Broadband & Neutrality Regulation

Free Press Hypocrisy over Metering & Internet Price Controls

by on June 18, 2009 · 150 comments

In response to my essay last night about this new Free Press campaign to layer price controls on the Internet by banning metered prices via Rep. Massa’s new bill (the “Broadband Internet Fairness Act“), George Ou and Richard Bennett reminded me of some of the contradictory statements that the (Un)Free Press crew have made on this issue.  Indeed, if you look back at what Free Press and their chairman have said about the matter over just the past 18 months, they seem to be whistling two very different tunes.

For example, George Ou reminded me of what Free Press had to say in its November 2007 filing in the FCC’s Comcast-Bit Torrent proceeding:

“More importantly, if Comcast is concerned that the collective set of users running P2P applications are affecting quality of service for other users on a cable loop… they could also charge by usage.” (p. 29) […] “Indeed, in many nations, network providers do meter, and bill their customers on the basis of amount used. So the transaction costs of doing so must not be prohibitively high. Indeed, a network provider can apparently meter cheaply because, in most networks, users’ traffic to and from the Internet passes through a single gateway, the network access server.” (p. 31)

And Richard Bennett reminded me of what Tim Wu, chairman of the Free Press, had to say about metering to the Washington Post just one year ago:

“I don’t quite see [metering] as an outrage, and in fact is probably the fairest system going — though of course the psychology of knowing that you’re paying for bandwidth may change behavior.”

So, what gives?  Will the real Free Press please stand up? Does the Free Press believe in pricing freedom or price controls for the Internet?

SHARE: 150 comments

The (Un)Free Press Calls for Internet Price Controls: “The Broadband Internet Fairness Act”

by on June 17, 2009 · 37 comments

You really have to hand it to the folks over at the (Un)Free Press with their endlessly shameful attempts to use doublespeak to remake the entire media, communications, and Internet landscape in their preferred Big Government image.  Their latest bit of charlatanism is the so-called “Stop the Internet Rip-Off of 2009” campaign.  It’s another one of their computerized “stuff-the-FCC-and Congressional-complaint-box-with-electronic-form-letters” efforts that involves getting their merry band of radical reformistas to encourage lawmakers to sign on to Rep. Eric Massa’s (D-NY) newly-introduced “Broadband Internet Fairness Act.”

Ah yes, “Internet fairness.”  Who can possibly be against it?  Well, before you rush to click send on that UnFree Press form letter, let’s be clear what this effort is really all about.  Free Press claims that the Massa bill is needed because “phone and cable giants [are] weighing schemes to hike prices, shut down the free-flowing Web and keep user innovation in check.”  How are those companies doing that?  Tiered pricing!   Rep. Massa says that, “Time Warner has announced an ill-conceived plan to charge residential and business broadband fees based on the amount of data they download.”  Oh my God, no… you mean some people might be charged for the costs they impose?  What’s next?  Are we going to force people to pay for their own energy use by metering gasoline, electricity, or water?  Think of the horror!  (This is sarcasm, folks.  All those things are metered currently. And yet, somehow, the Earth hasn’t spun off its axis.)

Like all the other propaganda produced at the Free Press techno-spin factory, their latest crusade is based on a combination of outright lies and blatant economic ignorance.  Metering broadband access is not an effort “to restrict Internet use,” as Free Press claims. Rather, like every other metered system under the sun, it’s an effort to price a scarce resource in such a way so as to maximize use.  Broadband operators don’t sit around all day scheming to find ways to decrease network usage.  They wouldn’t make any money that way!!  They need to find business models that encourage increased uptake while also investing in and growing their networks to meet new demand and competitive challenges.

Moreover, there are other pro-consumer reasons for companies to consider metering options.  Unless it is your goal to allow some particularly aggressive users to be subsidized by all other users, it is sometimes sensible to price usage based on demand.  If you don’t, you potentially create a perverse incentive for a small handful of over-grazers to to be feeding at the trough at everyone else’s expense. As economist Russell Roberts aptly noted in the title of a famous 1995 Wall Street Journal editorial, “If You’re Paying, I’ll Have Top Sirloin.”  Thus, you would never want to make the “all-you-can-eat” pricing model the only option for the provision of a scarce resource. Even if you choose not to deploy it, it is useful to have the metered pricing model available in case you need to charge the over-grazers at some point.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 37 comments

Louisiana Bill Taxes Internet Access Despite Federal Moratorium

by on June 17, 2009 · 2 comments

There’s a hearing going on as I write on a Louisiana bill (HB 569) that would create a new tax on the Internet bills of consumers, despite the fact that there’s a federal moratorium prohibiting it.

We just heard Attorney General James D. “Buddy” Caldwell say that this isn’t a “tax”, it’s a “fee.”  Louisiana is taking an interesting approach – HB 569 would impose a tax of 15 cents per month on ISP subscribers that would go to preventing and prosecuting Internet-based crimes against children.  AG Caldwell claims that it is merely a “usage fee”  — the price we pay for using the Internet.

But the Internet Tax Freedom Act explicitly sought to prevent the imposition of a tax that simply used different terminology. The Act defines a tax as:

(i) any charge imposed by any governmental entity for the purpose of generating revenues for governmental purposes, and is not a fee imposed for a specific privilege, service, or benefit conferred; or (ii) the imposition on a seller of an obligation to collect and to remit to a governmental entity any sales or use tax imposed on a buyer by a governmental entity.

Under this definition, a charge on Internet access is not like a fee imposed for recording a mortgage, for example. When you pay a recording fee, you pay for the costs you impose on the government for handling your transaction. If you were to pay a “usage fee” for law enforcement to deal with online safety, you’re paying for general services, something that law enforcement/government should be doing anyway to protect the public. Continue reading →

SHARE: 2 comments

Will the Government Be the New King of All Media?

by on May 15, 2009 · 10 comments

Howard Stern swore off free broadcast radio in 2004 in part because of federally mandated decency rules. The self-annointed “king of all media” may have stepped off the throne in doing so. Them’s the breaks in the competitive media marketplace, contorted as it is by government speech controls.

Some would argue that a new king of all media is seeking the mantle of power now that the Obama administration is ensconced and friendly majorities hold the House and Senate. The new pretender is the federal government.

And some would argue that the Free Press “Changing Media Summit” held yesterday here in Washington laid the groundwork for a new federal takeover of media and communications.

That person is not me. But I am concerned by the enthusiasm of many groups in Washington to “improve” media (by their reckoning) with government intervention.

Free Press issued a report yesterday entitled Dismantling Digital Deregulation. Even the title is a lot to swallow – Have communications and media been deregulated in any meaningful sense? (The title itself prioritizes alliteration over logic – evidence of what may come within.)

Opening the conference, Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press harkened to Thomas Jefferson – well and good – but public subsidies for printers and a government-run postal system model his hopes for U.S. government policies to come.

It’s helpful to note what policies found their way into Jefferson’s constitution as absolutes and what were merely permissive. The absolute is found in Amendment I: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . . .”

Among the permissive is the Article I power “to establish Post Offices and post Roads.” There’s no mandate to do it and the scope and extent of any law is subject to Congress’ discretion, just like the power to create patents and copyrights which immediately follows.

I won’t label Free Press and all their efforts a collectivist plot and dismiss it as such – there are some issues on which we probably have common cause – but a crisper expression of “dismantling deregulation” is “re-regulation.”

It’s a very friendly environment for a government takeover of modern-day printing presses: Internet service providers, cable companies, phone companies, broadcasters, and so on.

SHARE: 10 comments

More on “Open vs. Closed” Technologies & Business Models

by on May 10, 2009 · 20 comments

Over at the Verizon Policy Blog, Link Hoewing has a sharp piece up entitled, “Of Business Models and Innovation.” He makes a point that I have often stressed in my debates with Zittrain and Lessig, namely, that the whole “open vs. closed” debate is typically greatly overstated or misunderstood.   Hoewing correctly argues that:

The point is not that open or managed models are always better or worse.  The point is that there is no one “right” model for promoting innovation.  There are examples of managed and open business models that have been both good for innovation and bad for it. There are also examples of managed and open models that have both succeeded and failed.  The point is in a competitive market to let companies develop business models they believe will serve consumers best and see how things play out.

Exactly right.  Moreover, the really important point here is that there exists a diverse spectrum of innovative digital alternatives from which to choose. Along the “open vs. closed” spectrum, the range of digital technologies and business models continues to grow and grow in both directions.  Do you want wide-open, tinker-friendly devices, sites, or software? You got it. Do you want a more closed, simple, and safe online experience?  You can have that, too.  And there are plenty of choices in between.

This is called progress!

SHARE: 20 comments

Bandwidth and QoS: Much ado about something

by on April 24, 2009 · 3 comments

The supposed top finding of a new report commissioned by the British telecom regulator Ofcom is that we won’t need any QoS (quality of service) or traffic management to accommodate next generation video services, which are driving Internet traffic at consistently high annual growth rates of between 50% and 60%. TelecomTV One headlined, “Much ado about nothing: Internet CAN take video strain says UK study.”

But the content of the Analysys Mason (AM) study, entitled “Delivering High Quality Video Services Online,” does not support either (1) the media headline — “Much ado about nothing,” which implies next generation services and brisk traffic growth don’t require much in the way of new technology or new investment to accommodate them — or (2) its own “finding” that QoS and traffic management aren’t needed to deliver these next generation content and services.

For example, AM acknowledges in one of its five key findings in the Executive Summary:

innovative business models might be limited by regulation: if the ability to develop and deploy novel approaches was limited by new regulation, this might limit the potential for growth in online video services.

In fact, the very first key finding says:

A delay in the migration to [British Telecom’s next generation] 21CN-based bitstream products may have a negative impact on service providers that use current bitstream products, as growth in consumption of video services could be held back due to the prohibitive costs of backhaul capacity to support them on the legacy core network. We believe that the timely migration to 21CN will be important in enabling significant take-up of online video services at prices that are reasonable for consumers.

So very large investments in new technologies and platforms are needed, and new regulations that discourage this investment could delay crucial innovations on the edge. Sounds like much ado about something, something very big. Continue reading →

SHARE: 3 comments

“Internet Openness: Net Neutrality and Beyond” Event in NYC, April 21

by on April 19, 2009 · 2 comments

If you happen to be in the New York city area next Tuesday, April 21, stop by Cardozo Law school for what promises to be a great event starting at 11:15:

The Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal is pleased to present a symposium on Internet openness, net neutrality, content diversity and competition.  What is the new definition of net neutrality and what are the developing mandates?  How do policymakers promote or harm the richness and diversity online content/media? Join the lively debate with speakers including Sascha Meinrath (New America Foundation); Berin Szoka (Progress & Freedom Foundation); John Morris (Center for Democracy & Technology); Matthew Lasar (Ars Technica); Fred Benenson (Creative Commons); Jonathan Askin (Brooklyn Law School).

During the 11:30-1 pm panel, I’ll be talking about “Unrecognized to Internet Openness: Regulatory Mandates & Increased Liability”—explaining how the work Adam Thierer & I have been doing about privacy regulation, online advertising, Section 230, age verification mandates, etc. are all fundamentally issues of “openness.”  As we noted in our recent response (PDF) to the FTC’s self-regulatory guidelines:

We stand at an important crossroads in the debate over the online marketplace and the future of a “free and open” Internet. Many of those who celebrate that goal focus on concepts like “net neutrality” at the distribution layer, but what really keeps the Internet so “free and open” is the economic engine of online advertising at the applications and content layers. If misguided government regulation chokes off the Internet’s growth or evolution, we would be killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.

SHARE: 2 comments

Venture Capitalists Reject Bailout: An Inspiring Dose of Economic Sanity

by on March 3, 2009 · 11 comments

Our readers may be interested in this excellent WSJ article, Too Risky for Venture Capitalists: Why proposals for a government bailout were roundly rejected.  We should all take heart in the the fact that the venture capital community itself resoundingly opposed the notion of accepting a massive infusion of taxpayer money, especially Tom Friedman’s suggestion:

“You want to spend $20 billion of taxpayer money creating jobs?” Mr. Friedman wrote. “Fine. Call up the top 20 venture capital firms in America” and invest the money with them.

But I see three more reasons why those interested in technology policy should pay attention to this encouraging episode.

First, the groundswell of opposition seems to have been driven largely by the Internet, both as a vehicle for disseminating the bailout proposals and for voicing opposition to them:

Venture capitalists certainly agree that innovators and start-up companies, not bailed-out GMs or Chryslers, will create the new jobs. They rightly brag that almost 20% of U.S. gross domestic product is generated by companies built by venture capital, such as Intel, Apple and Google. Still, they almost universally panned the notion of taxpayer support. Their real-time rejection is an excellent example of how social media — here, the venture community dissecting a proposal online — can now quickly take down bad ideas.

Second, it should almost go without saying that venture capital is the fountainhead of innovation, especially the disruptive innovation that is constantly pushing the envelope of technology policy.  A healthy VC sector is the bedrock of a dynamic, free and innovative economy.  The VCs realize that this requires, more than anything else, avoiding the market distortions caused by government funding: Continue reading →

SHARE: 11 comments

Copps: The “Public Interest” Requires Regulation of the Internet!

by on February 25, 2009 · 14 comments

Acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps declared yesterday in a speech celebrating the 75th anniversary of the FCC and the Communications Act, that it was time to think “more rigorously” about the impact of the migration of communications to the Internet and “how to ensure that as the Internet becomes our primary vehicle for communicating with one another, it protects the public interest and informs the civic dialogue that America depends on.”

“In the beginning was the Word,” said John Something-or-other.  Well, the word here is “public interest” and—make no mistake about it—this is the beginning of a wholesale attempt to impose the regulatory regime of the broadcast era onto the Internet.

As Adam Thierer has pointed out, the “public interest” is really no standard at all—just so much hot air.

SHARE: 14 comments

Wide of the Mark

by on February 3, 2009 · 9 comments

Wall Street Journal columnist Gordon Crovitz writes that

In Japan, wireless technology works so well that teenagers draft novels on their cellphones. People in Hong Kong take it for granted that they can check their BlackBerrys from underground in the city’s subway cars. Even in France, consumers have more choices for broadband service than in the U.S.?? The Internet may have been developed in the U.S., but the country now ranks 15th in the world for broadband penetration. For those who do have access to broadband, the average speed is a crawl, moving bits at a speed roughly one-tenth that of top-ranked Japan. This means a movie that can be downloaded in a couple of seconds in Japan takes half an hour in the U.S. The BMW 7 series comes equipped with Internet access in Germany, but not in the U.S.

Then he adds that the economic stimulus package before Congress will not fix the real reason the U.S. now ranks 15th in the world for broadband penetration because

nothing in the legislation would address the key reason that the U.S. lags so far behind other countries. This is that there is an effective broadband duopoly in the U.S., with most communities able to choose only between one cable company and one telecom carrier. It’s this lack of competition, blessed by national, state and local politicians, that keeps prices up and services down.

A couple of observations come to mind.

One is that the U.S. has the most successful wireless market in the world. Cellphone calls are significantly less expensive on a per minute basis in the U.S. (6 cents per minute) than in France (17 cents) or Japan (26 cents), according to the FCC’s latest analysis of wireless competition (Table 16). U.S. mobile subscribers continue to lead the world in average voice usage by a wide margin.

The explanation for why fourth generation wireless technology is further along in Japan than it is here would have to include the fact that the Japanese government years ago decided to make leadership in 4G wireless technology a national priority and invested heavily with taxpayer money ( see, e.g., this).

This is a form of industrial policy, which involves picking winners and losers, and it is how the Japanese do things. Back in the late 1980s or early 1990s the Japanese government decided Japan needed to be the world-leader in high-definition television, which prompted some in our own government to argue we couldn’t afford to let that happen, so we needed a public-private partnership and a national high-definition television transition plan (which some now want to postpone).??

The good news is that AT&T, Clearwire and Verizon Wireless have all successfully acquired spectrum for the rollout of their own 4G services over the next couple years without government subsidies and oversight.??

Continue reading →

SHARE: 9 comments

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →