Splinternets and Cyberspaces vs. Net Neutrality

by on February 3, 2010 · 4 comments

The Washington, D.C., fight over “net neutrality” in some ways only scratches the surface of what’s really at stake in the question of government regulation of Internet service providers’ treatment of online content. The downside of permitting FCC and Congressional authority over cyberspace “neutrality” is hard to overstate.

A former colleague and friend, now at New Media Strategies, sent me a January 2010 article—“The Splinternet means the end of the Web’s golden age”—about the proliferation of non-compatible devices used online, and the shielding of much new content behind logins and passwords, like the way News Corp. “hides” Wall Street Journal content behind a paywall, and other perceived insults. The author doesn’t see the trend as reversible, but the tone implies what an ominous development this somehow is, as if all this abundance and customization is negative, and that caution is in order.

But the realities of pay models and splintering—like the fact that some journalists have families to feed and can’t write for free, that Google doesn’t see much of what’s on Facebook, and that I can’t stream your iTunes—have no metaphysical, free speech, or public policy implications. Emergent splintering online represents the beginnings of a groundbreaking expansion of the Web’s basic capabilities, not a curtailment. (Besides, many with pro-neutrality views have been upset with Google lately anyway.)

This hand-wringing and use of the term “splinternet” reminded me of a related speculation I’d made in Forbes nearly 10 years ago about the tailoring of networks and pipes. Disturbed by then-burgeoning calls for regulation of the Internet emerging from various quarters over issues like privacy, spam, porn and cyber-trespass, I called for a “splinternet” mindset then and put it as follows:

The Internet needs borders beyond which users can escape damaging political resolutions of [policy] battles, which are rooted in the Internet’s non-owned, common-property status. Conflicting legislative visions in a cyberspace populated by exhibitionists at one extreme and would-be inhabitants of gated communities on the other, reveal the basic truth that not everybody wants or needs to be connected to everybody else.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 4 comments

Fun Facts from the FCC's 2011 Budget Request

by on February 3, 2010 · 0 comments

The Federal Communications Commission released its 102-page fiscal year 2011 budget request to Congress this week.  Here are some fascinating factoids about the agency that I’ll pass on without commentary, beyond saying that they caught my attention:

  • The FCC has hired “close to 54 data experts, statisticians, econometricians, economists, and other expertise” to help with the National Broadband Plan mandated under the Recovery Act. These are “term employees,” meaning they’re not permanent, but the FCC says it needs more permanent hires to work on broadband after the plan is done. (p. 2)
  • The commission asks for a “budget” of $352.5 million. (p. 1) But its total requested spending actually tops $440 million, because it also asks for authority to spend $85 million of spectrum auction proceeds to cover the cost of auctions. (p. 5)
  • The administration proposes to give the FCC authority to charge user fees for unauctioned spectrum licenses, with projected revenues totaling $4.8 billion through 2020. (p. 6)
  • The FCC commits to 24 “outcome-focused performance goals.”  (pp. 16-29) Most of these goals are phrased as activities, not accomplishments, with lots of verbs like “enact,” “encourage,” “facilitate,” “enforce,” “promote,” “work to,” “foster,” advocate,” and “maintain.” In some cases, one can identify the actual concrete outcome by looking at additional wording or performance targets. It’s clear, for example, that the FCC wants to make sure that all Americans have access to broadband. In other cases, the concrete outcome, or how we would know if it is accomplished, is not clear.  For example, the only targets listed under the goal “Promote access to telecommunications services to all Americans” are targets for enforcement actions rather than measures of whether the FCC has actually accomplished the desired outcome.
  • The FCC has been supported almost entirely by regulatory fees assessed on regulated companies, with virtually no direct appropriations of tax dollars since fiscal year 2003 (p. 31).
  • Spectrum auctions have generated more than  $51.9 billion for the US Ttreasury. (p. 33)

SHARE: 0 comments

Some Thoughts on PBS “Digital Nation” Documentary

by on February 3, 2010 · 21 comments

The PBS documentary series Frontline aired a new program last night called “Digital Nation: Life on the Virtual Frontier.” [You can watch it online at that link.] Produced by Rachel Dretzin and Douglas Rushkoff, the 90-minute special touched on several themes we have debated here through the years including:

  1. concerns about information overload and multitasking;
  2. the role of computers and digital technology in education & learning; and,
  3. the nature and impact of virtual reality and virtual worlds on real-world life and culture.

As a student of information history, I’m particularly interested in these subjects because I’ve written frequently about the lively debates between techno-optimists and techno-pessimists throughout history. (See my latest essay: “Are You An Internet Optimist or Pessimist? The Great Debate over Technology’s Impact on Society.“) I thought Dretzin and Rushkoff did a nice job covering a lot of ground in a very short amount of time and providing balance from folks on both sides of the optimist/pessimist spectrum. Below I’ll just summarize a few notes I took while watching “Digital Nation” and offer a few thoughts on these controversial topics. Mostly, I’ll just discuss the first two, interrelated issues. (My thoughts on the third issue — virtual worlds and virtual reality, can be found in these videos from my recent speech in Second Life).

Continue reading →

SHARE: 21 comments

Hearings This Thursday on Proposed Comcast-NBC Deal

by on February 1, 2010 · 2 comments

Just FYI… This Thursday, February 4th at 9:30 am, the House Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet will hold a hearing titled, “An Examination of the Proposed Combination of Comcast and NBC Universal.” It will be held in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building and the Committee members were kind enough to ask me to come up and say a few words.  Here’s the witness list:

  • Brian L. Roberts, Chairman and CEO, Comcast Corporation
  • Jeff Zucker, President and CEO, NBC Universal
  • Colleen Abdoulah, President and CEO, WOW! Internet, Cable, and Phone
  • Mark Cooper, Ph.D., Director of Research, Consumer Federation of America
  • Michael J. Fiorile, President and COO, The Dispatch Printing Company, Chair of the NBC Affiliates Board
  • Adam D. Thierer, President, Progress and Freedom Foundation

For those interested, the hearing will be webcast at www.energycommerce.house.gov. There’s also another hearing Thursday on the same issue over in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights. It’s titled, “The Comcast/NBC Universal Merger: What Does the Future Hold for Competition and Consumers?” and it will take place in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 226 at 2:30 p.m.

Incidentally, I wrote a paper back about the proposed deal back in December entitled, “A Brief History of Media Merger Hysteria: From AOL-Time Warner to Comcast-NBC” as well as this editorial for Forbes.

SHARE: 2 comments

The Dangers of Subsidized News, Continued

by on February 1, 2010 · 7 comments

The Annenberg School at the University of Southern California recently released a paper by Geoffrey Cowan and David Westphal entitled, “Public Policy and Funding the News.” In it, Cowan and Westphal join the growing chorus of voices advocating a substantial role of government in propping up struggling media entities or investing in news production going forward.

I can’t say that I disagree with everything in the report, especially the contention that many traditional news-gathering institutions face serious challenges to their survival. But as I have noted here before, there are three big problems with recommendations to greatly expand the role of government in the media sector or journalistic profession as a solution:

  1. While public media & subsidies may have a role, that role should be tightly limited and focused on filling specific niches or unfilled needs within certain communities. Public subsidies should not be viewed as a replacement for traditional private media sources. Moreover, public subsidies will not begin to make up the shortfall from traditional private funding source, unless we plan on having Congress spend hundreds of billions of dollars (like the radical regulatory advocates at Free Press advocates) to subsidize news.
  2. If we do end up taking that path, it will raise profound fairness questions since it will leave taxpayers footing the bill for things they might not want or could find objectionable, even offensive. (Conservatives wouldn’t like funding Bill Moyers, and liberals wouldn’t be too keen on supporting Rush Limbaugh).
  3. Any plan to have government step up its role in supporting journalism will raise profound questions about press independence and threaten core First Amendment values. Putting journalists on the public dole is a serious threat to the integrity of the profession.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 7 comments

Lessig Visits Cato

by on February 1, 2010 · 10 comments

Last week, Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig visited the Cato Institute for a lunchtime talk he had sought through Julian Sanchez. Fellow TLFer Julian discussed the substance of the visit on the Cato@Liberty blog.

I discussed the real purpose of the visit as I interpreted it, and Professor Richard Epstein had a comment, too. He finds that Lessig is now, in fairness, a libertarian—if by “fairness” we mean “tit-for-tat.”

SHARE: 10 comments

Are confusing patents the same as no patents?

by on February 1, 2010 · 2 comments

Over at Convergences I ponder a version of Mark Lemley’s argument to the effect that confusing patents tied up in administrative disputes are in effect the same as no patents. I write:

I recently read “Patenting Nanotechnology” by law prof Mark Lemley. Excitement about (and fear of) nanotechnology seems to be waning rather than waxing. The article nonetheless includes a curiously paradoxical line of argument about intellectual property that I think is worth setting out in detail. Presently there is some concern that there are already too many overlapping nanotechnology patents, and/or too many nanotechnology patents that cover basic research concepts as opposed to actual useful products. A number of observers have warned that these patents could interfere with ongoing nanotechnology research. This is a familiar theme over the past couple decades of patent scholarship. Of course, patents (with all their warts) were around during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, too, when a lot of important advances were made in technology. All kinds of things from sewing machines to radios were developed, and it all worked out okay in spite of much patent nonsense being involved. Now, here is where Mark comes up with a twist on the familiar arguments. To help make his paper about nanotechnology more interesting, he seems to want to build up the case that nanotechnology is different from earlier technologies, so that the patent system might cause problems for nano that they did not cause for earlier technologies. So he goes through each earlier technology in some detail, and argues that in each case, in effect, for each of these key earlier technologies, patent protection was in effect non-existent. In the case of sewing machines, for example, the patents were tied up in litigation; in the case of radio, WWI intervened and the patents were taken over by the government. Therefore, he argues, nanotechnology will be the first important technology that is in effect actually protected by patents. He goes on to conclude that there is no reason to worry about this yet. This conclusion seems sensible enough. So… what?
With his argument that previous key technologies were in effect devoid of patent protection as a practical measure, even though they were patented, well, he’s created a mythical monster, the worm who eats his own tail. I don’t think he fully realizes this, so I will play with the idea a little bit.

For the results of my exploration, kindly visit Convergences.

SHARE: 2 comments

An alternative to laws against texting while driving?

by on February 1, 2010 · 7 comments

You can put on makeup while driving, fiddle with your GPS and iPod or reach back to pinch your annoying kid in the back seat, but don’t get caught texting or making cell phone calls. I remember texting-while-driving once, passing a cop, seeing him spin out of his little perch — thinking he was about to pull me over — but he stopped someone else instead (who had a similar car….hmmm! Or maybe he was just irritated that I was driving a hybrid) Anyway, a new study claims that laws prohibiting against handheld cell phones don’t reduce crashes. The appropriateness of bans has been a debate raging for a long time now.

What always seems to be missing from the popular treatements is any analysis of what market pressures could influence people not to text while driving. In the extreme, on fully private roads in a libertarian society, the activity might be banned altogether. More concretely, on our public roads, automobile insurance companies could team with cellphone companies to discipline.

OK, I admit weekend laziness and that I could’ve gone and googled it, but it would be interesting to know if there are policies that might inhibit insurers from taking self-protective (and people protective) approaches to highway risk reduction that don’t involve the perverse option of speeding policemen blasting down the road. It would seem that carriers and insurers would have mutual interests here; The cell company doesn’t benefit from a dead carrier; the insurance company doesn’t want to pay for people who are needlessly careless or reckess.

Automobiles are increasingly electric in every aspect apart from how they’re powered; onboard monitoring systems can record accident data; maybe that could be (or is?) matched up with cell phone diagnostics on whether somebody was monkeying with the keys or touchpad simultaneously. You could be warned ahead of the time, before you purchase your policy, that you aren’t covered if you’re texting while driving.

It’s food for thought, especially if the laws against texting don’t work anyway. More importantly, all technologies bring risks, and we must always explore disciplines apart from lazy legislation. So far, I haven’t texted while riding my motorcycle, but I do have a little carrier for the Blackberry there on the handlebar.

SHARE: 7 comments

Are You An Internet Optimist or Pessimist? The Great Debate over Technology’s Impact on Society

by on January 31, 2010 · 194 comments

[I’ve been working on an outline for a book I hope to write surveying technological skepticism throughout history. I first started thinking about this topic two years when I noticed that a great number of recent books about Internet policy could generally be grouped into one of two camps: Internet optimists vs. Internet pessimists. I subsequently penned an essay on the subject that generated a fair bit of attention. So, I figured I must be on to something, and the more Net policy books I read, the more I realized that the divisions between these two camps were growing wider and increasingly heated. Thus, I thought I would share this very rough draft (much of it still in outline form) of the opening chapter of that book I want to write about this great intellectual war over the impact of technology on society. I invite reader input. Update Jan. 2011: I finally published a full-length essay on this topic. You can find it here. ]

__________

The impact of technological change on culture, learning, and morality has long been the subject of intense debate, and every technological revolution brings out a fresh crop of both pessimists and pollyannas. Indeed, a familiar cycle has repeat itself throughout history whenever new modes of production (from mechanized agriculture to assembly-line production), means of transportation (water, rail, road, or air), energy production processes (steam, electric, nuclear), medical breakthroughs (vaccination, surgery, cloning), or communications techniques (telegraph, telephone, radio, television) have appeared on the scene.

The cycle goes something like this. A new technology appears. Those who fear the sweeping changes brought about by this technology see a sky that is about to fall. These “techno-pessimists” predict the death of the old order (which, ironically, is often a previous generation’s hotly-debated technology that others wanted slowed or stopped).  Embracing this new technology, they fear, will result in the overthrow of traditions, beliefs, values, institutions, business models, and much else they hold sacred.

The pollyannas, by contrast, look out at the unfolding landscape and see mostly rainbows in the air. Theirs is a rose-colored world in which the technological revolution du jour is seen as improving the general lot of mankind and bringing about a better order.  If something has to give, then the old ways be damned! For such “techno-optimists,” progress means some norms and institutions must adapt—perhaps even disappear—for society to continue its march forward.

Our current Information Revolution is no different. It too has its share of techno-pessimists and techno-optimists. Indeed, before most of us had even heard of the Internet, people were already fighting about it—or at least debating what the rise of the Information Age meant for our culture, society, and economy. Continue reading →

SHARE: 194 comments

Weekend Reading — NBCU/Comcast/GE Public Interest Statement

by on January 29, 2010 · 2 comments

For those of you inclined to read protracted legalese filings, NBC Universal, Comcast and GE submitted their Public Interest Statement to the FCC this week. You can read the filing here.

Many conspiracies have been touted, claiming that public control of communication mediums will be wrested away from the public because of this venture and that consumers stand to lose the most. Adam did a good job debunking these concerns earlier this month. The fact is that this merger in no way would result in the dreaded “M” word, aka monopoly.

Whatever the case, this process is still bound to take another year or so before finalization, which gives you, dear reader, time to process the entire 145 page document. Happy reading!

SHARE: 2 comments

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →