The Challenge of Architectural Changes

by on April 24, 2008 · 6 comments

Over at Techdirt, I’ve got a series of posts that highlight some of the major arguments in my forthcoming paper on network neutrality. I’m particularly pleased with the latest installment of the series:

He claims that “owners have the power to change [the Internet’s architecture], using it as a tool, not to facilitate competition but to weaken competition.” Do they? He doesn’t spend any time explaining how networks would do this, or what kind of architectural changes he has in mind. But he does give an example that I think is quite illuminating, although not quite in the way he had in mind. Lessig imagines a world of proprietary power outlets, in which the electricity grid determines the make and model of an appliance before deciding whether to supply it with power. So your power company might charge you one price for a Sony TV, another price for a Hitachi TV, and it might refuse to work at all with an RCA TV. Lessig is certainly right that that would be a bad way for the electricity grid to work, and it would certainly be a headache for everybody if things had been set up that way from the beginning. But the really interesting question is what a power company would have to do if it wanted to switch an existing electricity grid over to a discriminatory model. Because the AT&Ts and Comcasts of the world wouldn’t be starting from scratch; they’d be changing an existing, open network.

I focus on an aspect of the debate that I’ve seen receive almost no attention elsewhere: assuming that network discrimination remains legal, how much power could network owners actually exert over the use of their networks? There’s an assumption on both sides that ownership of a network automatically translates to comprehensive control over how it’s used. But I have yet to see anyone give a plausible explanation of how a last mile provider would get from the open network they’ve got now to the tightly-controlled one that network neutrality advocates fear. It’s always simply asserted, as Lessig does here, and then taken as a given for the rest of the argument. It’s a weakness in the pro-regulation argument that I wish more critics of regulation would highlight.

I go on to discuss the difficulties of real-world architectural transitions. Read the whole thing here.

SHARE: 6 comments

‘We’d Have Nothing To Do!’

by on April 24, 2008 · 5 comments

Several state public utility commissioners are pleading with the Federal Communications Commission to preserve unnecessary, burdensome and anticompetitive accounting requirements that I have discussed here and here .

Sara Kyle, Tre Hargett and Ron Jones of the Tennessee Regulatory Authority say they review the data required of telephone companies, even if their review has little or nothing to do with the purpose for which the data was originally required.
This information is particularly useful in evaluating competition levels in Tennessee; further, such information may be necessary in fulfilling our Commission’s responsibilities should we decide that a state universal service fund is necessary.

The argument the FCC essentially is hearing is without the data there would be less work for state regulators, which would diminish their power.   

The state commissioners think they have a chance to persuade FCC commissioners Robert M. McDowell and Deborah Taylor Tate to reject the AT&T petition along with one or both of the commission’s two Democrats.

The question McDowell and Tate ought to be asking is whether it is the role of the feds to collect information primarily for the use of the states?  The states can do that for themselves.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 5 comments

Settling Accounts, Part 2

by on April 23, 2008 · 6 comments

Recenty I commented that the Federal Communications Commission  has an opportunity to relieve AT&T of several unnecessary, burdensome and anticompetitive accounting requirements.

I noted that the data derived from the legacy accounting procedures simply isn’t used anymore to regulate revenue or set prices.  That’s true, by the way.

This week a group which calls itself the Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee filed a letter (in which it didn’t identify its members) claiming:

As we explained at the debate, the data produced by the cost allocations at issue have been used by the Commission and private parties in the past ( CALLS ), are being used by the Commission and private parties in the present ( 272 Sunset Nonstructural Safeguards, Separations reform and theSpecial Access Rulemaking ) and will in all likelihood be used by the Commission and private parties in the future ( Special Access Rulemaking, Inter-Carrier Compensation Reform  and monitoring the efficacy of the Price Caps formula).

What’s going on here?

Well, like I said, the commission doesn’t use the data to regulate revenue or set prices, but competitors apparently do use the data to argue that incumbent telephone companies can “afford” to charge lower wholesale prices.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 6 comments

review: Dr. Kourosh Dini’s “Video Game Play & Addiction”

by on April 23, 2008 · 19 comments

Dini book cover Dr. Kourosh Dini is a Chicago-based adolescent and adult psychiatrist who has just published a new book entitled, Video Game Play and Addiction: A Guide for Parents. [You can learn more about him and his many talents and interests at his blog, “Mind, Music and Technology.“] Dini’s book arrives fresh on the heels of the fine book, “Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do,” by Drs. Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl K. Olson. [See my review of that book here.]

Like Kutner & Olson’s book, Dini’s provides a refreshingly balanced and open-minded look at the impact of video games on our kids. One of the things I liked about it is how Dr. Dini tells us right up front that he has been a gamer his entire life and explains how that has helped him frame the issues he discusses in his book. “I have played games both online and off since I was about six years of age, and I have also been involved in child psychiatry, so I felt that I would be in a good position to discuss some inherent positives and negatives associated with playing games,” he says. Dini goes into greater detail about his gaming habits later in the book and it makes it clear that he still enjoys games very much.

Some may find Dini’s gaming background less relevant than his academic credentials, but I think it is important if for no other reason than it shows how we are seeing more and more life-long gamers attain positions of prominence in various professions and writing about these issues using a sensible frame of reference that begins with their own personal experiences. For far too long now, nearly every book and article I have read about video games and their impact on society at some point includes a line like, “I’ve never really played many games” or even “I don’t much care for video games,” but then–without missing a breath–the author or analyst goes on to tell us how imminently qualified they are to be discussing the impact of video games on kids or culture. Whenever I read or hear things like that, I’m reminded of the famous line from an old TV commercial: “I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV.” Seriously, why is it that we should continue to listen to those critics who denounce video games but who have never picked up a controller in their lives? It’s really quite insulting. Would you take automotive advice from someone who’s never tinkered with cars in their lives but instead based their opinions merely upon watching them pass by on the road? I think not. Continue reading →

SHARE: 19 comments

A Bill of Rights to enshrine Net Neutrality?

by on April 23, 2008 · 3 comments

After changing its mind about throttling Bittorrent traffic last month, Comcast has pulled a 180° on network neutrality. Last week, Comcast announced plans to publish a consumers’ “ bill of rights and responsibilities,” detailing what subscribers should expect from their ISP and laying out network management best practices.

Naturally, the “Save the Internet” crowd isn’t satisfied with Comcast’s declaration. Being protocol-agnostic wasn’t enough for them, and neither is a consumer bill of rights. Customers will only be safe from evil ISPs, they say, with aggressive neutrality mandates like Rep. Markey’s proposed legislation .

On one hand, Comcast’s declaration is good news for Bittorrent users, and illustrates the responsiveness of market forces. And as a Comcast subscriber, I’m all for non-discriminatory networks. (Though I seed torrents quite rarely, it’s nice to know the option exists.)

But declaring a consumer “Bill of Rights” is a risky approach. Comcast is ceding key ground to interventionists by implicitly admitting that consumers have some inherent right to unfiltered, unmanaged networks. They don’t—despite what lawmakers like Byron Dorgan have suggested.

Essentially, Comcast is saying “If we have to be neutral, then so should all the other guys. Otherwise, they’re violating consumer rights.”

Yet some ISPs are making just the opposite argument, identifying the benefits of curbing bandwidth-intensive applications.  In comments filed last week, Bell Canada contended that throttling is in the public interest, explaining that 95% of subscribers suffer on account of file sharing. GigaOM posted a story yesterday that lends further credence to claims that peer-to-peer traffic is a major culprit of network congestion.

Perhaps we shall see a competing bill of rights—one holding that customers have the right to affordable broadband access free from file sharing-induced slowdowns.

As bandwidth demand continues to grow, ISPs must make tough choices. Between price increases, bandwidth caps , and protocol discrimination , it is far from clear what’s best for the average user. If AT&T’s prediction is correct that in three years time, 20 typical households will consume as much bandwidth as the entire Internet does today, then carriers will need to invest billions upgrading both the backbone and last-mile. Discouraging investment through regulation poses a far greater threat to the Internet’s future than hypothetical neutrality violations .

If neutrality truly is as virtuous as its proponents suggest (and I suspect it is) then it will ultimately triumph on its own merits, without the need for government intervention. Still, exclusionary, proprietary networks may yet play an invaluable role in propelling connectivity, despite closed systems’ shortcomings.   Who knows what will work out best in the long run? Market experimentation is the only way to find out.

SHARE: 3 comments

Localism is the new Fairness Doctrine

by on April 23, 2008 · 28 comments

Just as pink was the new black and The Backstreet Boys were the new New Kids on the Block, the FCC is now turning “Localism” into the new Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine mandated that controversial issues of public importance be presented in a manner deemed by the FCC to be honest, equitable, and balanced. Though Localism isn’t concerned with political speech, both sets of rules interfere with the editorial process, both control and compel speech, and neither passes Constitutional muster.

The FCC has reasons to believe that Localism is a concern, but those reasons lack the weightiness and depth of well-conducted policy research needed for rule making. Commisioner Copps has stated that:

We have witnessed the number of statehouse and city hall reporters declining decade after decade, despite an explosion in state and local lobbying. The number of channels have indeed multiplied, but there is far less local programming and reporting being produced.

Yet only a few short years ago former FCC Chairman Michael Powell made this statement on the issue of localism:

Local newscasts have become the staple of any successful local broadcast tele vision station, demonstrating that serving the needs and wants of your local community does not just fulfill their public obligations, but also simply make good business sense.

Powell also stated in 2004 that Americans today “have access to more local content than at any time in our nation’s history.” But still, commissioners like Michael Copps don’t approve of how that local news is produced or what it contains.

But events of national and international importance do not occur in accordance with regulators’ preconceived notions of how much coverage ought to be allotted to them. Local news outlets should not be wary of reporting on wars overseas, famine in the developing world, or other non-local issues they deem important for fear of neglecting to comply with bureaucratic dictates.

The Fairness Doctrine had the arguably worse effect of making many broadcasters shy away from political coverage altogether, for fear that–try as they may–their coverage would be considered “unbalanced.” Twenty years after instituting this misguided rule, the FCC finally acknowledged this fact in the wake of a 1985 Supreme Court decision (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364) which found that the rule was “chilling speech.”

The result was an explosion in talk radio content beginning most famously with conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh, but also creating new space for left-liberal voices like Thom Hartmann and Al Franken.

Where the Fairness Doctrine chilled all speech, Localism will compel speech of which FCC Commissioners like Copps approve. In a world of limited broadcast hours, compelling one sort of speech means sacrificing speech of another, effectively censoring speech.

Should we be content to let the FCC tell us what we have to say when we’d never stand for it telling us what we can’t say? Oh wait, I suppose we do let it tell us what we can’t say.

SHARE: 28 comments

Internet Futurama: Hollywood Writers, Little Presidents, and Neutrality Regulation

by on April 23, 2008 · 8 comments

Justine Bateman may have grabbed the headlines, but she wasn’t the only witness from Hollywood at yesterday’s Senate hearing on neutrality regulation.  Nor did she have the most interesting resume.  That honor goes to Patric Verrone, the president of the Writer’s Guild of America, west, whose own writing credits include work for everything from The Simpson’s and Futurama to Rugrats and the Muppets.   As Verrone himself put it, “I am the only panelist to have written a film about a robot poker tournament in space Vegas in the year 3009 so I think my expertise in the area is unquestionable.”

Strangely enough, I first came into contact with Verrone not from his WGA work, or even from 31st century poker tournaments, but from Ebay, where he sells miniature figures of U.S. presidents and other notable individuals.   My six-year old son Peter and I have become avid collectors of the figurines. 

 

Verrone is no stranger to market power – being the only known vendor of the pricey presidents.  (Although I suspect the demand side is rather thin as well). 

Outside of the tiny figurine world, Verrone is best known for leading Hollywood writers through a 100-day strike, which finally ended in February of this year.  Oddly, however, Verrone, in his testimony, uses that experience as evidence of the need for Internet regulation.  

Continue reading →

SHARE: 8 comments

Students, Cyber-Bullying, & Online Free Speech

by on April 23, 2008 · 13 comments

Yesterday, I was a guest on the Kojo Nnamdi Show, which airs on WAMU 88.5 radio (Washington, DC’s NPR affiliate), and had the chance to take part in an excellent discussion about the ins-and-outs of student online speech. Specifically, we discussed the sticky issues surrounding online privacy, anonymity, defamation, cyber-bullying, and so on.

The entire show can be heard on Kojo’s site. The other guests were John Morris of the Center for Democracy and Technology, Parry Aftab, the Executive Director of WiredSafety.org, and Reg Weaver, the President of the National Education Association. We attempted to provide parents and educators with some helpful advice about how to deal with these issues when they pop up. We also got into the controversies raised by the anonymous comments left on sites like JuicyCampus.com and RateMyTeachers.com.

[Incidentally, this show was part of Kojo’s excellent ongoing “Tech Tuesday” series. Each Tuesday he dedicates his show to “putting technology in context and assessing its relevance in your life.” It’s a great program. In encourage you to listen.]

SHARE: 13 comments

NCSL Calls for Repeal of REAL ID

by on April 23, 2008 · 7 comments

The National Conference of State Legislatures wants the REAL ID Act gone. It supports S. 717, the Identification Security Enhancement Act of 2007, which would repeal the REAL ID Act and reinstitute a negotiated rulemaking process on identity security that was established in the 9/11-Commission-inspired Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act.

It’s not a foregone conclusion that an organization like this would reject a behemoth of a project like building a national ID and surveillance system. The NCSL isn’t a small-government organization, and it could just as well have lobbied for billions of dollars in funding.

SHARE: 7 comments

Bruce Everiss on video game piracy

by on April 23, 2008 · 8 comments

Bruce Everiss, a UK-based video game industry veteran, and author of the blog Bruce on Games, has penned a comprehensive essay on video game piracy through the years. I recommend you read the entire piece, but here’s the take away:

And the game industry continues to grow and prosper, despite the piracy. This is because the proliferation of platforms allows publishers to more easily abandon platforms that are pirated to the point of being uneconomic. Instead they concentrate on platforms where there are windows of opportunity to run a viable business. Either because the anti piracy technology is on top or because there is a sufficient number of honest customers to get a return, even sometimes with a heavily pirated platform. Games with an online element can often be made very pirate proof which has been a major incentive for developers to go down this route. So for 25 years or so game players have been stealing games in truly massive numbers with zero chance of being caught and punished for their crime. Very often far more copies of a game title have been pirated than have been bought. This self evidently causes harm to the games industry, ultimately leading to less money being invested in games for the pirated platform. So, the game player suffers for his theft by having less games and lower quality games. All pretty obvious to anyone but the pirates who make all sorts of feeble excuses to justify their stealing.

[My own views on video game piracy can be found here and here.]

SHARE: 8 comments

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →