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 →
The disabled have much to give thanks for this year—but contrary to common assumptions, it’s not for paternalistic government accessibility mandates, regulations or subsidies (see, for example, the FCC’s November 6 Broadband Accessibility workshop), but for the good ol’ fashioned private sector ingenuity that has made America great. Five broad categories of examples suggest how constantly-improving computing power and innovation can make life easier for many, if not all, disabled users—and how market forces empower the disabled along with everyone else.
Video transcription. Last week, Google announced “the preliminary roll-out of automatic captioning in YouTube, an innovation that takes advantage of our speech recognition technology to turn the spoken word into text captions.” Google uses the same speech recognition technology it refined with its free Goog-411 and Google Voice services to automatically transcribe video dialog (which can also be automatically translated using Google’s translation engine). Why? Not because of any government mandate, but because of some combination of three factors: (i) it’s an easy way for Google to invest in its “reputational capital,” (ii) the underlying technologies of transcribing videos make videos easier to use for all users, not just the hearing-impaired, and (iii) those technologies also make it possible to contextually target advertising to the verbal content of videos.
http://www.youtube.com/v/kTvHIDKLFqc&hl=en_US&fs=1&
It’s worth noting that Hulu currently offers closed captioning for some of its television programming but notes that “closed-captioning data that’s used for broadcast TV isn’t easily translated for online use.” The online television clearinghouse promises to offer more closed-captioning soon. Perhaps they ought to license Google’s algorithmic transcription?
Voice recognition for direct consumer use—most notably, Dragon NaturallySpeaking 10, the latest version of the leading voice recognition software, which was released in summer 2008 but only recently seems to have really hit critical mass. Continue reading →
Why do (most) stores have walls? Because, obviously, walls are generally (at least in the developing world) a cost-effective technology for enforcing the value exchange that stores offer customers: products or services for customers’ cash. Open-air markets exist, but tend to be reserved for items cheap enough that the costs of theft fall below some “acceptable loss threshold.” All stores ultimately rely on employees and the police to chase down shoplifters.
Yet many valuable media products have long been simply given away by their producers in the implicit value exchange of advertising: newspapers, magazines, radio, television and online content/services for customers’ attention. It’s as if publishers set up a store with no walls and put up a big “steal this book!” sign inviting shoplifters in. Advertisers simply have to hope that their ads are interesting enough to catch the attention of readers/viewers/listeners—and, on the Web, maybe even get users to click on the ad! It should be obvious that the lack of any “enforcement technology” simply means that there will be less funding for this “free” stuff enjoyed by consumers—just as there would be fewer goods and/or higher prices if stores were prevented from discouraging or punishing shoplifting.
Ethicists could debate until the cows come home whether ad-blocking (or ad-ignoring) is morally tantamount to shoplifting—taking without “paying” (through attention)—but who cares? Whatever the morality of it, the important, and undeniable, thing is that those who ignore/block commercials are free-riding on the economic value created by those who don’t.
Enter Apple, which recently filed a patent application for a technology intended to ensure that users are seeing, and actually paying attention to, ads. Randall Stross, author of the excellent book Planet Google, hates the idea of “compelling attention” and suggests that it would so annoy consumers that it would cost Apple more in reputational capital than it’s worth. Stross may well be proven right in the marketplace (and, if so, fine), but does that make Apple’s proposal wrong? The brilliantly satirical “Secret Diary of Steve Jobs” calls the idea “evil,” and suggests that, in the pretended voice of Steve Jobs: Continue reading →
by Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer
The latest call for “search neutrality” and “cloud neutrality” comes from Andrew Odlyzko of the University of Minnesota’s School of Mathematics & Digital Technology Center—and probably among the top ten most influential academics in Internet policy. In his latest Review of Network Economics article “Network Neutrality, Search Neutrality, and the Never-ending Conflict between Efficiency and Fairness in Markets,” Odlyzko shows (discussed by Ars) just how slippery the slippery slope of Net neutrality regulation will be—exactly as we predict in our recent paper “Net Neutrality, Slippery Slopes & High-Tech Mutually Assured Destruction.” Odlyzko concludes:
for pervasive infrastructure services that are crucial for the functioning of society, rules about allowable degrees of discrimination have traditionally applied, and are likely to be demanded for the Internet in the future. Those rules have often been set by governments, and are likely to be set by them in the future as well. For telecommunications, given current trends in demand and in rate and sources of innovation, it appears to be better for society not to tilt towards the operators, and instead to stimulate innovation on the network by others by enforcing net neutrality. But this would likely open the way for other players, such as Google, that emerge from that open and competitive arena as big winners, to become choke points. So
it would be wise to prepare to monitor what happens, and be ready to intervene by imposing neutrality rules on them when necessary.
Odlyzko identifies search and cloud computing as the next most likely targets of “neutralization” and explains how calls for regulating these virtual “networks” would flow logically from the current arguments for neutrality mandates at the infrastructure layer:
The net neutrality debate is often pictured as a contest between the two most prominent corporate champions of the opposing sides, AT&T and Google. But the underlying issue predates both companies by centuries. It was never resolved completely, since it arises from a conflict between society’s drives for economic efficiency and for fairness. There is no reason to expect that this conflict will lessen, and instead there are arguments that suggest it will intensify. Should something like net neutrality prevail, the conflict would likely move to a different level. That level might become search neutrality. (And allegations about discriminatory behavior of a web search provider have surfaced recently in China, Tschang (2009).) Or, to take another currently popular concept, if “cloud computing” does become as significant as its enthusiasts claims, it could lead to dominance of a single service provider. The effective monopoly of that dominant player could then become perceived as far more insidious than any of the “walled gardens” or “intelligent network” that telcos would like to build.
There is, of course, an entirely different approach to the issue that does not involve the sort of across-the-board cyber-meddling that Odlyzko suggests: Freedom for all players at all layers of the Net to invest and innovate in the “networks” or “platforms” that offer content, connectivity and services. Continue reading →
Adam Thierer and I will be participating in two separate panels at the FTC’s December 7 “Exploring Privacy” workshop discussing, respectively, surveys & expectations and online behavioral advertising. Below is the cover letter I filed as part of my comments (PDF & Scribd), along with four past PFF publications and a working paper on the benefits of online advertising.
Privacy Trade-Offs: How Further Regulation Could Diminish Consumer Choice, Raise Prices, Quash Digital Innovation & Curtail Free Speech
In general, we at PFF have argued that any discussion about regulating the collection, sharing, and use of consumer information online must begin by recognizing the following:
- Privacy is “the subjective condition that people experience when they have power to control information about themselves and when they exercise that power consistent with their interests and values.”
[1]
- As such, privacy is not a monolith but varies from user to user, from application to application and situation to situation.
- There is no free lunch: We cannot escape the trade-off between locking down information and the many benefits for consumers of the free flow of information.
- In particular, tailored advertising offers significant benefits to users, including potentially enormous increases in funding for the publishers of ad-supported content and services, improved information about products in general, and lower prices and increased innovation throughout the economy.
- Tailored advertising increases the effectiveness of speech of all kinds, whether the advertiser is “selling” products, services, ideas, political candidates or communities.
With these considerations in mind, policymakers must ask four critical questions:
- What exactly is the “harm” or market failure that requires government intervention?
- Are there “less restrictive” alternatives to regulation?
- Will regulation’s costs outweigh its supposed benefits?
- What is the appropriate legal standard for deciding whether further government intervention is required? Continue reading →
buck buck buck
Flock Fox Dr. Fox buck
Lucky lucky buck buck buck buck Flock!
Lucky you! thought you!
thought this stupid program!
talking a!
mother Fokker!
should ship ship ships shipped!
In case you were wondering, that’s me trying to swear using Nuance Communications’s Dragon NaturallySpeaking, the leading voice recognition software. It’s bad enough that I can use my left wrist to type anymore because of cartilage damage without pain, and won’t be able to at all for the next few months after my wrist surgery next week. But does Nuance really have to try to clean up my potty mouth?
Now, many users would at this point cry “CENSORSHIP!” They might even suggest that the government should do something about this “violation of my First Amendment rights!” But this is a great example of the difference between what
governments often do—block or restrict speech, however indirectly, through the coercive power of the state, ultimately backed by force of arms (real censorship!)—and what private companies sometimes do: hinder my ability to send or receive information that want to sanction. Simply put, government has the power to put me in jail for saying George Carlin’s Seven Dirty Words,while companies like Nuance just make it (somewhat) harder for me to “express myself” using the wealth of my oh-so-extensive vocabulary. Continue reading →
IDG News reports that the European Parliament has negotiated a telecom bill that “now contains a new Internet freedom provision that states that access to the Internet is a human right of every E.U. citizen, and that if authorities take away that right people must have the opportunity to defend themselves.” If indeed the bill merely creates what Americans would recognize as a “due process” right against government action, that may not be such a bad thing. IDG notes that, “The issue is very sensitive, and not just in Europe, where a number of countries including France and U.K. are passing laws threatening to sever users’ Internet connections if they are found to have breached the copyright on music or movies.” Whatever one thinks of such “three strikes” laws as a remedy for copyright infringement, it seems reasonable that users should indeed have the right to “defend themselves” if accused of copyright violations before their Internet access is turned off.
But we should all be uncomfortable anytime government purports to invent a new “fundamental right” if that right is a “positive” one—
i.e., a moral entitlement to a particular product or service that must be guaranteed by other taxpayers paying for something someone can’t afford or simply doesn’t value enough to pay for out of their own pocket. That’s precisely what Finland recently did, guaranteeing Finns the “right” to a 1 megabit broadband connection. That sort of entitlement is pure cyber-collectivism. Cyber-libertarianism recognize instead that:
true “Internet freedom” is freedom from state action; not freedom for the State to reorder our affairs to supposedly make certain people or groups better off or to improve some amorphous “public interest”—an all-to convenient facade behind which unaccountable elites can impose their will on the rest of us.
So if the Europeans want to guarantee a due process right, I hope they would find another term for that concept doesn’t have such cyber-collectivist implications.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
So declared the Party in George Orwell’s classic novel
1984. The corruption of language with a constant theme of Orwell’s work, most notably his 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language.” So Orwell would not have been surprised to see the term “Internet Freedom” captured by those who advocate an increased role for government (i.e., Big Brother) online. Nor would Orwell had been surprised to see these advocates claim Orwell for themselves, insisting that opponents of government regulation are the ones corrupting language. There is perhaps no better example of this than MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow’s comments in an interview with Boing Boing’s Xeni Jardin about the divisive issue of “Net Neutrality” regulations:
Rachel Maddow [dripping with sarcasm]: Sen. McCain’s bill, as you mentioned, is actually called the “Internet Freedom Act of 2009,” and he’s deriding the government effort to keep telecoms from walling off the Internet as “government intrusion” and “trying to regulate the Internet.” What that means is that he’s picked better branding, he’s picked better names. It doesn’t really relate the facts of what he’s doing. I’m wondering if it’s too late for a rebranding of the other side here. We need to get better about talking about this, because the language seems sort of corrupt at this point.
What makes Maddow’s comments so stunning is
not her view that corporate America, rather than government, is the real enemy of freedom. That view is simply part of the long-regnant political orthodoxy. No, what’s stunning is that she actually thinks that her side is losing the “war of words” just because Sen. McCain had the gall to use the term “Internet Freedom” as a rallying-cry for the outdated, bourgeois notion that “freedom” means the absence of coercion by the one entity that can enforce its commands at the point of a gun and call it “justice”: that coldest of all cold monsters, the State. That’s precisely what “liberalism” used to be about until people like Rachel appropriated that word and words like “liberty” and “freedom” as slogans for control. Xeni Jardin picks up where Rachel left off by appropriating the concept of rights, too:
Xeni Jardin: the Internet really is a basic right, it’s a necessity,such a fundamental way for communicating and accessing information now. Telecoms shouldn’t be able to throttle, to block, to slow down our access to something that might not be in their corporate interests.
This is pure, unadulterated cyber-socialism: Rights become not the sacred defense of the individual, but a positive assertion of entitlement to a vaguely defined principle of access: by guaranteeing this access through ever-expanding “neutrality regulation”, government gains unlimited control over the Internet itself.
As Adam Thierer and I have warned, that way lies madness: Inviting the government to regulate online content and services in the name of “neutrality” (or “privacy” or any of the many “glittering generalities” ending in “-y” Orwell would have denounced) would be the death of real
Internet Freedom, which requires a strict “Separation of Web and State.” Continue reading →
by Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer, Progress Snapshot 5.11 (PDF)
Ten years ago, Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman lamented the “Business Community’s Suicidal Impulse:” the persistent propensity to persecute one’s competitors through regulation or the threat thereof. Friedman asked: “Is it really in the self-interest of Silicon Valley to set the government on Microsoft?” After yesterday’s FCC vote’s to open a formal “Net Neutrality” rule-making, we must ask whether the high-tech industry—or consumers—will benefit from inviting government regulation of the Internet under the mantra of “neutrality.”
The hatred directed at Microsoft in the 1990s has more recently been focused on the industry that has brought broadband to Americans’ homes (Internet Service Providers) and the company that has done more than any other to make the web useful (Google). Both have been attacked for exercising supposed “gatekeeper” control over the Internet in one fashion or another. They are now turning their guns on each other—the first strikes in what threatens to become an all-out, thermonuclear war in the tech industry over increasingly broad neutrality mandates. Unless we find a way to achieve “Digital Détente,” the consequences of this increasing regulatory brinkmanship will be “mutually assured destruction” (MAD) for industry and consumers.
New Fronts in the Neutrality Wars
The FCC’s proposed rules would apply to all broadband providers, including wireless, but not to Google or many other players operating in other layers of the Net who favor such broadband-specific rules. With this rulemaking looming, AT&T came after Google with letters to the FCC in late September and then another last week accusing the company of violating neutrality principles in their business practices and arguing that any neutrality rules that apply to ISPs should apply equally to Google’s panoply of popular services. In particular, AT&T accused Google of “search engine bias,” suggesting that only government-enforced neutrality mandates could protect consumers from Google’s supposed “monopolist” control.
The promise made yesterday by the FCC—to only apply neutrality principles to the infrastructure layer of the Net—is hollow and will ultimately prove unenforceable. Continue reading →
Adam Thierer has been named the new president of the Progress & Freedom Foundation.
TLF readers don’t need to be told that he’s a tireless advocate for technology policies that preserve freedom and innovation. He was the driving force behind creation of this blog, for example, and he is a prodigious writer and commentator.
Adam will do even more to advance those goals and protect the Internet from stifling regulation from his new perch. Congratulations, Adam!
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.