Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology
The city of New Orleans announced it will offer “free” WiFi over a network it deploys and owns. Everyone knows that “free” is not really free, making this one more disaster to add to the city’s woes. Using taxpayer dollars to subsidize porn surfing whilst people starve and go homeless is unconscionable. Hasn’t that city suffered enough?
The market research firm In-Stat reports that 9.4 percent of the nation’s 193 million wireless subscribers have already made their mobile phone their primary phone and the firm expects that percentage to grow to 23 to 37 percent by 2009.
Hopefully our wireline-obsessed policymakers in Washington will read this report and realize that their seemingly endless efforts to regulate wireline networks will only seek to further disadvantage those networks relative to the new wireless and Internet-based competitiors. Of course, it is more likely that lawmakers and regulators will simply respond to this news by finding new ways to regulate new wireless technologies and competitors.
New paper just out today from Heritage on the DTV transition, looking ahead to next week’s Senate vote on setting a “hard date” for the end of analog….
Since the days of Ed Sullivan and Milton Berle, television has been broadcast using the same technology and largely over the same frequencies. That is about to change. Later this month, Congress will vote on setting a firm date when TV broadcasters will have to end their analog broadcasts and return the frequencies used for them. Afterward, all TV broadcasts will use digital television technologies. This transition is critical–not so much for television viewers, few of whom watch television over the air anyway, but for consumers of innovative new wireless services that can put the old TV spectrum to better use…more
If you find nothing on TV to watch next Wednesday afternoon, those of you in the DC area may want to come down to The Heritage Foundation at 12:30 for what should be an interesting discussion of the transition to digital television. WIth Congress planning to move legislation on key DTV issues–a hard date for return of the “old” spectrum, tuner subsidies, and must-carry to name a few, it should be a timely discussion as well. Participants include Peter Pitsch, high-tech’s man on DTV; Chuck Cooper, author of a new study arguing that must-carry may be the next Kelo taking; and the always-on Tom Hazlett of the Manhattan Institute.
Try to make it if you can. You can get details and RSVP here.
I disagree with James on cell phone bans. First of all, as one of his commenters point out, cell phones are not the only distracting thing in the car. They’re probably not even the most distracting. People eat, yell at their kids, change the station on the radio, apply make-up, and do all manner of other distracting things in the car. It’s not at all clear to me why we should single out cell phones for special treatment.
Secondly, context matters. If I’m zipping along in the left lane of an almost-empty freeway, being on my cell phone poses pretty minimal risk of accident. Likewise, if I’m in a residential area cruising along at 5 MPH (say, I’m almost to a friend’s house and calling the friend for directions) my chances of getting in an accident are likewise pretty low. And anyway, the damage will be minimal if I hit something at 5 MPH. So no, you shouldn’t be on the phone while changing lanes in rush hour traffic. But not all cell phone use in cars is bad.
Thirdly, is that really the best use of police resources? Even if the study is right, and cell phone use is killing people, it’s not at all clear that a ban would do much to deter cell phone use. It’s not very easy to tell who’s using a cell phone from outside, and there aren’t nearly enough police officers to enforce a ban effectively. A lot of people will just ignore the ban, on the (reasonable) assumption that they’re unlikely to be caught. I mean, really, has mandatory seat belt laws increased seatbelt use?
Finally, the study found that handsfree phones are just as distracting as normal phones. I don’t find this surprising at all. DC has a cell phone ban, and so I tried to use my hands free kit as often as possible. When my phone rings, I have to fish my phone out of my pocket, fish the handsfree kit out of the ash tray, plug the receiver into the phone, put the reciever into my ear (sometimes it falls out and I have to do it again) and then find a place to set the phone for the duration of the call. Since my cell phone calls are usually quite short, I think I’m a lot less dangerous having a phone to my ear for 30 seconds than spending 15 second fiddling around with things on my lap while the phone is ringing.
Bottom line: the police have better things to worry about.
Cell phones are not nearly as dangerous as people think. There’s no evidence they cause cancer. They do not cause gas pumps to explode. And they are not unsafe on airplanes. (See Adam’s excellent piece on that below). Time and again, wireless telephony, like other new technologies, has been the victim of an overactive culture of fear. Yet, there’s one area where the critics seem to have it right: cellphones and driving don’t mix. New evidence for this came out in an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study published in the British Medical Journal this week.
Well, for once I find myself in perfect agreement with Democratic FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein about something. In a Wall Street Journal (pg. B4) story today about FCC prohibitions on cell phone use during airline flights, Adelstein argues that, “Our job is to determine if it’s technologically feasible and safe. Our job is not to decide etiquette. We’re not Emily Post.”
Amen brother! It’s one thing for the FCC to determine the technical standards for spectrum uses and users, and then even adjudicate interference disputes among those uses. It is quite another matter for the agency to go a step further and determine whether a certain use of the spectrum is socially acceptable.
Now don’t get me wrong, I detest the idea of cell phone chatter on long airline flights as much as the next person. The idea of a gabby jerk in the seat next to me screaming into their cell phone to talk above the already noisy jet engines, just makes me cringe.
But that doesn’t mean this should be a matter of federal concern. Indeed, self-regulatory experiments by private carriers would make a lot of sense here. Understanding the frustration (perhaps even violence) that cell phone gabbing in the cabin could induce, most airlines will put policies in place to limit cell phone use.
For example, certainly flights could be designated as “cell phone free” or “cell phone limited.” I can imagine that in an effort to appeal to many business travelers on high-volume routes (like NYC to DC or Chicago to Atlanta), some airlines would offer a few morning and evening flights that allowed unlimited cell phone use, while prohibiting calls on most other flights.
Alternatively, on larger aircraft, we might see the return of an in-flight lounge area (although probably much smaller than the ones of the past). Perhaps these cell phone lounges would be no bigger than current airplane bathrooms (perhaps they would be the bathrooms!) Regardless, these are just a few options that carriers could explore. They are certainly preferable to a federal etiquette regulatory regime for cell phone usage.
The Economist (subscription) ran a story in its current edition making the case that cell phones–even more than the personal computer–may be key to reducing poverty in the third world. From enabling farmers to check prices in different markets, to making it easier for people to find work, to making it easier to transfer funds, wireless telephony is a boon.
“[M]obile phones are, in short,” says The Economist, “a classic example of technology that helps people help themselves.”
Yet, high costs are impeding the growth of wireless in many areas. And among the culprits are third-world governments themselves. From Turkey to Uganda to Bangladesh and even Aghanistan, governments have imposed high taxes or other costs on wireless services. As the article notes, manufacturers (seeing a market here) are working to reduce their costs “Now governments must do their part, too.” Worth reading.
We’re in the midst of a transition from analog to digital transmissions of broadcast TV – sort of (as I said in a C:\Spin article). Today the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on legislation concerning digital television (DTV), focusing on how and when to transition away from analog. It is hoped that the hearings will induce Congress to give this lagging transition a defined mission with a “hard” deadline.
Congress must create a “hard” deadline for a complete digital transition. The sooner the date becomes a certainty, the better it will be for: a) consumers, who will be able to make more informed purchases; b) manufacturers, who can label analog sets in a way that will inform consumers of the transition date; c) broadcasters, who can publicize the transition in a way that can help attract increased viewership.
As they say, the only difference between men and boys is the cost of their toys. For U.S. senators they can be even more costly. National Journal reports that, in a speech yesterday, Sen. Stevens remarked that he was “toying with the idea” of requiring analog TV manufacturers to sell digital converter boxes with their sets.” The idea is ensure that more households can receive TV signals when the transition to digital TV broadcasting is complete. Households that buy analog sets shouldn’t have to cover the cost of converter boxes, he argued, saying “I don’t know why these foreign manufacturers shouldn’t shift over to digital and if they don’t, they should give us a box.”
There may be some flaws in this logic. First, the reason any manufacturer–foreign or not–sells things to American consumers is because American consumers want to buy those things. The reference to foreign interests smacks of political pandering and is entirely unhelpful to the debate. Second, rather than relieve consumers of the cost of converter boxes, a mandate would simply ensure that consumers paid, as manufacturers would certainly pass on the cost to their customers.
There is no easy way out of the digital TV quagmire. The problem was created a decade ago when the government gave broadcasters–for free–the use of additional spectrum to use during the transition from analog transmission. Now (surprise) it is having a devil of a time getting it back. The answer isn’t clear. What is clear is that blaming foreigners and pretending that consumers won’t shoulder the costs of new rules doesn’t help.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
