The LA Times has come out swinging in a devastating editorial against Rep. Anna G. Eshoo’s (D-CA) Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act, passed by the House on Tuesday. As Adam Thierer and I have discussed (here, here, and here), and as PFF’s Ken Ferree notes here, this silly paternalist law would require the FCC to issue rules that broadcast and cable TV ads:
(1) … shall not be excessively noisy or strident;
(2) … shall not be presented at modulation levels substantially higher than the program material that such advertisements accompany; and
(3) [their] average maximum loudness… shall not be substantially higher than the average maximum loudness of the program material that such advertisements accompany.
The LA Times‘s pithy response: “Ads too loud? Try ‘mute.‘” Three cheers for trusting users to take advantage of the simple tools available to them to make these decisions for themselves (like the “mute” button on their remote), instead of leaping to legislative solutions:
Eshoo might have the public on her side, but as a representative of Silicon Valley, she should be more wary of having the government dictate technological solutions to problems that individuals can solve themselves. The market is already responding — more than 30% of TV viewers use ad-skipping video recorders. Besides, as dissenting Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee pointed out,“Americans’ televisions still have volume control, and remote controls still have ‘mute’ buttons. Consumers do not need the government to come into their homes and operate their remote controls for them.” With all the challenges facing the country, you’d think lawmakers could find better things to do than invite themselves into their constituents’ living rooms.
Besides the broad philosophical precedent that this elitist law sets (consumers are too stupid and helpless to take care of themselves so government must do it for them), I explained in some detail five other reasons why this law is a terrible idea when I blogged about it in October: Continue reading →
As I noted here a few days ago, the Federal Communications Commission held a workshop on Tuesday about “Speech, Democratic Engagement, and the Open Internet.” It was a shockingly one-sided affair with the deck being stacked almost entirely in favor of advocates of Net neutrality regulation. Worse yet, those advocates shamelessly made up spooky stories about a future of “private censorship” that could only be remedied by using the First Amendment as a club to beat private players into submission. The token opposition at this Chicken Little circus was Robert Corn-Revere, a Partner at the law firm of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP in Washington, D.C. Bob set the record straight–both in terms of baseless accusations that were flying that day as well as the revisionist histories of the First Amendment that were being put forward. I’m happy to report that Bob allowed PFF to reprint his remarks as a new white paper entitled, “The First Amendment, the Internet & Net Neutrality: Be Careful What You Wish For.”
In his essay, Corn-Revere discusses the relationship between the First Amendment and regulatory policy, particularly the treatment of new communications technologies, and he warns that government regulation of broadband networks could “provide the vehicle for advancing new First Amendment theories for media regulation” and online speech and expression more generally. “It should not be forgotten,” he argues, “that the federal government’s initial impulse was to censor the Internet and to subject it to a far lower level of First Amendment protection. It pursued this agenda for more than a decade but was blocked by a series of First Amendment rulings.” The Communications Decency Act and the Child Online Protection Act are just two notable examples. Luckily, the courts determined that “the open Internet would be at great risk if the government is allowed to exercise such power,” he notes, and they struck down such laws.
Continue reading →
My friend Pablo Chavez, Managing Policy Counsel of Google, brings to my attention the fact that the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act (H.R. 3714) was pending before the House today, and I’m happy to note that it passed late this afternoon. The bill, which is co-sponsored by Reps. Schiff and Pence in the House and is co-sponsored by Sen. Dodd in the Senate, would expand the examination of press freedom worldwide in the State Department’s annual human rights report and establishes a grant program aimed at broadening and strengthening media independence internationally. Specifically, the bill would identify “countries in which there were violations of freedom of the press, including direct physical attacks, imprisonment, indirect sources of pressure, and censorship by governments, military, intelligence, or police forces, criminal groups, or armed extremist or rebel groups.”
This is a worthwhile goal and a fine tribute to a great journalist, a first-class human being, and someone I was honored to briefly count as a friend in this world before he was murdered by terrorist scum in 2002. Indeed, some of my fondest memories from the mid-90s are of the times I would meet Danny Pearl for beers at Cap City Brewery or other bars in downtown Washington, DC. He was an up-and-coming star reporter covering telecommunications policy for The Wall Street Journal and I was just starting to make a name for myself as a policy geek in this field. Because I was working very closely with a number of Hill offices at that time and helping to craft some of what eventually went into the Telecom Act of 1996, Danny knew I had a lot of good inside information. And like any great journalist, he knew that enough beers and late-night banter would eventually get me to spill the beans about something I wasn’t suppose to be sharing with a reporter! I didn’t mind being an “unnamed source” in a couple of his stories, and the fact that he sometimes quoted me in others gave me and my career an unbelievable boost. I still remember sending my family the first big WSJ story I was ever quoted in. It was a piece Danny wrote back in ’94.
Everyone now knows the tragic story of how Danny was abducted and murdered by terrorists in 2002. I remember how numb I went when I heard the news and still find it hard to fathom how such a gentle, down-to-earth soul could have been viciously murdered.
Continue reading →
At a public forum held today by the Federal Trade Commission on “Sizing Up Food Marketing and Childhood Obesity,” activists called on Congress to pass legislation that would heavily curtail food marketing to children, including:
- Rep. Jim Moran’s (D-VA) “Healthy Kids Act” (H.R. 4053) would direct the FTC to conduct a rulemaking and decide what kinds of foods could be marketed to children, and FCC to ban or seriously restrict broad categories of food and beverage ads shown on children’s programming.
- Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) wants to repeal limitations a heavily Democratic Congress imposed in the late 1970’s on the FTC’s unfairness rulemaking authority over children’s advertising after the agency ran amok.
- Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) intends to introduce legislation to essentially tax so-called “fast food and junk food” marketed to children by eliminating the current tax deduction.
It’s easy to pick on advertising as the cause of all of society’s ills, but there’s no hard evidence that food advertising is to blame for childhood obesity or that restricting food ads on television or the Internet will solve the problem. Howard Beales, now at George Washington University’s business school, wrote the definitive law review article on this topic back in 2004, when he was Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition: Advertising to Kids and the FTC: A Regulatory Retrospective that Advises the Present. It is a true masterpiece.
Dan Jaffe of the Association of National Advertisers, brings his extraordinary expertise on this issue to bear in his comments (full comments in Word doc) to today’s workshop, which update and expand on the themes Howard discussed in his 2004 article. As Dan describes in rich detail, industry is already responding to demands by parents and other consumers with healthier foods and self-regulation.
So, rather than restricting the free speech of advertisers, and thus diluting First Amendment rights in general, the FTC should use its existing authority to punish truly unfair and deceptive claims. Governments and schools should focus on educating kids and parents about eating healthier and exercising more.
Today I visited the Federal Communications Commission meeting room to attend a workshop on “Speech, Democratic Engagement, and the Open Internet.” Honestly, I think I was stuck in the Twilight Zone, because from what the speakers at this ridiculously one-sided panel had to say: (1) the First Amendment means something entirely different than what the Constitution says; and (2) the whole Internet world is set to go to hell unless government intervenes and saves us a litany of corporate conspiracies to “silence” us.
Seriously, I thought the FCC was trying to make their broadband workshops and Net neutrality proceeding “balanced” and “evidence-based.” This one was neither. One speaker after another regaled us with spooky stories and asked us to imagine how their particular group or service would be “blocked” or “silenced” unless Net neutrality regulations were put on the books. But no evidence was offered supporting their scary tales.
By the time Michele Combs of the Christian Coalition got done breathlessly delivering her conspiratorial rant, for example, I half expected her to ask “What would Jesus do?” about Internet regulation. She really laid it on thick, suggesting that ISPs were hell-bent (excuse the pun) on blocking Christian messaging across multiple platforms. Yeah, cause it would be a brilliant business strategy to piss off tens of millions of Christians in this country. Sure, that makes a lot of sense.
Continue reading →
Yesterday marked the beginning of the third annual US-China Internet Industry Forum (held this year in SF). The purpose of the gathering is to increase mutual understanding of key business and policy issues in China and the US. It is an invite-only event, so I was excited to be there with top government and technology leaders such as Wikipedia’s Jimmy Wales, Sina.com’s Charles Cao, Harvard law prof John Palfrey (author of Born Digital – loved that book), Microsoft’s Chief Research and Strategy Officer Craig Mundie, Google’s Chief Economist Hal Varian, Baidu’s COO Ye Peng, The FBI’s Jeffrey Troy, China’s Deputy Director of the Internet, Liu Zhengrong, and a bunch of others (eBay, Yahoo, Intel, Facebook, etc). The main topics of discussion were intellectual property, online child protection, and cybercrime.
What struck me most about the discussions was the degree of concern the Chinese attendees showed for intellectual property. Now that China is moving towards a knowledge-based economy, they are realizing that it is in their best interests to do a better job of protecting IP. Most Americans probably don’t realize it, but there is a vibrant start-up community in China and it won’t be long before we start to see more innovation coming from that country.
The event was co-hosted by Microsoft and the Internet Society of China and co-sponsored by Google, eBay, Intel, About.com, Verisign, Akamai, Yahoo, People.com, Xinhuanet.com, China.com.cn, CCTV.com, SOHU.com, Netease.com and Baidu.com.
This morning the Federal Trade Commission released its report on kids and virtual worlds. You can read the report, entitled Virtual Worlds and Kids: Mapping the Risks, here. (I’ve posted similar thoughts over at Terra Nova, apologies for the cross-post).
What initially strikes me about the report is the distance between how the report’s being billed and what it actually says. The billing of the report—and thus the likely media tagline—is that the “FTC Report Finds Sexually and Violently Explicit Content in Online Virtual Worlds Accessed by Minors.” But a more accurate statement would be “FTC Report Finds Surprisingly Little Sexually and Violently Explicit Content in Online Virtual Worlds Accessed by Minors, Especially Compared to What Minors Can Find on the Internet.”
The Commission found at least one (really? that’s all?) instance of explicitly violent OR sexual content in a significant percentage of the virtual worlds it examined—and that includes user chat, but in general it didn’t find many such instances per world. So to be counted in the study as a virtual world that contains explicit violent or sexual content, the researchers just had to find one instance of chat in which someone said something violent or sexually oriented (which of course includes the scatalogical as well as the sexual). The point is, it appears to me that they went looking for anything and didn’t find much. Far from being seen as an indictment of virtual worlds as dangerous for kids, this seems to me to be quite positive for virtual worlds, especially as compared to the internet at large. I’m relying on the following language from the report:
Despite this seemingly high statistic [the Commission found at least one instance of sexually or violently explicit content in 19 out of 27 worlds], the Commission found very little explicit content in most of the virtual worlds surveyed, when viewed by the actual incidence of such content.
And:
Of [the 14 virtual worlds open to children under 13], the Commission found at least one instance of explicit content on seven of them. Significantly, however, with the exception of one world, Bots, all of the explicit content observed in the child-oriented worlds occurred when the Commission’s researchers visited those worlds as teen or adult registrants, not when visiting the worlds as children under age 13.
I think the study said some interesting things, and there is some strong analysis, but the reception the report will get is, I bet, far removed from what the report actually says.
One of the more troubling aspects of the contentious debate over Net neutrality regulation is the way some proponents have sought to cast Net neutrality as “the Internet’s First Amendment.” As a die-hard free speech advocate, I find this truly outrageous and a complete contortion of the true purpose of the First Amendment. As I have argued here before, it is incredibly dangerous thinking that puts our real First Amendment liberties at stake by empowering a regulatory agency with more means of controlling online speech and expression. Simply stated, the Internet’s First Amendment is the First Amendment, not some new, top-down, heavy-handed regulatory regime that puts the Federal Communications Commission in control of the Digital Economy.
On this point, I wanted to bring two things to your attention. The first is an outstanding address delivered today by Kyle McSlarrow, President & CEO of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, at a Media Institute event here in Washington, DC. And the second is this new paper by my PFF colleague Barbara Esbin.
McSlarrow’s speech was entitled, “Net Neutrality: First Amendment Rhetoric in Search of the Constitution” and it squarely addressed the fundamental fallacy set forth by the Net neutralitistas when it comes to the First Amendment. “Whatever our present-day policy disagreements about net neutrality, or even differing politics, let’s not forget that the First Amendment is framed as a shield for citizens, not a sword for government,” he argued. “By its plain terms and history, the First Amendment is a limitation on government power, not an empowerment of government,” McSlarrow said. “And… if there’s one thing the Supreme Court has made clear, it’s that rules that directly restrict protected speech cannot be justified by a government interest that is merely hypothetical.”
Absolutely correct. And these views are buttressed by the comments of Barbara Esbin in her new paper, in which she argues that “Net Neutrality is not the First Amendment for the Internet.” She continues: Continue reading →
by Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka
Move over, health care reform, climate change, and the economy. Judging by White House visits by various government agency heads, the Obama administration instead appears preoccupied with the re-regulation of communications, media, and the Internet. The Administration has just released logs of all visitors to the White House and Executive Office Buildings from Obama’s inauguration through August—including a staggering 47 visits by Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski. By contrast, no other major agency head logged more than five visits. Chairman Genachowski obviously has an audience with those at the highest levels of power, including the President himself, but this raises questions about just how “independent” this particular regulator and his agency really are.
Unprecedented Transparency by White House
The Administration deserves credit for releasing these visitor logs, which offer unprecedented transparency into the White House’s workings. Unfortunately, the logs lack visitors’ affiliation and title, making it difficult to discern subtle patterns. Furthermore, each entry indicates only one “visitee” and the total number of people involved. Full disclosure requires identifying all meeting participants. Nonetheless, President Obama’s gesture is a great first step toward improved government accountability.
This openness allows us to ask questions we couldn’t pose for previous administrations—such as why the FCC head seems to have unparalleled access to the White House. Lacking data from previous administrations, it’s difficult to make direct comparisons with previous FCC Chairmen, but the sheer number of visits by Chairman Genachowski leaves no doubt about his uniquely close involvement with the White House. Continue reading →
Perfect media equality is impossible. There has never been anything close to “equal outcomes” when it comes to the distribution or relative success of old media: books, magazines, music, movies, book, theater tickets, etc. A small handful of titles have always dominated, usually according to a classic “power law” or “80-20? distribution, with roughly 20% of the titles getting 80% of the traffic / revenue.
But here’s the really interesting thing: This trend is increasing, not decreasing, for newer and more “democratic” online media. As I pointed out in two previous essays [“YouTube, Power Laws & the Persistence of Media Inequality” & “Cuban on Fragmentation & Attention in the Blogosphere (or Why Power Laws Really Do Govern All Media)”], there is solid evidence that blogs, YouTube, Twitter, and other digital media outlets and platforms not only follow a classic power law distribution but that the distribution is even more heavily skewed toward the “fat head” of the distribution curve, not “the long tail” of it.
The latest evidence of the persistence of power laws across media comes from Facebook. Erick Schonfeld has a new essay up at TechCrunch (“It’s Not Easy Being Popular. 77 Percent Of Facebook Fan Pages Have Under 1,000 Fans“) highlighting some new findings from an upcoming report by Sysomos, a social media monitoring and analytics firm. Here’s the summary from Schonfeld: 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.