Hosted on the Web site of Orange County NORML (make of that what you will), a clever illustration of how we’re being “given” security by so many government programs:
By now everyone has heard the news announced this morning that Microsoft has offered to buy Yahoo! for $44 billion. Is this earth-shattering, or something that should have been expected given the current disarray at Yahoo! and Microsoft’s distant 3rd (domestically, 4th globally) in the search race?
Either way, the FTC will face the same objections that were leveled against Google/DoubleClick, and likely from the same sources.
And just like the Google/DoubleClick merger, many of the arguments won’t be about competition, but instead will focus on privacy. One would think that with the Google/DoubleClick approval now serving as precedent, the FTC will be able to dismiss these arguments as non-jurisdictional a bit more easily. But, being that the deal is still pending in the EU and that several groups are challenging the approval in the US, Microhoo! isn’t out of the woods yet.
EPIC will also have to come up with another clever logo like this one:
My suggestion: just change the punctuation. Privacy!
Though privacy is certainly a valid concern, a question remains for privacy advocates: Who can merge? Anyone competing in the search market who desires to compete with Google is likely going to do so with at least a few acquisitions and along with the hardware, patent portfolios, and a bunch of PhDs–these search market contenders will also be combing their data. But is this reason enough to oppose such mergers? Not if we want the market to stay competitive.
Blocking mergers of search companies blocks one of the most effective methods for any group of competitors to take on Google. Without the ability to acquire or merge with other firms, organic growth is the only method left to these companies to try to catch Google, making the search race much harder to run.
But would the deal be good for consumers? There’s reason to think so. Yahoo! and Microsoft could combine their online services to compete much better with Google. A few possibilities:
1.) Turn Microsoft’s Photosynth loose on Flickr and add tags to everyone’s photos using picture recognition software. This will enrich the database immeasurably. Imagine your pictures from the Louvre suddenly being tagged with the title of the work, the name of the artist, and the year the work was created.
2.) Use Microsoft’s Live Search Images software with Flickr to create filters for faces, portraits, and black and white photos.
3.) Give every MSN and Windows Live user the ability to create custom RSS feeds using Yahoo! Pipes technology.
The potential for much better targeting also exists especially given the purchases of aQuantive and Right Media by Microsoft and Yahoo! respectively. In addition, Microhoo! could benefit from sheer economies of scale. Both of these factors mean Microhoo! could cut its margins and offer ad buyers lower rates and ad sellers higher pay-outs. The result: online content creators will have more coin in their pocket to spend on content, benefiting everyone.
Today’s Cato Daily Podcast features yours truly discussing the FISA debate [MP3] and Congress’s recent extension of the Protect America Act. The Daily podcast is a great show. I listen to it regularly. If you listen to podcasts, you should sign up for it.
Reforming the system of heavy subsidies for rural telephone service, which dates back to the Great Depression, has long been a topic of discussion for telecom policy wonks. The Universal Service program is proof-positive that subsidies grow like weeds. Universal Service has spawned a constituency of more than 1,000 small telephone companies who’ve waged a Jihad to preserve their entitlement.
Politicians have always found it expedient to look the other way. This may be changing. In recent years, wireless companies have set up shop in rural areas. Although their costs are generally far less than those of the incumbent wireline providers, one of the FCC’s brilliant “pro-competitive” policies bestows a subsidy for wireless service which is identical to the subsidy for wireline service that’s more expensive to provide. Cable companies who provide telephone service are also entitled to identical support. So guess what? As competing providers have demanded their fair share, the overall cost of Universal Service has exploded. Even some politicians are finding the size of the fund harder to ignore.
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin’s desire to impose a la carte mandates on cable operators is well-known. But his advocacy has always lacked specifics regarding how such regulation of the multi-channel video world would work in practice.
Ted Hearn of Multichannel News points to this fact in his article today, “FCC Chairman Vague On Capping A La Carte Prices: Martin Has Yet To Spell Out How Mandate Would Work.” Ted notes that, “At least in theory, programmers could set a la carte prices so high that the only rational option would be the purchase of the bundle.” Thus, Ted wants to know “how so-called wholesale a la carte mandates would be effective if the FCC won’t police the per-channel rates being sought”?
Excellent question, Ted, and one that all analysts who follow this issue want the Chairman to answer. After all, almost all the serious economists and Wall Street analysts who have studied this issue have reached a consistent conclusion: Unless you only subscribe to a few channels, your bill will likely go UP, not down, under a la carte regulation. [Here’s a concise explanation of why that will be the case.] So, what’s the FCC going to do if those prices start going up once their plan backfires?
Back in 2005, I released a report entitled “Risky Business” about Philadelphia’s muni wi-fi plan, which was then in the planning stages. In that report and some subsequent blogs, I laid out a few possible scenarios for what might unfold as problems developed with the municipalization plan, as they always do. I predicted that, as those problems developed and costs grew, it wouldn’t be surprising to find the city proposing a bailout for the plan, or look to selling it off to some other established provider at fire sale prices.
At the time, I got a bunch of grief from pro-muni wi-fi advocates for that prediction. They tried to paint me as some sort of enemy of the people and anti-progress, but I just explained to them that the government’s track-record on the municipalization front was consistent; consistently disappointing that is. That’s usually because the best laid government plans can’t keep pace with marketplace / technological developments in this fast-moving field.
Anyway, I felt strangely vindicated today after I read this blurb from Broadband Reports under the title, “Philadelphia Makes Back-Up Plan In Case Earthlink Bails: The city is prepared to take over if need be“:
Terry Phillis, Chief Information Officer for Philadelphia’s Mayor’s Office, has stated that the city expects EarthLink to bail on its construction of a citywide wireless system. He says that more will be known within the next sixty days but the city is making back-up plans for municipal Wi-Fi based on the belief that EarthLink will sell (or entirely abandon) the system. They would prefer if EarthLink sold the system to another provider but are prepared to take it over themselves if need be. Phillis was vague about the city’s plans but stated that the city sees the network as a valuable asset for residents as well as for their tourist economy.
Valuable for the tourist economy? Yeah, I know I make all my travel plans according to which government’s offer muni wi-fi systems. Please.
Neat! Through the magic of Google, we seem to have John McCain ads on our website. This seems like a good time to note for the record that we don’t exercise any editorial control over the ads that appear on the site, and the appearance of a candidate’s ads on our site certainly don’t constitute an endorsement. So please do watch Sen. McCain’s warmongering advertisements, but feel free to head over here for a different perspective on foreign policy issues. (And in the interests of fairness, you can also check out the warmongering articles from our friends at Heritage.)
The ACLU of Northern California is looking for someone to fill a “two-year (September 2008- September 2010) Technology and Civil Liberties Fellowship to help develop legal and policy papers about emerging technologies and implement an innovative campaign to educate consumers of all ages, policymakers, and businesspeople about privacy and free speech rights.”
Two thoughts:
1) They should pick someone who writes shorter sentences than the one I just quoted.
2) Let’s get a libertarian in there! Dress kinda sloppy and have a sense of humor – they’ll think you’re one of them! ;-)
I’ll soon have a paper out on “electronic employment eligibility verification.” This is the idea of requiring every employer in the country to check the immigration status of employees against Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration databases.
A nationwide EEV program, building on the current Basic Pilot/”E-Verify” program, was treated as a matter of near consensus at the beginning of this past summer’s immigration debate, and the Department of Homeland Security continues to promote it.
My paper goes into the practical and technical problems with a full-fledged EEV system, as well as the question whether such a thing is appropriate for a free country. But I’ve already become aware of problems I didn’t think of.
A law went in to effect in Arizona January 1st requiring all employers to use the E-Verify system. The Arizona Republic reports that just 17,000 of the state’s 150,000 businesses have signed up for E-Verify. (January is a slow month for hiring, but employers may be holding off on hiring too. And a lawsuit has been brought challenging the Arizona law.)
Among employers using E-Verify, the question has arisen what to do when an employee has worked for a few days, but then is deemed ineligible by the database. Should the employee who is either an illegal immigrant are a citizen with bad paperwork be paid? “[E]mployers could look for workers who are at risk of failing E-Verify, the online database that checks employment eligibility, and fire those workers without paying them for up to three days of labor,” says the report.
The simple idea of “internal enforcement” of immigration law using employers as Border Patrol agents turns out not to be so simple. E-Verify puts fair-minded employers between a rock and a hard place, while facilitating unscrupulous behavior by others.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.