Over at BroadbandCensus.com, my friend Drew Bennett, who has graciously agreed to be a special correspondent for the publication while he is in New York covering the Personal Democracy Forum, has been pumping out the blog entries.
NEW YORK, June 24 – Jonathan Zittrain, author of “The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It,” took to the stage at the Personal Democracy Forum to focus “civic technologies:” the personal computer, spreadsheet applications, Wikipedia, even the Internet itself are all examples. read more
NEW YORK, June 24 – Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig presented his ‘Declaration For Independence’ to the Personal Democracy Forum here today, fingering this problem in the American political system: the perception of a government disproportionately influenced by the stakeholders that fund political campaigns. read more
NEW YORK, June 24 – “What happens next?” is the question Andrew Rasiej used to start off the Tuesday morning panel discussion at the Personal Democracy Forum here. read more
The complete index page of articles, blog posts, and press releases on BroadbandCensus.com is available here.
Larry Lessig is a great writer and a brilliant legal scholar, but my goodness does he have bad political instincts:
I can’t begin to understand why in a war where soldiers go to jail for breaking the law, the US Congress is so keen to make sure telecom companies don’t have to fight a law suit about violating civil rights. Obama doesn’t support that immunity. He promises to get it removed. But he has signaled agreement with the compromise, which I assume means he will not filibuster immunity as he had indicated before he would. I wish he had decided differently.
But the key thing we need to keep in focus is what the objective here is. This is a hugely complex chess game. (Or I’m assuming it’s complex, since how else can you explain losing twice (ok once) to this President.) The objective of this chess game is to keep focus on the issues that show America why your candidate should win. Keeping focus (in this media environment, at least) is an insanely difficult task. But one tool in that game is picking the fights that resonate in ways that keep focus on the issues that show America why your candidate should win.
That doesn’t mean you (as a candidate) should change what you would do as President. Or change what you would fight for. But it does me that we (as strong supporters of a candidate) need to chill out a bit for about five months.
We (and I think that means all of us) can’t afford to lose this election. When we win, we will have elected a President who will deliver policy initiatives I remain certain will make us proud. If he doesn’t, then loud and clear opposition is our duty.
If “our” goal is to elect a Democrat president, then Lessig’s advice is spot on. If, on the other hand, “our” goal is to use politics as a way to improve public policy, Lessig’s advice couldn’t be worse. Continue reading →
In a sense, both models – market and regulatory — are flawed. But there is a difference. For every theory contending that markets fail, there is usually an answering argument that they tend to self-correct. Once, economic theory worried that markets would fail to fund “public goods” like lighthouses—until more careful economics revealed markets doing exactly that. More theory pointed to the evils of monopoly. But in reality a monopolist reaping substantial profits is a big target, with every entrepreneur looking for a substitute good or service. Many of the markets’ self-correcting mechanisms are simple Darwinism. Poor investors and badly run businesses lose (their own) money until they go under. Technology and other factors that bring change keep even established firms on their toes.
In contrast, self-correction is not a common response to regulatory failures. There is no good explanation for how an agency or a system of rules can be designed to systematically succeed or self-correct.
This morning the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing on Sovereign Wealth Funds–those growing state-owned investment funds (often invested in the tech sector) causing a political stir as of late.
The panelists differed at the margins, but all agreed that sovereign wealth funds are a good thing for the U.S. economy. We need the money! The thought that foreign governments would invest in the U.S. to surreptitiously bring down the U.S. is nil, as it’s a mutually assured destruction strategy. There’s just too much money being invested in the U.S. so even some Arab and Asian countries have an interest in seeing our economy prosper.
ACT released a paper on foreign direct investment earlier this year, where my coauthor Nora von Ingersleben and I conclude that there are processes already in place–namely CFIUS review–that will account for any national security threats. I wrote in a past blog post that Congress should refrain from politicizing foreign investment, including the proposed acquisition of 3Com.
Congress is right to be involved, and CFIUS keeps them involved. Congress receives reports from the CFIUS committee that does a national security review of foreign transactions to ensure transparency in the process.
David Marchick of the Carlyle Group was one of the witnesses, and last month he was a panelist at an event on foreign investment that ACT sponsored in the Capitol Building.
Michael Powell seems to have finally found his political voice. Reed Hundt probably never lost his. But both former FCC chairmen got into the spirit of debate at the Federalist Society gathering today at the National Press Club. Reporters William Korver and Cassandre Durocher, of BroadbandCensus.com, were present to record the exchange.
The story is just the most recent of a stream of news articles on broadband-related subject available for free at BroadbandCensus.com. As TLF readers may be aware, the goal of BroadbandCensus.com is to collect user-generated data — otherwise known as “crowdsourcing” — through inviting individual Internet users’ to contribute to our publicly-available database of local broadband information, all sorted by ZIP code.
Now, we’re pleased to announce that we are also following technology and communications policy news in Washington, and elsewhere, through daily reporting. If you haven’t been to BroadbandCensus.com, I encourage you to do so. And don’t forget to Take the Broadband Census!
Google co-founder Larry Page came to Washington last week to take on the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), the lobbying group that represents over-the-air television stations. It’s a whole new adversary for the beleaguered broadcasters, who have been fighting cable and satellite television for years.
The Federal Communications Commission is currently considering a proposal, by Google and other tech players. It would allow tech companies to build electronic devices that transmit wireless internet signals over the “white spaces,” or the vacant holes in the broadcast television band.
“We have an ambitious goal called pervasive connectivity through ubiquitous broadband networks,” said Page, who is currently co-president of Web search giant Google, and the world’s 43rd richest man, according to Forbes. “To realize that vision, we need to change the way we allocate and manage the nation’s airwaves.”
Basically, Google wants the right to broadcast where the broadcasters aren’t doing so right now. And there are a lot of vacant channels to take advantage of, potentially offering a boon to the broadband-hungry technology industry. Continue reading →
Much of my draft paper, Private Prediction Markets and the Law, focuses on nuts-and-bolts fixes for the legal uncertainty that currently afflicts private prediction markets under U.S. law. I’ll say more about those in later posts to Agoraphilia and Midas Oracle. The paper also dicusses a more theoretical and general issue, though: The benefits of designing regulatory schemes to include exit options.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission recently issued a request for comments about whether and how it should regulate prediction markets. In earlierpapers, I explained why the CFTC cannot rightly claim jurisdiction over many types of prediction markets. I recap that view in my most recent paper, but add some suggestions about how the CFTC might properly regulate some types of prediction markets. In brief, I suggest that the CFTC build exit options into any regulations it writes for prediction markets, allowing those who run such markets the same sort of freedom of choice that U.S. consumers already enjoy, thanks to internet access to overseas markets like Intrade, with regard to using prediction markets. Here’s an excerpt from the paper:
Those practical limits on the CFTC’s power should encourage it to write any new regulations so as to allow qualifying prediction markets to operate legally, and fairly freely, under U.S. law. . . . Ideally, the CFTC would offer prediction markets something like these three tiers, each divided from the next with clear boundaries.
Designated Contract Markets. Regulations designed for designated contract markets, such as the HedgeStreet Exchange, would apply to retail prediction markets that offer trading in binary option contracts and significant hedging functions.
Exempt Markets. Regulations for “exempt” markets, which impose only limited anti-fraud and manipulation rules, would apply to prediction markets that:
offer trading in binary option contracts;
thanks to market capitalization limits or other CFTC-defined safe harbor provisions do not primarily support significant hedging functions; and
offer retail trading on a for-profit basis.
No Action Markets. A general “no action” classification, similar to the one now enjoyed by the Iowa Electronic Markets, would apply to any market that duly notifies traders of its legal status and that is either:
a public prediction market run by a tax-exempt organization offering trading in binary option contracts but not offering significant hedging functions;
a private prediction market offering trading in binary option contracts, but not significant hedging functions, only to members of a particular firm; or
any prediction market that offers only spot trading in conditional negotiable notes.
Notably, regulation under either of the first two regimes would definitely afford a prediction market the benefit of the CFTC’s power to preempt state laws. It remains rather less clear whether the third and lightest regulatory regime would offer the same protection, though the cover afforded by its two “no action” letters has allowed the Iowa Electronic Markets to fend off state regulators. Markets that by default qualify for the third regulatory tier described above thus might want to opt into the second tier, so as to win a guarantee against state anti-gambling laws and the like. So long as they satisfy the first two conditions for such an “exempt market” status, public prediction markets run by non-profit organizations or private prediction markets that offer trading only to members of a particular firm should have that right. Why offer this sort of domestic exit option? Because it would, like the exit option already open to U.S. residents who opt to trade on overseas prediction markets, have the salutatory effect of curbing the CFTC’s regulatory zeal.
The footnotes omitted from the above text includes this observation: “Because they fall outside the CFTC’s jurisdiction, markets offering only spot trading in conditional negotiable notes could not opt into the second regulatory tier.”
Please feel free to download the draft paper and offer me your coments.
Barbara Esbin and I have just released a short PFF essay asking the question: “Where is the FCC’s Annual Video Competition Report?” The FCC is required to produce this report annually and yet the last one is well over a year past due and the data is contains will be over two years old by the time it comes out. I’ve embedded our paper about this below.
GamePolitics.com noted that presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama had some comments upon the release of Grand Theft Auto IV this week, and they weren’t actually half bad. Indeed, instead of engaging in the typical game-bashing hysteria we’ve gotten used to, Obama instead focused on the need to find the right balance in terms of getting kids as interested in education as they are in games and other forms of entertainment. (This is something I was just discussing in the comments to another post I made yesterday).
Obama wondered, “How are we giving our kids a thirst for knowledge? And turning off the TV set, and getting them to be engaged and interested, like their future really does matter on how well they do in school.” That’s a good question, and I’ve provided some of my own thoughts on that here.
Importantly, I just want to remind everyone of the very sensible things Obama said when asked at a debate earlier this year about the role of government when it comes to media content. “[T]he primary responsibility is for parents,” he said. “And I reject the notion of censorship as an approach to dealing with this problem.” Better yet, he went on to stress the importance of making sure that parents have the tools to make these determinations for their families:
“[I]t is important for us to make sure that we are giving parents the tools that they need in order to monitor what their children are watching. And, obviously, the problem we have now is not just what’s coming over the airwaves, but what’s coming over the Internet. And so for us to develop technologies and tools and invest in those technologies and tools, to make sure that we are, in fact, giving parents power — empowering parents I think is important.”
He’s got it exactly right. I just wish he’d stress personal responsibility and limited government solutions across the board!
I can’t let the week end without calling attention to a Bloomberg article on Republican outrage over the FCC’s cession to Google’s petition for “gaming” the spectrum rules.
At Tuesday’s House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, Molly Peterson reports that:
Rep. John Shimkus (IL) asked whether Google had “duped” the FCC by bidding primarily to trigger the open-access rules. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said the agency wasn’t duped, adding that the rules weren’t designed to prevent any company from bidding. “My goal was to make sure that whoever won the C-block had an open platform,'” Martin, a Republican, told the House telecommunications subcommittee.
The 463 blog smartly caught the irony of a company playing the game too successfully:
The only right thing for Google to do is to begin to shut down it’s overly effective Washington operation. They are clearly operating on a level that is unfair to all those telecom giant DC neophytes.
But here’s the real takeaway. Google’s public policy pitch was a crafty and bold maneuver. By asserting public interests, Google convinced the FCC to skew the spectrum rules to favor Google’s ad-based business model over competitive models that receive revenue from monthly subscriptions or operating networks. 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. Learn more about TLF →
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.