digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/podcasts/Tech_Policy_Weekly_from_The_Technology_Liberation_Front‘;
http://digg.com/tools/diggthis.js
As is typical, Julian makes a point I’ve been trying to make for a while, only it sounds a lot more eloquent when he says it. In reply to Brian Doherty’s argument that those who decry commercialism while using the products of capitalism are somehow hypocritical, Julian says:
Certainly very few Burners would last a week in the Nevada desert without many of the products of commerce, but it just doesn’t follow that the desire for a temporary commercial-free zone is therefore somehow hypocritical or steeped in “performative contradiction.” It is perfectly coherent to be a thoroughgoing free-marketeer, to appreciate how deftly the price system harnessed the self-love of thousands of individuals, from lumberjacks and miners to carpenters and plumbers, in order to produce your local church—and yet still prefer that Starbucks refrain from opening up shop in the narthex. Having bought prophylactics at the corner deli in the evening does not forbid you from taking umbrage if your lover leaves a fifty on the nightstand the following morning. The most ardent capitalist will want a few spaces where she can feel confident that her neighbor’s friendliness is not the opening gambit in a pitch to sell her a T-shirt, even if she was happy to buy the one she’s wearing. We are entitled to happily engage the butcher, the brewer, and the baker on the basis of our respective self-loves while hoping for a little benevolence from our brothers, our bowling buddies, and our Burners.
Today, the Well Connected Project of the Center for Public Integrity is excited to launch an issue portal jointly with Congresspedia . This issue portal is a wiki, like Wikipedia , creating a collection of articles on telecom, media and technology policy , in a single location. Anyone can read, write and edit these articles.
This issue portal builds on the great telecom and technology reporting done by the members of the Well Connected Project staff. This venture into collaborative journalism is a first for our project. It adds a new element to our investigative journalism endeavor. First of all, we have the Media Tracker , a free database of more than five million records that tells you who owns the media where you live by typing in you ZIP code. If we win our lawsuit against the FCC , we’ll also include company-specific broadband information in the Media Tracker.
Second, our blog features dozens of quick-turnaround stories on the hottest topics in telecom and media policy. Recent stories have broken news on the battle over 700 Megahertz, on the lobbying over the proposed XM-Sirius satellite radio merger, and also over copyright controls on electronic devices. We also do investigative reports – like this one about Sam Zell , the new owner of Tribune Co. – that build on the data that is freely available in Media Tracker.
Now, with the addition of this Congresspedia wiki, our project aims to incorporate citizen-journalism on key public policy issues near and dear to the blogosphere. These are issues like Broadband availability , Digital copyright , Digital television , Regulating media content , and Spectrum are at the core of what techies care about in Washington. We hope you will add others articles, too. In fact, I’ve already started my own wish list: articles about Patent overhaul legislation, Media ownership, the Universal Service Fund, and Video franchising. Our reporters can summarize these issues and debates, but so can you.
Take a crack at them!
Everything in the digital world moves fast, but this has to be a record. Apple’s new iPhone has gone from cool new innovation to a new form of slavery in less than two weeks. Just released on June 29, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) seems to consider it already a “must-have” — complaining yesterday about restrictions placed by Apple and AT&T on its availability. Speaking yesterday at a Commerce Committee hearing, he lambasted the fact that the iPhone is only available with AT&T service, as well as the $175 early termination fee on its 2-year contract.
The iPhone is like the Hotel California, he said — “you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”
Some critics go even farther. On CNBC’s “On the Money” show last night, I debated the issue with Gary Goodman, of Customersatisfaction.com, who (and I’m not making this up) argued that “what we have here today is the equivalent of consumer slavery.”
Slavery? I’ve heard people say they are slaves to their cellphone, but are they slaves to their provider because they signed a contract? Is there perhaps a Thirteenth Amendment problem here that should be examined?
The idea is of course ludricrous. If this is slavery, it is a strangely popular kind.
Every once in a while I connect with my inner geek and read through Slashdot. I often see some interesting arguments by people that understand technical issues. However, this comment, made in response to news that Apple purchased the rights to the Common Unix Printing System (CUPS), provoked me:
The real lesson here is that the idea that the developers should pool their copyrights into one person is flawed. That person can then cash out. The get all the profits for everyone else’s work. The other developers lose out on both getting a piece of the pie if they would have wanted that, and they lose out in the moral sense in that if they didn’t want their code to suddenly become part of a closed source project, they have no say in it anymore.
It seems to me that nothing wrong occurred when Apple purchased this code. CUPS, which is used for printing by many Linux distributions and in the Mac OS X, was an open source project created by Michael Sweet. Sweet presumably owned the copyright to the code, so the code was legally his to sell. Sweet should be rewarded for his labor — throw him a buck or two in the tip cup!
But wait…what about the other developers that contributed code to CUPS? Or — forget the tip cup, did Sweet profit from the entire give-a-penny, take-a-penny tray? Have no fear, as CUPS will continue to be an open-source project under a GPL2/LGPL2 license. So there’s no downside and no moral turpitude — developers that chose to contribute code will still see that code available as free software, and can take and add to it as they wish.
What seems to burn the Slashdot commenter is the fact that there’s an upside. Someone actually made money! It’s a shame that when a technology creator/owner like Sweet gets his reward, and doesn’t infringe on the rights of others to do so, he still draws fire. Oh well, in a world where people often materialistically prize money above all, there are also those who wrongly lust over other people’s money.
My letter to the Washington Post regarding Michael Gerson’s “Where the Avatars Roam,” which appeared in the Post last week:
Michael Gerson’s July 6 piece “Where the Avatars Roam” shows that his understanding of libertarianism isn’t nearly as deep as his understanding of online games.
Mr. Gerson describes Second Life as “large-scale experiment in libertarianism,” citing the game’s lack of community structure and long-term consequences. He describes this “libertarian” world as one in which there is not human nature, only human choices.
This doesn’t describe a libertarian world, but one of fantasy. Libertarianism, as envisioned by the founding fathers or Friedrich Hayek, is predicated on an understanding of the world that’s very different from Second Life. Common sense agrees with this libertarian understanding–the world is one of consequences, community institutions are vital to human life, and human beings have an innate nature that we should harness, not deny.
True, libertarians believe in the idea of spontaneous order, but Mr. Gerson treats this idea unfairly. Libertarianism holds that society is not the product of uncoordinated human choice, but of human choice coordinated by the institutions of liberty. Rule of law, private property, and a robust civil society together create rules within which markets operate to ensure the greatest possible outcomes, both for individuals and for society as a whole.
Denying human nature and basic economics is the forte of the modern left, not libertarians. Perhaps Second Life would be a good testing ground for the left’s pet theories–they may work better there. As for libertarians, we’ll stick to the real thing.
Fresh on the heels of Sen. Jay Rockefeller’s (D-W.Va.) show trial hearing about “violent TV” in the Senate Commerce Committee two weeks ago, Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) has just announced he would be proposing two new amendments that would seriously roll back the clock on broadcast industry regulation. According to a report in today’s Broadcasting & Cable,
“Brownback, a member of the Senate Appropriations committee, said Tuesday that he will offer two amendments to a general government appropriations bill Thursday, July 12, one that would “continue support for the FCC to fine broadcasters who air indecent, profane, or obscene content,” and another that would “fine broadcasters for airing excessively violent content during the hours when children are most likely to be in the audience.”
Before getting into the substance of these measures, a word about the process. I find it more than a little troubling that Senator Brownback is attempting to legislate on sensitive constitutional matters like this through the appropriations process. It seems to me that any measure that cuts to the core of an industry’s First Amendment rights should not be snuck into a bloated spending measure in order to get it passed. But hey, who cares about the Constitution… this is about “protecting children”! Right? Well, actually, it wouldn’t do that either.
My colleague Scott Wallsten, PFF’s Director of Communications Policy Studies, filed comments at the FCC this week regarding the proposed merger of satellite radio providers XM and Sirius. Scott points out what many of the merger critics have failed to appreciate:
[C]ompanies like these are platforms in two-sided markets that must find ways to attract subscribers and content. Both subscribers and content providers can choose among a variety of platforms. Moreover, the platforms themselves are dynamic in that they could potentially carry any digital information, not just the particular services they currently offer. In short, a merger analysis of competing platforms that considers only a single component in this complex market is likely to reach an incorrect conclusion. In the case of the XM-Sirius merger, officials should consider not only subscribers, but also content providers, competing platforms, platforms that are potential competitors, and services the platforms in question may provide in the future that they do not today.
This seems like the most obvious thing in the world to me, and yet I have been shocked to see how many people are opposing this merger using the narrow-minded logic that XM and Sirius operate in a solitary market, free of external pressures and threats. It’s absolute lunacy to me. Frankly, as I argued in this lengthy essay I penned on the topic the night the merger was announced, I just don’t see how both these firms can survive in the long run unless they merge. The competitive pressures are just far too intense with all the competition for our ears these days.
Anyway, read Scott’s filing for an even better analysis.
Google wants the Federal Communications Commisison to make net neutrality a licensing requirement in the Upper 700 MHz spectrum band – “(1) open applications, (2) open devices, (3) open services, and (4) open access.” According to media reports, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is circulating draft rules which would impose such a requirement (see: this, this and this).
What’s Martin’s agenda? I suspect he thinks he’s come up with a brilliant strategic maneuver – give Google the chance to acquire a nationwide broadband wireless footprint on the cheap and maybe the company will give up funding the advocates of net neutrality regulation. AOL ended its support for open access the minute it merged with Time Warner, didn’t it?
But as we learned from the 1996 Telecommunications Act, procompetition policy is tricky and unpredictable. That debacle proved Thomas Sowell’s observation that a self-equilibrating system like the market economy means a reduced role for intellectuals and politicians. Unfortunately, as Sowell added in an interview with Jason Riley, “even today many still haven’t accepted that their superior wisdom might be superfluous, if not damaging.” Nowhere is this more true than in communications policy.
Companies that hire PR firms to lead their outreach efforts in Washington are making an implicit confession: They have a PR problem. So it is with Verax ‘Identity Fusion Center.’
I learned about the company when a representative of theirs from Dutko Worldwide called me requesting a meeting with one of their executives. I get these requests from time to time, and I’m open to anyone making the case for their technology or business model.
From the looks of things, Verax has a difficult case to make.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.