Broadband & Neutrality Regulation

Virtually Taking the Fifth: Are Neutrality Regs Unconstitutional?

by on August 4, 2010 · 3 comments

Could net neutrality rules be unconstitutional?  Maybe so, says Daniel Lyons of Boston College Law School.  In a piece released last week by the Free State Foundation (based on a more extensive research paper for Boston College last March) he argues that rules of the sort being considered by the FCC may constitute a taking of property under the Fifth Amendment. 

The idea that a regulation could be considered a “taking” is certainly nothing new.   For decades, courts have recognized the concept of “regulatory takings,” rules so restrictive that they constitute a seizure of property under the Fifth Amendment.  But Lyons doesn’t just argue that “net neutrality” is a regulatory seizure in some abstract sense. He argues that neutrality rules would constitute a very real  seizure of tangible, albeit invisible, property.

  Continue reading →

SHARE: 3 comments

Harmony Institute & Free Press Seek to Create Net Neutrality Propaganda

by on July 26, 2010 · 0 comments

Interesting article in the New York Times today about how the radical media activist group Free Press is now working with an organization called The Harmony Institute toward the goal of “Adding Punch to Influence Public Opinion.”  The way they want to “add punch” is through entertainment propaganda.  The Times article notes that Harmony’s mission is “aimed at getting filmmakers and others to use the insights and techniques of behavioral psychology in delivering social and political messages through their work.” And now they want to use such “behavioral psychology” and “political messaging” (read: propaganda) techniques in pursuit of Net neutrality regulation.

More on that agenda in a second.  First, I just have to note the irony of Harmony’s founder John S. Johnson citing “The Day After Tomorrow” as a model for the sort of thing he wants to accomplish. According to the Times interview with him, he says the movie’s “global warming message [and] rip-roaring story, appeared to alter attitudes among young and undereducated audiences who would never see a preachy documentary.”  I love this because “The Day After Tomorrow” was such a shameless piece of globe warming doomsday propaganda that it must have even made the people at Greenpeace blush in embarrassment.  After all, here is a movie that claims global warming will result in an instantaneous global freeze (how’s that work again?) and leave kids scurrying for the safety of New York City libraries until a quick thaw comes a couple of weeks later. (Seriously, have you seen that movie? That’s the plot!) So apparently we can expect some pretty sensational, fear-mongering info-tainment from Harmony and Free Press.

But here’s what’s better: Do you know who produced “The Day After Tomorrow”?  Oh, that’s right… Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation financed and distributed that movie!!  The man that Free Press casts as the nefarious media overlord set to take over all media and program our brains gave us the greatest piece of radical environmental propaganda of modern times.  Now, which does that prove: (A) Rupert Murdoch is hell-bent on programming our minds to embrace a sweeping global warming regulatory agenda, or (B) Rupert Murdoch is out to entertain people and make money? If you answered B, congratulations for being a sensible person.  If you answered A, then click here now to start giving money to the Free Press!

OK, so let’s get back to Free Press and what they are up to with the Harmony Institute (which I originally thought was an online dating site).  Free Press apparently hired Harmony to research public attitudes about Net neutrality and how to influence them.  Harmony’s Johnson tells the Times they got interested in the Net neutrality because Free Press and the Pacific Foundation paid them handsomely to do so.  And it appears Free Press got their money’s worth. Continue reading →

SHARE: 0 comments

The Horses are Gone—So Let’s Close Some Other Barn Door

by on July 23, 2010 · 7 comments

The White House and the Federal Communications Commission have painted themselves into a very tight and very dangerous corner on Net Neutrality.  To date, a bi-partisan majority of Congress, labor leaders, consumer groups and, increasingly, some of the initial advocates of open Internet rules are all shouting that the agency has gone off the rails in its increasingly Ahab-like pursuit of an obscure and academic policy objective.

Now comes further evidence, none of it surprising, that all this effort has been a fool’s errand from the start.  Jacqui Cheng of Ars Technica is reporting today on a new study from Australia’s University of Ballarat that suggests only .3% of file sharing using the BitTorrent protocol is something other than the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works.  Which is to say that 99.7% of the traffic they sampled is illegal.  The Australian study, as Cheng notes, supports similar conclusions of a Princeton University study published earlier this year

Continue reading →

SHARE: 7 comments

Amazom.com Switches Sides on Net Neutrality

by on July 23, 2010 · 9 comments

In a startling guest column on CNET yesterday, Paul Misener, vice president for global public policy at Amazon.com, for all practical purposes reversed his company’s stand on network neutrality, particularly the controversial non-discrimination rule, which would prohibit ISPs from creating and charging providers of large-scale content, applications and commerce for faster broadband connections and tiered quality of service.

In his column, Misener concedes what many TLF bloggers and friends have argued for years: that the net neutrality rules are a solution in search of a problem, and that large providers like Amazon already invest in techniques that ensure quality delivery of content and apps, albeit at the edge, not within the network cloud. Misener writes:

First, there have been almost no Net neutrality violations. Opponents of Net neutrality rules say this record demonstrates that regulation is unnecessary–that Net neutrality is “a solution in search of a problem.” But actually, the threats of legislation (since 2007) and FCC regulation (since 2009) have kept the network operators on their best behavior.

Moreover, Net neutrality has become a populist consumer issue in a way that few FCC issues ever have (try Web-searching the terms “Net neutrality” or, more humorously, “series of tubes”). So, it’s hard to imagine policymakers adopting laws or rules that would condone popular notions of Net neutrality violations.

Second, the legal/regulatory uncertainties have, understandably, dissuaded network operators from making investments in new technologies and services that might subsequently be found to violate Net neutrality. Unfortunately, some observers seem to think that this uncertainty hurts only the network operators and their suppliers, but consumers and content providers also are suffering, albeit unwittingly, from the lack of new services that might otherwise be available.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 9 comments

NRO Op/Ed: Government v. Google: Why Free Marketeers Should Rally Against Search Neutrality

by on July 22, 2010 · 4 comments

“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” Thus did Ronald Reagan capture the essence of big government. The two biggest challenges facing defenders of free markets in technology policy lie in Reagan’s second point:

  • Telling the “Good News Story” about how “it” (human ingenuity—what the great economist Julian Simon called our “Ultimate Resource”) keeps “moving” (by inventing new hardware, software, services, etc.)
  • Holding the line against efforts to extend the regulatory regimes of the past over new technologies, and chipping away at those regimes as best we can

So one might think that believers in limited government would celebrate a company like Google as a great American success story: A university research program launched by two smart kids (one of whom fled Communist oppression) that grew from a garage start-up into a global tech titan whose wide-ranging innovations are revolutionizing more and more of the economy. Surely free marketeers would rally to the defense of such a company when, say, the New York Times—that if-it-moves-regulate-it bastion—calls for bringing “into the regulatory fold,” right?

Unfortunately, all too many free marketeers seem willing to hang Google out to dry, or at least stay silent because they resent the pro-regulatory policy positions taken by the company or the political leanings of its employees and leadership. The company has hardly been a champion of digital capitalism in Washington, allying itself with a number tax/regulate/subsidize groups, pushing for net neutrality regulation, and using antitrust as a sword against its rivals (some of whom seem willing to return the favor). But the principles at stake are too important for free marketeers to gloat, as Adam Thierer argued in an op/ed for National Review Online earlier this week: Government vs. Google: Why Free Marketeers Should Rally Against “Search Neutrality.” Continue reading →

SHARE: 4 comments

After the Deluge, More Deluge

by on July 22, 2010 · 0 comments

If I ever had any hope of “keeping up” with developments in the regulation of information technology—or even the nine specific areas I explored in The Laws of Disruption—that hope was lost long ago.  The last few months I haven’t even been able to keep up just sorting the piles of printouts of stories I’ve “clipped” from just a few key sources, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, CNET News.com and The Washington Post.

 

I’ve just gone through a big pile of clippings that cover April-July.  A few highlights:  In May, YouTube surpassed 2 billion daily hits.  Today, Facebook announced it has more than 500,000,000 members.   Researchers last week demonstrated technology that draws device power from radio waves.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 0 comments

Title II for broadband is desperate and ill-conceived

by on July 16, 2010 · 2 comments

Julius Genachowski is in a hurry.

He is arguing that the commission must act quickly to “restore the longstanding deregulatory—as opposed to ‘no-regulatory’ or ‘over-regulatory’—compact” that governed broadband Internet access services prior to a recent court decision.  Such an approach is urgently needed to “restore the status quo,” he claims.

If the Federal Communications Commission cannot regulate the Internet, it may die.   The telephone and television industries are declining, whereas communications industries which the FCC monitors to some extent but does not regulate, e.g., the Internet backbone, broadband Internet access and wireless, are thriving.  The Internet, which the FCC cannot regulate, is subsuming legacy communications services which the commission can regulate.  That spells doom for legacy regulation.  Career regulators are worried.

Genachowski’s plan would reclassify broadband as a “telecommunications” service subject to blunt, onerous, industrial-era regulation under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 – which governs common carriers – and then forbear from enforcing most of Title II’s heavy-handed provisions.

Broadband services haven’t been subject to Title II regulation for several years, so reclassification would not restore the status quo.   It would harken back to a bygone era.

Broadband services provided by cable operators have thrived in the absence of common carrier regulation since before 1999, when William E. Kennard (designated FCC chairman by President Bill Clinton) declared:

If we’ve learned anything about the Internet in government over the last 15 years, it’s that it thrived quite nicely without the intervention of government.

If fact, the best decision government ever made with respect to the Internet was the decision that the FCC made 15 years ago NOT to impose regulation on it. This was not a dodge; it was a decision NOT to act. It was intentional restraint born of humility. Humility that we can’t predict where this market is going.

Though under significant pressure to do so, Kennard refused to regulate broadband services provided by cable operators like the broadband services provided by telecommunications carriers.  In 2005 and 2007, respectively, the commission finally admitted that neither telecommunications carriers nor wireless providers provided broadband services that met the statutory definition of a “telecommunications” service under Title II, either.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 2 comments

Google’s Lobby Shop Creates Need for Itself

by on July 14, 2010 · 1 comment

“Live by the sword, die by the sword.”

“Play with fire and you might get burned.”

Those are lines that sprung to my mind as I read this FT article noting how Google’s support for ‘net neutrality regulation has transmogrified into a push for “search neutrality.” Such regulation would be aimed directly at Google’s heart throat nuts business model.

(I was the first to discuss “search neutrality” here on TLF. Ignore Adam’s comment.)

But sloganeering is cheap. Let’s take a minute to try and understand why things like this happen to companies like Google.

First, I think, most executives—certainly executives in tech companies—don’t understand Washington at all. They have a gauzy impression that good people work for the betterment of public policy here.

Actually, that’s true. Just about everyone is good. And everyone is working for the betterment of public policy as they see it. The thing is, everybody sees the betterment of public policy as turning it to their own interests. Washington, D.C. is a war of all against all—each trying to grab the most stuff—using politics instead of clubs, knives, and guns.

Next, I think it’s important to recognize the incentives of the people who advise tech executives. They are people with families and mortgages. They want to have and keep a job. So what do they do? They encourage involvement in public policy. The public policy advisor who says “steer clear of Washington” may be giving better advice, but his consulting contract is small and its term is short.

The government relations/lobbying shop in a company like Google is part of a larger business, yes, but it is a small bureaucracy within the business. It doesn’t produce anything subject to competitive pricing, so (accounting practices notwithstanding) there is little way to measure its value. The fallback measure is activity—the more things happening, the more ‘valuable’ the lobbying shop. (Surprise me, Google, so famous for measurement, testing, and rigor in product development. Have you got a way to measure the true value produced by your lobbying shop, law department, accounting group, etc.?)

You see how the dynamics quickly get perverse. A public policy advisor or lobbyist makes him- or herself ‘valuable’ by getting the client into trouble.

Google is not in trouble. The FT story is premature, and it’s overstatement to say that Google has been “hoisted by its own petard.”

But imagine a controlled experiment in which another Google in a parallel universe didn’t draw attention to itself in Washington, D.C., didn’t push for conditions in the 700 MHz spectrum auction, didn’t advocate for ‘net neutrality regulation, and so on. That Google might not have created—or might have delayed—the need for a permanent lobbying/government relations cost center.

SHARE: 1 comment

The Seven Deadly Sins of Title II Reclassification (NOI Remix)

by on July 13, 2010 · 4 comments

Better late than never, I’ve finally given a close read to the Notice of Inquiry issued by the FCC on June 17th.  (See my earlier comments, “FCC Votes for Reclassification, Dog Bites Man”.)  In some sense there was no surprise to the contents; the Commission’s legal counsel and Chairman Julius Genachowski had both published comments over a month before the NOI that laid out the regulatory scheme the Commission now has in mind for broadband Internet access.

Chairman Genachowski’s “Third Way” comments proposed an option that he hoped would satisfy both extremes.  The FCC would abandon efforts to find new ways to meet its regulatory goals using “ancillary jurisdiction” under Title I (an avenue the D.C. Circuit had wounded, but hadn’t actually exterminated, in the Comcast decision), but at the same time would not go as far as some advocates urged and put broadband Internet completely under the telephone rules of Title II.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 4 comments

FCC Votes for Reclassification, Dog Bites Man

by on June 17, 2010 · 8 comments

Not surprisingly, FCC Commissioners voted 3 to 2 today to open a Notice of Inquiry on changing the classification of broadband Internet access from an “information service” under Title I of the Communications Act to “telecommunications” under Title II.  (Title II was written for telephone service, and most of its provisions pre-date the breakup of the former AT&T monopoly.)  The story has been widely reported, including posts from The Washington Post, CNET, Computerworld, and The Hill.

As CNET’s Marguerite Reardon counts it, at least 282 members of Congress have already asked the FCC not to proceed with this strategy, including 74 Democrats.

I have written extensively about why a Title II regime is a very bad idea, even before the FCC began hinting it would make this attempt.  I’ve argued that the move is on extremely shaky legal grounds, usurps the authority of Congress in ways that challenge fundamental Constitutional principles of agency law, would cause serious harm to the Internet’s vibrant ecosystem, and would undermine the Commission’s worthy goals in implementing the National Broadband Plan.  No need to repeat any of these arguments here.  Reclassification is wrong on the facts, and wrong on the law. Continue reading →

SHARE: 8 comments

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →