The Pacific Research Institute just published a paper I coauthored on Municipal networks. The study, titled “Wi-Fi Waste: The Disaster of Municipal Communications Networks” reviewed 52 city-run telecom networks that compete in the cable, broadband, and telephone markets. The amount of deception and anti-competitive activity that we found in our sample was appalling and a solid reason why proposed new Muni WiFi systems should be opposed.
Joe over at TechDirt today commented on my post yesterday about public television DTV worries. “James Gattuso,” he writes, “sees a possible sinister motive in the move” to get DTV converters distributed. Joe dismisses the idea that public television stations would try to keep the on-the-air viewers away from cable and satellite, where they may find other things to watch besides PBS. It just wouldn’t make sense, he says: “If this were indeed the intention, then the move would be shortsighted, since these stations would be better off making their content more appealing rather than hoping to limit viewer choice”.
But the idea didn’t come from me–it came from public TV executives, at least according to Communications Daily, which wrote:
“Station executives estimate that public TV could lose 10%-15% of its membership if their “loyal” viewers switch to cable or DBS because of a mismanaged transition. That’s because viewers would have more channel choices and less disposable income to contribute, they said. To head off problems, stations are proposing to distribute converter boxes as gifts for pledge contributions or membership incentives, they said.”
Joe perhaps is right that the issue will be insignificant because so few viewers are affected. But that’s not what station execs are saying. Of course, the execs may be wrong. But either way, it hardly inspires confidence in public television management.
As I said yesterday, it’s all very strange.
Yesterday I filed a public interest comment (PDF) in the FCC’s proceeding to create a national public safety broadband network in the 700 MHz band. Not coincidentally, so did Frontline Wireless, a new company started by former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt and former NTIA Administrator Janice Obuchowski among others. In their filing they propose a new plan to build a national wireless broadband network to be shared by public safety and consumers. This plan comes closer to the commercial provision of public safety communications that I’ve been suggesting, but it’s still a bit off. Below I’ll talk about the plan, but first some background.
As I’ve explained before, the digital TV transition frees up 84 MHz of spectrum. Congress has allocated 24 to public safety and 60 for auction. Morgan O’Brien’s Cyren Call asked the FCC to allocate additional spectrum to public safety for a national network by removing a 30 MHz block of spectrum from auction. The FCC denied the petition saying, quite rightly, that they didn’t have the authority not to auction off the spectrum Congress told them they had to. Cyren Call has since found a sponsor in John McCain who has said he will introduce a bill that would remove the 30 MHz from auction and give it to a “public safety broadband trust.”
The FCC’s current proceeding centers on what to do with the 24 MHz of spectrum that Congress did allocate to public safety. Specifically, the FCC asked for comment on its plan to take 12 MHz of this spectrum and license it to a nonprofit representing the public safety community that would in turn build a national broadband network, charge first responders a fee for service, and lease excess capacity on the network to commercial customers.
Jed Harris has a fantastic post about how peer production introduces a fissure between capitalists and entrepreneurs:
Before widespread peer production, the entrepreneur’s and capitalist’s definitions of success were typically congruent, because growing a business required capital, and gaining access to capital required providing a competitive return. So classical profit was usually required to build a self-sustaining business entity. The change that enables widespread peer production is that today, an entity can become self-sustaining, and even grow explosively, with very small amounts of capital. As a result it doesn’t need to trade ownership for capital, and so it doesn’t need to provide any return on investment.
Susan Crawford asks a good question: How does one reconcile being both “for” network neutrality regulation and rules against media concentration?
To be “for” network neutrality, it seems natural to have the view that the internet is displacing many prior forms of communications modalities–the press is in a free fall, people are watching much less broadcast television, etc.–and so it’s even more important to get internet access policy right and avoid gatekeepers. You’d want to talk about the empowering, emergent communications taking place online. But to be “for” limits on media ownership, it may be necessary to argue that nothing much has changed. You have to claim that broadcast and newspapers control news and culture, and so it’s important to avoid more consolidation. The internet isn’t changing the local news picture, you’d have to say, and so its existence doesn’t change the media landscape. Blogs aren’t legitimate alternative news sources.
One logical response might be that big media does control information and culture despite the emerging competition of the net and precisely because of this should we have neutrality regulations to protect the fledgling voices. Media ownership rules would also be necessary until the emerging competition on the net actually serves as a check on concentrated media. That’s just me thinking out loud, but I’m sure it’s not too off the mark from the argument we’re likely to see. What I always want to know, and what is rarely made clear, is how much competition is enough to make regulation unnecessary in either context.
Over at Ars, Jon Stokes has a story on the debate over allowing more high-skilled immigrants into the country:
In an op-ed in yesterday’s Washington Post, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates argues yet again in favor of raising the cap on H1-B foreign worker visas from its present number of 65,000. Gates’ basic argument boils down to this: fewer students at American universities are opting for computer science degrees, which means that we need to raise the H1-B cap so that the software industry can import more foreign labor to fill those jobs that Americans–for whatever reason–don’t seem to be equipped for. Of course, the fact that the importation of cheap foreign labor into the software industry job market hampers American programmers’ ability to compete and leads to depressed wages overall is never mentioned by Gates as a major reason why a computer science degree just isn’t that attractive any more to Americans. Who wants to spend four or five years getting a CS degree, only to be priced out of the job market by foreign programmers who are willing to work for less in exchange for a green card?
The rest of his article is about whether Bill Gates has been making misleading statements about how much Microsoft pays its immigrant employees. I don’t have anything to add to that debate, but I think the argument that Stokes makes above reflects a basic economic fallacy.
SAN JOSE, February 26, 2007–AT&T Senior Vice President Jim Ciconni said Tuesday that the telecommunications world is fundamentally different from 1968, when the FCC required AT&T to allow competing telephones onto its network.
Speaking at the Technology Policy Summit here, Ciconni addressed the recent push for new wireless ‘Net Neutrality rules. “Unlike 1968, we have a pretty vibrant market out there,” he said.
The date refers to the year in which the agency allowed the Carterphone, which connected handheld radio conversations to telephone lines, onto AT&T’s network.
As a result, AT&T would reject any FCC requirement that put such rules in place on wireless carriers.
SAN JOSE, February 26, 2007–Legislation to overhaul aspects of the patent system could take shape in as few as two or three weeks, said Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and the Internet.
“This is an issue that doesn’t break down on partisan grounds,” said Berman, adding that the technology sector’s desire to seek changes in patent laws has “created a groundswell, a strong momentum for reform, to make it the highest priority of our subcommittee.”
Berman, who was speaking at the Tech Policy Summit here, said that last Congress patent legislation died in a crossfire between the technology industry, which broadly supported changes, and the pharmaceutical industry, which opposed them. Berman said he had been pushing for changes since 2000.
Communications Daily reports today that public TV stations are thinking about taking a direct role in distributing DTV converter boxes for their viewers–either by negotiating alliances with retailers, or distributing the devices themselves–perhaps as gifts during pledge drives. Nothing wrong with that–in fact its refreshing to see anyone doing something on the DTV transition without asking more subsidies. And a converter box during pledge week would certainly be nice change of pace from the usual menu of Ken Burns DVDs.
But why are the stations so concerned about getting converter boxes to their viewers? The fear is that without easy access to converters during the DTV transition, viewers would flock to cable TV from over-the-air broadcasting. And although public TV is carried on cable, the stations –according to Comm Daily — are concerned that a shift away from over-the-air viewing would lead (among other things) to “more channel choices” for consumers, less viewship, and fewer contributions to public TV stations.
The key words here: “More channel choices.” There’s something that certainly must be stopped.
When Congress started funding public TV, the rationale was that, because television channels were scarce, viewers didn’t have adequate programming choices. Now, some 40 years later, the concern is there are too many television channels, and public TV is actively working to discourage viewers from obtaining those choices.
The public TV stations’ concern is understandable. They are no doubt right that more viewer choice will reduce their own viewership (and membership). And the stations are reacting the way most businesses would react–by trying to limit that choice. But why should federal taxpayers give them subsidies as they do it?
Very strange.
Unpopular on MySpace? Buy a few friends:
Enter FakeYourSpace.com, a business founded by Brant Walker, which offered users of MySpace.com and similar sites a way to enhance their page with photographs and comments from hired “friends”–mainly attractive models–for 99 cents a month each. … MobileAlibi.com and PopularityDialer.com offer similar services, using fake cellphone calls scheduled in advance to provide an excuse to escape a tedious situation, like a bad date, or to make the subscriber appear in demand.
(With apologies to Marginal Revolution.)
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
