of my time in the lecture to the Media Tracker, the interactive database at the heart of the project. The Media Tracker combines data from publicly available sources in a new and unique way, mapping out media and telecom ownership at the ZIP code level. Ownership is linked to lobbying expenditures and campaign contributions by company. The level of contribution by a telecom, media or technology company to any federal candidate can be viewed – documenting who has received what from whom.
Continue reading →
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 →
On a note related to Jerry’s post on “L’iPhone” I’d like to point out Thomas Hazlett’s “How the ‘walled garden’ promotes innovation” in the September 26 Financial Times. The piece discusses the virtues of closed and controlled technological ecosystems and how the “walled garden” can often be a prosperous and vibrant one. Best paragraph from the piece:
Unbundling phones from networks is suggested as a policy fix in the US. European phones, working with different Sim cards across carriers and borders, are the model. Innovation in the European Union is said to flourish. But the iPhone came first to the US, as did the BlackBerry and advanced broadband networks using CDMA data formats. That is not surprising given that US networks are afforded wide latitude in designing their systems. Licenses in the EU mandate a GSM standard. What is recommended as “open” in fact deprives customers of a most basic cellular choice: technology.
Of course the real closed vs. open debate is whether we want an open economy. Open, that is, to varying business models–rather than one that is closed to any service or product that technophiles might describe with the now-curse-words “proprietary” or “closed source.” The techno-intelligentsia may value the notion of taking a phone from network to network, or being able to install Skype on anything with processor, but it turns out that most people couldn’t care less. Ultimately that’s what matters. The systems that are adopted shouldn’t be chosen by uber-geeks and regulators, but by every-day consumers.
If you thought this post was going to be about Microsoft, you’re wrong. Now that the Redmond firm has been smacked down by EU regulators, other companies await a similar fate. The latest target is Qualcomm, who competitors say is charging too much in royalty fees for next-generation mobile phone chips. This is a very bad sign for continuing intellectual property development as it sends a message to technologists that you don’t really get to own what you create. EU regulators apparently think they should be the ones to decide what companies can charge for their goods. This is a fine state of affairs in the short term for competitors, but it doesn’t go over well with investors or for anyone who is hoping for greater innovation in the long run.
CEI has recently brought on a very productive Research Associate named Alex Nowrasteh who has posted a great piece about the Google/DoubleClick merger and the hearings on Capitol Hill today on CEI’s blog, OpenMarket.org. The merger received a one-two punch from Sen. Herb Kohl Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill), Chairman of the Congressional Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection and by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wi), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights.
Alex will also be doing some of the research on an upcoming paper focusing on FCC reform.
I want Microsoft’s
market share to diminish to significantly less than 95%. I can’t say that it
has to be precisely 50% or whatever number, but it has to be significantly
less than 95.
– Neelie Kroes, European Commissioner for Competition Policy
Today’s decision from the European Court of First Instance
affirms the broad role that competition policy has in Europe.
You can slug through the lengthy court opinion, but these press conference
Q&A comments of Neelie Kroes (including the above quote) are revealing.
They show the true intent of the European Commission’s competition policy
regulators: competition policy is about
micromanaging software development and dictating market evolution.
Here’s the largest buzzword from both Kroes and the EC’s
press statement: interoperability. Again, a quote from Kroes, this time from
her prepared statement:
In confirming the interoperability part of the Commission’s decision, the
Court has confirmed the importance of interoperability for consumer choice and
innovation in high tech industries. If competitors are unable to make their
products "talk to" or work properly with a dominant company’s
products, they are prevented from bringing new innovative products onto the
market, and customers are locked into the products of the existing provider.
Sure, interoperability is often an important feature of IT
— if it’s market-driven. Otherwise,
it smacks of the sort of “infrastructure socialism” that Adam Thierer and Wayne
Crews have cataloged in their book.
Continue reading →
At a time when most people agree that Google or Apple have replaced Microsoft as the tech industry’s top player, government regulators on two continents are going retro, pushing old antitrust arguments. This backward-looking thinking threatens innovation for all companies and needs to stop now.
While the technology community has moved from obsessing over operating systems to focusing on Internet search and digital media government regulators are stuck in the past, wasting taxpayer time and money. A case in point is a group of states, led by California’s Attorney General and former governor Jerry Brown. This week, they told a federal judge that Microsoft’s “market power remains undiminished,” a statement that must make the execs at Google and Apple giggle with glee. For those who see the transition to Web-based services taking off, it’s a total joke.
[…]
Read more here.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.