According to the AP, FEMA yesterday unveiled an upgrade to the Emergency Alert System that will eventually allow the feds to text-message every single cell phone in the country in the event of an emergency. (What would these messages say? “N.Korean Missl coming Ur way. Duck!” or “Grab Ur duct tape now”?) It looks like the $5.5 million system will initially be targeted at public safety officials, but Homeland Security Department spokesman Aaron Walker said yesterday, “Anything that can receive a text message will receive the alert. We find that the new digital system is more secure, it’s faster, and it enables us to reach a wide array of citizens and alert them to pending disasters.”
Now, apart from the obvious problem of network overloading that could occur not only by sending millions of text messages at once, and, as a result, by prompting everyone in the country to call their loved ones to see if they’re OK, there is the larger question of whether text alerts are necessary at all. The original Emergency Alert System was never activated–not even on 9/11. With at least three television networks, dozens of cable news channels and radio networks, and the internet, can anyone possibly escape being alerted of an emergency? Is there any reason to believe that the networks won’t pass on instructions from the government to citizens (or even give government airtime)? What value could text messages possibly add?
John Lawson, president of the Association of Public Television Stations (which, by the way, has the biggest interest here since public TV stations are the ones getting paid to use their DTV spectrum to broadcast the messages), explains why text messages are useful: “[W]e’re hoping that your cell phone will go off saying something bad is happening, and you need to get to a TV or radio to find out what’s going on.” Exactly.
I’m pleased to see that my erstwhile employer, the Cato Institute, has a new blog. Not a lot of tech coverage so far, but for those of you who are interested in the libertarian take on other issues, there’s probably no better place to turn.
Earlier today the Senate Commerce Committee released its eagerly awaited “staff working draft” aimed at reforming the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It’s tough to know where to begin evaluating this new 135-page monster, which is entitled the “Communications, Consumer’s Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006.” In true “everything-and-the-kitchen-sink” fashion, the measure tries to say a little bit about just about every aspect of modern communications and media law, and a whole heck of lot more about other issues not even found in the ’34 and ’96 Acts.
For example, you’ll experience your first “this-is-not-your-father’s-telecom-bill” moment when you open to page 4 and find that Title I is labeled “War on Terrorism.” There’s also a big subtitle dealing with copyright controversies and the so-called “video and audio flags.” There’s also a beefy section on “Sports Freedom” pertaining to local TV sports agreements. (Thank God our leaders are doing something to guarantee us our inalienable right to sports on TV!)
Again, that’s just SOME of the new stuff the bill takes on. There’s plenty more new rule-making authority found in the measure that would empower the Federal Communications Commission to deal with both new and old policy issues alike.
But instead of nitpicking about the trees here–I’m sure we’ll be doing plenty of that at PFF over the next few weeks–I want to instead step back and look at the forest for a moment. It seems to me that the fundamental problem with efforts like this Senate draft is that our lawmakers often get obsessed with working out the smallest details of complicated communications / broadband / media marketplace developments. When pondering reform, a lot of very smart lawmakers and their staffers get together and wring their hands agonizing over hundreds of “What If?” scenarios about future market developments and then concoct a legislative response to each of them. This is how we end up dozens of pages of new rules on universal service policy (Title II of the bill), video service regulation (Titles III and IV) and digital television transition rules (Title VII) in addition to the new things mentioned above.
Continue reading →
I just sent the following email to the Electronic Frontier Foundation:
From: Tim Lee
To: membership@eff.org
Subject: AOL Campaign
As an EFF contributor, and I wanted to express my disappointment at EFF’s decision to expend resources publicizing its criticism AOL’s GoodMail plan. While the technical merits of the plan are debatable, I don’t really see why EFF–an organization ordinarily dedicated to fighting to protect our rights online–should be involved in this fight. AOL’s customers voluntarily chose to subscribe to the company’s email service. If, as you predict, AOL’s policies are detrimental to their customers’ user experience, the customers are free to sign up with any one of dozens of other email services, many of which are available for free.
As I write this, there are many attacks underway on Internet users’ freedom. EFF’s viability as the “ACLU of cyberspace” depends on its remaining focused on that core mission. If it branches out into other issues, you risk alienating people who agree with you on core civil liberties issues but disagree on unrelated issues such as AOL’s email policies.
In the interest of maintaining the EFF “big tent,” I hope that you will refocus your efforts on fighting threats to users’ rights, and leave it to others to criticize the business decisions of companies like AOL.
Sincerely,
Tim Lee
I was briefly a financial supporter of the ACLU, until I got their first newletter, in which the executive director talked about their fight to protect affirmative action against California’s Racial Privacy Initiative. Now, reasonable people can disagree about the initiative, but I had trouble understanding why a civil liberties organization would be defending the government’s ability to discriminate on the basis of race.
They haven’t gotten any money from me since. I would gladly be an ACLU supporter if they would focus exclusively on genuine civil rights issues like free speech and privacy, but if they’re going to branch out into supporting generic left-wing causes, I’d rather give my money to a civil liberties organization whose positions I support 100% of the time.
I hope that the EFF doesn’t succumb to the same temptation. I recognize that most of their supporters are probably left of center, but I think they’re a lot stronger if they have some of us right-wingers on their team too. They jeopardize that broad base of support every time they wander off the reservation, as they have in this instance.
Politics in California is often surprising, especially so under Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. As if the point needed proving, the governor stunned state politicos by naming of a card-carrying Democratic leftist, Susan Kennedy as his new chief of staff. Kennedy (no relation to the governor’s in-laws) has a eyebrow-raising political pedigree–a former assiciate of Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda, and deputy chief of staff to former Governor Gray Davis.
Conservatives are aghast. Political pundit John Fund of the Wall Street Journal today asked in horror “has Governor Schwarzenegger jumped the shark?” The selection of Ms. Kennedy, he said, may be the governor’s “Harriet Miers” moment.
Fund–who is usually right about such things–is wrong here. Harriet Miers was a moderate Republican whose political views were obscure. No one is accusing Kennedy of being a moderate. But– in another California surprise–she is a strong supporter of economic deregulation. In her previous job as a California PUC commissioner, she was a leader in the fight to reduce telecom regulation. One of only a handful of pro-market state regulators in the country, she put even most Republican PUC members to shame. She co-founded, along with Florida GOP regulator Charles Davidson, the “Federation for Economically-Rational Utility Policy. (See “Economically-Rational Regulators, Not an Oxymoron Anymore.”) Perhaps more colorfully, she has been called “California’s Deregulation Energizer Bunny” in Cisco’s high-tech blog.
I have no idea what Kennedy’s views are on other issues. But, as a regulator for the past three years, she resembled former governor Reagan than former Governor Davis. Pigeon-holing her politics may not be as easy as it looks. Pundits should prepare for more surprises.
Yesterday, Kathleen Abernathy– one of two current GOP members of the FCC–announced she would be leaving the Commission effective December 9. The announcement was no surprise–her term has already expired, and she had long made it clear that she would not seek re-appointment.
Still, she will be missed. Abernathy is one of a rare breed in Washington–a policymaker who never really sought the limelight, but consistently worked to do the right thing. Her style was in marked contrast to the flamboyant pyrotechnic style of others, such as former chair Michael Powell. Perhaps that was because of her long service as an FCC staffer, perhaps that is just her personality. But limelight or no, Abernathy’s opinions and votes always seemed well-reasoned, and grounded in common sense. And, while Powell and others got attention for being pro-market visionaries, Abernathy proved herself as the most consistent voice for markets at the Commission during her tenure.
As noted here previously, President Bush has yet to name her sucessor. Finding someone as good will be difficult. But he should try.
After months of delay, President Bush announced two appointments to the FCC yesterday–Republican Deborah Tate , currently director of the Tennessee Regulatory Authority, and Democrat Michael Copps, who will be reappointed to his current seat. Neither was a surprise. What should raise eyebrows, however, is the missing name–White House tech staffer Richard Russell, who had been widely expected to be tapped for a third seat. His absence–reportedly due to objections by Sen Ted “Bridge to Nowhere” Stevens–is cause for concern.
Tate will fill the empty seat left by departed FCC chair Michael Powell, giving the Republicans a 3-2 edge at the agency. This is good news. The current 2-2 split has stalled the commission, and given the two Democratic members veto power over decision making. Case in point: the recent conditional approval of the AT&T and MCI acquisitions.
Copps’ reappointment is more disturbing. Like a modern-day Will Rogers, it seems Copps has never met a regulation he doesn’t like. He is an avid critic of free markets, and (except perhaps on indecency issues) seems to oppose the Bush agenda across the board. Yet, he gets Bush’s nod for the seat because of a recently invented “tradition” of letting Democratic Senate leaders choose Democratic members of the FCC. By bowing to this practice, Bush is sacrificing not just his presidential perogatives, but good telecom policy.
Yesterday’s surprise however was the FCC dog that did not bark–Richard Russell. Russell is a highly-regarded associate director at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and had been widely assumed to be in line for the FCC seat being vacated by Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy. So what happened? Apparently, he was nixed by Commerce Committee chair Ted Stevens. Stevens–who most recently has been in the news for spending billions on empty bridges in Alaska and subsidies for old TVs–reportedly did not think Russell was adequately supportive of rural telephone service subsidies.
The details–as they tend to be in such situations–are unclear. Russell may or may not still be in the running. And if he is out, who will replace him? And who will choose? Having given away the right to choose the two Democratic members, the White House can scarcely afford cede the rest of its appointment power. Certainly there should be at least some appointments saved for people who actually support the president’s agenda. Or–perhaps I’m dreaming here–actually support free-markets.
Stay tuned.
. . . paying attention to the Supreme Court nomination of Judge John Roberts or decrying the foremath and aftermath of Hurricane Katrina – or perhaps dissecting the latest draft telecommunications regulation – Congress has been not doing its work.
October 1st is the start of the federal government’s new Fiscal Year, and Congress has not passed most of the spending bills for the year. More than $14,000 per U.S. family will be allocated by Congress hastily and ad hoc. Again.
[cross-posted from the PFF Blog]
The House of Representatives’ Energy & Commerce Committee released draft legislation yesterday aimed a cleaning up the nation’s telecom and cable laws. A revision of the Telecom Act of 1996 has been in the works for some time and is very much needed, so most parties welcomed this news.
Here at PFF, of course, we’ve been working hard with a group of respected academics and experts to provide a new framework for communications policy reform. That project is called “DACA,” which stands for Digital Age Communications Act.
One thing we largely left out of DACA effort was any in-depth discussion of video regulation. That is, the extensive “public interest” regulatory regime that currently covers the broadcast sector and to some extent cable and satellite services. There were several reasons we left it out of the DACA project; most importantly, we simply felt that most of these rules could easily be sunset in light of growing competition in the multi-channel video marketplace and the media universe more broadly. Under our DACA framework, any “market power” problems that might develop in the future video / media marketplace would be handled with simple competition policy principles borrowed from antitrust law.
So Much for “Hands Off the Net”
Unfortunately, after looking through the House Commerce Cmmt. draft legislation last night, I realize that not everyone shares our opinion about the growing media market competition alleviating the need for extensive “public interest” regulation of the video marketplace. Specifically, Sec. 304 of the bill (which begins on pg. 41 of the discussion draft) is entitled “Application of Video Regulations to Broadband Service Providers.” Section A which immediately follows is appropriately labeled “Comparable Requirements and Obligations,” and then goes on to not how “each of the following provisions of the 1934 [Communications] Act, and the regulations under each such provision, that apply to a cable operator shall apply to a broadband service provider under this title in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Commission…”
Continue reading →
[[cross-posted from the PFF blog]]
I want to say a few words about this debate over the application of campaign finance regulations to the Internet and Web blogs in particular, but let me just start by admitting that I’m not an expert on campaign finance law. In fact, I am utterly mystified by this entire body of law, not only in terms of its sheer complexity, but also in terms of what it sometimes hopes to accomplish.
I understand that (at least in theory) the laws are suppose to eliminate “corruption” from our political process. But is it just me or is it not that case that campaign finance laws continue to get more complicated while the political process remains just about as “corrupt” as it has always been?
Well, maybe I’m just a cynic about the political process in general. So, let me instead just focus on all this from the perspective of a guy who cares about new media. The current batch of campaign finance regulations is really geared toward broadcasting and broadcast television in particular. But, as of late, the folks down at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) have discovered this thing called the Internet and this new craze called blogging just might have a little impact on the future of media in this country and, therefore, by extension, our political process.
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.