CNET reports that Amazon has halted plans to sell wine online. The reason: too many inconsistent state laws. Per the article:
Since the Supreme Court ruled in May 2005 that states must grant the same shipping rights to out-of-state and in-state wineries, winery-to-consumer shipping has become legal in 35 states, according to wine advocacy group Free the Grapes. But state laws governing direct wine shipping vary greatly, creating an onerous task in managing compliance.
Amazon has become a great marketplace for countless products–it’s a shame to see wine makers shut out from this market due to regulatory barriers to e-commerce.
I very much enjoyed Dennis Baron’s new book, A Better Pencil: Readers, Writers, and the Digital Revolution, and highly recommend you pick it up. Baron does a wonderful job exploring the history of techno-pessimism and the endless battles about the impact of new technologies on life and learning, something I have written about here before in my essays on “Internet optimists vs. pessimists” (See: 1, 2, 3).
I have a complete review of Baron’s A Better Pencil now up on the City Journal‘s website here. I’ve also pasted it down below.
________________________
In the beginning, Dennis Baron reminds us in his new book, A Better Pencil, there was the word—the spoken word, that is. Oral tradition, the passing of knowledge through stories and lectures, was the primary method of instruction and learning throughout early human civilization. But then a few innovative souls decided to start writing everything down on stones and clay. Almost as soon as they did, a great debate began on the impact of new communications technology on culture and education. And it rages on today, with a new generation of optimists and skeptics battling over the impact that computing, the Internet, and digital technologies have on our lives and on how we learn about the world.
Anti-technology urban legends abound in regard to food. The historical record includes butter producers who wanted to ban margarine and straight whiskey producers who wanted blended whiskey that contained fewer toxins to be labeled “imitation whiskey.” Looks like the chatter about artificial sweeteners being more harmful than sugar can finally be laid to rest; check this out.
Serving suggestion: The article in the link in the sentence above says that saccharine has a metallic aftertaste. Not in all applications, though. I’ve found that if I substitute saccharine for simple syrup in tiki drinks, the alcohol and tart fruit juices completely mask the aftertaste.
I like the idea of having a neutral Internet that allows me to go where I want to go and read what I want to read, all for the price of my monthly subscription. Sure, it took me awhile to figure out why anyone would want to access skype on an iphone (after all, an iphone is already a phone!), but now I can see why some people might enjoy making free international calls without having to plop down in front of the ol’ PC wedged into the guest bedroom.
At the same time, I don’t see a pressing need for regulation to ensure that we get whatever degree of neutrality is practical. Even in his speech announcing that he would propose net neutrality rules, FCC Chairman Genachowski could cite only the same three old anecdotes that have been tirelessly trotted out by others as proof that new regulation is required. Sure, by Washington standards, that’s two more anecdotes than are usually required to justify issuing a regulation. But it’s hardly proof of a broad, systemic problem that requires new rules (as Jerry Brito and I argued here.)
Nevertheless, as the saying goes, “You can’t beat something with nothing.” So I suggest a positive agenda to promote sustainable net neutrality.
Many of the arguments for a non-neutral net are based on the assumption that last-mile bandwidth is, at least sometimes, congested — or may soon become that way as people use more bandwidth-intensive applications. One solution is for the network operator to prioritize some packets over others, so if I have a heart attack, my wife’s VOIP call for an ambulance doesn’t get crowded out by the neighbor’s kid playing video games with his buddies in Australia. Another solution, though, is to make sure the network operators have adequate ability and incentive to build plenty of bandwidth. As an economist, I understand that some network management or usage-based pricing might be less expensive for consumers than building massive bandwidth. But that’s no reason to persist with policies that artificially constrain bandwidth.
For wired broadband, a positive agenda to promote sustainable net neutrality means avoiding regulations that impair incentives for investment that increases the capacity of the last-mile network. For wireless broadband, that means freeing up more spectrum to be auctioned for commercial wireless services.
And while you’re at it, FCC, maybe you can do something about the NIMBY problem that prevents me from receiving a decent 3G broadband signal in my house. Now that would expand last-mile bandwidth and promote competition to boot!
I’ve ranted on here before about technological etiquette, or that lack thereof by many people. (See my tedious screed from 3 years ago: “A Few Snooty Words about Technological Etiquette.” Man, I was really angry when I wrote that piece!) As much as I love technology and defend its unrestricted use, I think it’s important to encourage social norms about proper technology use to make it less likely people will call government in to act as a nanny.
That’s why I found this new “Intel Holiday Mobile Etiquette” poll so intriguing. According to the poll, which was conducted by Harris Interactive and sponsored by Intel:
most online U.S. adults (80 percent) feel there are unspoken rules about mobile technology usage, and approximately 7 in 10 (69 percent) agreed that violations of these unspoken mobile etiquette guidelines, such as checking e-mails, sending text messages and making phone calls while in the company of others, are unacceptable.
Hmmm… While I’m glad that such a large majority still have a sense of propriety about such things, this sounds like a case of people saying one thing when they likely do quite another. Then again, my perspective might be biased by life in a big city where people have PDAs practically glued to their hands full-time. I’ve even grown accustomed to people staring at their digital devices more than me during conversations and meetings. Of course, that could just be because I am so damn boring. [My colleague Jim Harper will, no doubt, suggest the latter.] Regardless, I just remain shocked by how people feel they simply must take every call, answer every email, or do whatever else on their devices in the presence of crowds or others. In my rant from 3 years ago, I offered “Two Simple Rules of Techno-Etiquette” that I will reiterate here as the first steps down the path to techno-etiquette recovery:
(1) If you absolutely MUST take that cell phone call or answer that e-mail right away, try saying this: “Excuse me, do you mind if I do this real quick?”
(2) Do not EVER, under any circumstances, answer a cell phone call while you are in a restaurant, movie theater or other public establishment where relative quiet is expected. If you have to take the call, go outside.
As you’ve no doubt heard, Washington D.C. is angling for a takeover of the . . . U.S. telecom industry?!
That’s right: broadband, routers, switches, data centers, software apps, Web video, mobile phones, the Internet. As if its agenda weren’t full enough, the government is preparing a dramatic centralization of authority over our healthiest, most dynamic, high-growth industry.
Two weeks ago, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski proposed new “net neutrality” regulations, which he will detail on October 22. Then on Friday, Yochai Benkler of Harvard’s Berkman Center published an FCC-commissioned report on international broadband comparisons. The voluminous survey serves up data from around the world on broadband penetration rates, speeds, and prices. But the real purpose of the report is to make a single point: foreign “open access” broadband regulation, good; American broadband competition, bad. These two tracks — “net neutrality” and “open access,” combined with a review of the U.S. wireless industry and other investigations — lead straight to an unprecedented government intrusion of America’s vibrant Internet industry.
Benkler and his team of investigators can be commended for the effort that went into what was no doubt a substantial undertaking. The report, however,
misses all kinds of important distinctions among national broadband markets, histories, and evolutions;
underplays caveats and ignores some important statistical problems;
focuses too much on some metrics, not enough on others;
completely bungles America’s own broadband policy history; and
draws broad and overly-certain policy conclusions about a still-young, dynamic, complex Internet ecosystem.
The gaping, jaw-dropping irony of the report was its failure even to mention the chief outcome of America’s previous open-access regime: the telecom/tech crash of 2000-02. We tried this before. And it didn’t work! The Great Telecom Crash of 2000-02 was the equivalent for that industry what the Great Panic of 2008 was to the financial industry. A deeply painful and historic plunge. In the case of the Great Telecom Crash, U.S. tech and telecom companies lost some $3 trillion in market value and one million jobs. The harsh open access policies (mandated network sharing, price controls) that Benkler lauds in his new report were a main culprit. But in Benkler’s 231-page report on open access policies, there is no mention of the Great Crash.Continue reading →
The new episode of Surprisingly Free Conversations is up and it features Michael S. Sawyer, a fellow at the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, discussing the impact of the DMCA on user-generated content. The discussion also turns to the principle of fair use and competing solutions for dealing with copyright infringements on user-generated content sites. You can listen to the podcast on the site or subscribe in iTunes. While you’re at it, check out our last episode, featuring TLF alum Tim Lee discussing bottom-up processes, the innovators dilemma, the link economy, and the future of newspapers.
Just FYI… I’ll be speaking tomorrow in Second Life about “Government’s Place in Virtual Worlds and Online Communities” as part of an ongoing series hosted by Metanomics, “an active community with a passion for exploring the uses and issues related to virtual worlds.” Metanomics takes a serious look at virtual worlds and the evolving use of virtual world technologies. I’m excited to be the guest on tomorrow’s show where we will be discussing free speech and privacy policy, online child protection concerns, and issues related to cyber-bullying and anonymity as they effect online communities and virtual worlds.
Those of you who already have Second Life avatars can be a member of the “live studio audience” at the Metanomics virtual studio, which you can find in Second Life here. Or you can watch and participate in the online broadcast at the Metanomics website where you can text comments to other audience members or ask questions. A video of the virtual broadcast will be made available later and I will post it (or a link to it) here.
In terms of background material, here are a few things I’ve penned that deal with issues that might come up on the show: Continue reading →
Please pardon its vulgarity, but for those of you out there who are as tired of the b.s. dished out by many self-labeled “social media gurus” as I am, I think you will very much enjoy this bit of humor from freelance journalist Markham Nolan. Too funny.
We’ll learn soon enough why product lines across the Googlesphere are down this morning, and Google will grow stronger from learning how to protect against or prevent whatever is happening.
Consider this another reason to be dubious of “cloud” computing, though. If your data was on your own server, you’d be accessing it right now.
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 new episode of Surprisingly Free Conversations is up and it features Michael S. Sawyer, a fellow at the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, discussing the impact of the DMCA on user-generated content. The discussion also turns to the principle of fair use and competing solutions for dealing with copyright infringements on user-generated content sites. You can listen to the podcast on 
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.