[UPDATE 4/30/13: This article was subsequently published in Volume 65, Issues 2 of the Federal Communications Law Journal in April 2013. The links below now point to the final FCLJ version.]

The Mercatus Center at George Mason University has just released a new paper by Brent Skorup and me entitled, “Uncreative Destruction: The War on Vertical Integration in the Information Economy.”  Brent, who is the research director for the Information Economy Project at the George Mason University School of Law, and I have been working on this paper since the Spring and we are looking forward to getting it published in a law review shortly. The paper focuses on Tim Wu’s “separations principle” for the digital economy, something I’ve spent some time critiquing here in the past. Here’s the introduction from the 44-page paper that Brent and I just released:

Are information sectors sufficiently different from other sectors of the economy such that more stringent antitrust standards should be applied to them preemptively? Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu responds in the affirmative in his book The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. Having successfully pushed net-neutrality regulation into the policy spotlight, Wu has turned his attention to what he regards as excessive market concentration and threats to free speech throughout the entire information economy.To support his call for increased antitrust intervention, Wu explains his view of competition in the information economy—a view that deviates substantially from current mainstream antitrust theory. First, Wu contends that “information monopolies” are pervasive in the information economy. Wu’s “monopolists” include Facebook, Apple, Google, and even Twitter. In The Master Switch and essays like “In the Grip of the New Monopolists,” Wu argues that these so-called monopolies are increasing their market power and require more aggressive oversight and regulation.Second, Wu argues that traditional antitrust analysis is not sufficient for information systems because they carry speech. He claims, “Information industries… can never be properly understood as ‘normal’ industries,”and traditional forms of regulation, including antitrust enforcement, “are clearly inadequate for the regulation of information industries.”Wu believes that because information industries “traffic in forms of individual expression” and are “fundamental to democracy,” they should be subject to greater regulatory treatment.Third, in contrast to current competition law’s focus on horizontal relationships, Wu desires a reinvigorated regulatory enforcement that addresses “the corrupting effects of vertically integrated power” in the information sectors.He is particularly concerned about private threats to free speech arising from such vertical integration.The solution, he says, is preventing vertical mergers in the information economy and the mandatory divestiture of vertically integrated companies. To implement this, Wu proposes a Separations Principle for the information economy, which would segregate information providers into three buckets, which we have labeled information creators, information distributors, and hardware makers.This article outlines Wu’s separations proposal, explains why his fears regarding vertical relationships should be rejected by regulatory and antitrust policymakers, and illustrates the legal and practical problems his Separations Principle poses. Wu justifies his Separations Principle by citing monopolies and market power in the information economy. He also advocates using U.S. antitrust authorities to enforce his Principle. We argue that the antitrust harms he fears are not present, and we highlight scholarship on the accepted benefits of vertically integrated firms. We show that Wu’s remedies are policy preferences wrapped in the language of competition law. In fact, the information economy is largely competitive and does not warrant interventionist regulatory enforcement. Since much of American economic vitality flows from the information economy and technology, policymakers should reject a radical antitrust remedy like Wu’s preemptive Separations Principle.

The paper can be downloaded from the Mercatus website, SSRN, or Scribd.

Here’s a terrifically useful chart from CTIA that offers some international wireless use and spectrum availability comparisons. [Click on chart to expand.] The average minutes of use and average revenue per minute differences are fairly staggering. But the really important takeaway from this chart is the last line, which depicts how little spectrum is dripping out of the faucet right now. Having just 50 MHz of “potentially usable spectrum in the pipeline” is troubling and needs to be addressed by policymakers immediately. America’s wireless demands continue to explode, but supply isn’t keeping up.

Richard Bennett brought to my attention the release of the latest CTIA Semi-Annual Wireless Industry Survey. Lots of interesting facts worth examining.  I took two of the charts that appeared in the report and mashed them up to created this chart for the Mercatus Center depicting what has been happening with prices and investment in this sector.  Down below, I note why this is important.

Although it remains subject to some regulatory burdens and a variety of punishing taxes and fees, America’s wireless marketplace can be considered a great deregulatory success story. Over the past two decades, the cellular marketplace has generally been treated with a lighter regulatory touch than wireline communications and other sectors that the Federal Communications Commission regulates. The result of that light-touch approach speaks for itself.

Cumulative capital investment has grown from just $2.6 billion in 1988 to just under $300 billion in 2010. That is a stunning level of investment growth in capital-intensive sector. Meanwhile, prices plummeted throughout the 1990s and then plateaued over the past decade. While average local monthly bills stood close to $100 in 1988, today monthly service averages just $47. Importantly, however, the quality-adjusted price of service has improved markedly over the past decade. Consumers are getting much more for their money today than they did in the past. Internet access, texting, video, games, movies, and much more are all available over mobile handsets today. It’s not hyperbole to suggest that what we are carrying in our pockets and purses today is really more akin to a computer than a phone. Yet, competition and innovation keeps prices in check.

These statistics suggest that calls for more aggressive regulation of the wireless sector are unwarranted and would likely have a deleterious impact on consumer welfare.

Tim Wu: Not Looking Happy about Being So Wrong

Three years ago this month, Columbia University Law School professor Tim Wu released a controversial white paper in conjunction with the New America Foundation entitled, “Wireless Net Neutrality: Cellular Carterfone and Consumer Choice in Mobile Broadband.” It contained a litany of accusations regarding supposed corporate shenanigans in the mobile marketplace, including: intentional crippling of features and functionality; refusal to allow 3rd party attachments or intentional curtailment of a market for 3rd party application developers; and various concerns about “discrimination” of one sort or another.

Here at the TLF, we responded quite forcefully. I think every one of us piled on this study in one way or another. (ex: Hance, Jerry, James, Tim Lee, me x 2, + a podcast).  I called his proposal “a declaration of surrender” since Prof. Wu was essential calling the game early and raising the white flag on mobile competition. Further, I argued he was essentially asking for “the forced commoditization of cellular networks” which “would necessitate at return to the rate-of-return regulatory methods of the past.”  Others were a bit more kind to him, but we were all pretty skeptical of his gloomy claims. However, each of us here also argued that the wireless market (especially the applications side of the market) was still developing and that we’d have to check back in a few years to see how well the hands-off approach worked out.

Well, thankfully, we now know for certain that Tim Wu’s was much too lugubrious in his outlook and far too quick to call for regulatory intervention to solve a non-crisis. On the occasion of the 3rd anniversary of the release of Prof. Wu’s paper, CTIA-The Wireless Association filed a short paper with the FCC taking stock of just how far the mobile marketplace has come in just three short years. The results are really quite remarkable, as CTIA’s letter notes:

Contrary to the professor’s view of how the ecosystem would evolve, in the absence of regulation, every element of the wireless ecosystem has expanded. Today, the fact that there are over six hundred devices in the U.S. offering hundreds of different capabilities for consumers, over 170,000 applications, more open networks with open developer initiatives and software development kits, the sale of phones through numerous online and retail outlets, multiple operating systems, and the launch of the newest and most innovative handsets first in the United States demonstrates that the mobile wireless ecosystem continues to evolve to serve customers, contrary to Professor Wu’s arguments.

The filing goes on to examine each of the complaints Prof. Wu had articulated and then discusses current marketplace realities. Here’s the summary:

• Professor Wu asserted that carriers had a “near lock” on the retailing of mobile devices that, presumably, would only be altered through regulatory intervention. Today, consumers can purchase handsets from carriers, directly from manufacturers, through brick-and-mortar retail chains, via Internet discounters, and through a healthy secondary market. For example, Best Buy, Target, Wal-Mart, TigerDirect.com, Amazon.com, LetsTalk.com, Apple, Nokia, Google, Motorola and many others all sell handsets directly to consumers. The recent Best Buy catalog alone lists over a hundred wireless devices for sale. • Professor Wu argued that the U.S. market had only “a small fraction of the phones available [elsewhere],” implying that carriers restricted the diversity of handsets. Today, the U.S. market has over 630 devices manufactured by 33 different companies, including the BlackBerry® Tour 9630, Samsung Omnia, HTC TouchPro, Motorola Droid, Apple  iPhone 3GS, Motorola Karma QA1, BlackBerry® Bold, Motorola Cliq, myTouch 3G, G1, BlackBerry® Pearl Flip, HTC Touch Pro2, Palm Pre, HTC Hero, Samsung Instinct S30, Cricket TXTM8, Motorola Evoke QA4, Samsung JetSet, Motorola Hint, Samsung Finesse, Samsung Messager, LG Tritan, Samsung TwoStep, and the LG Rhythm. Of note, almost every one of the phones listed above was first launched in the United States. • Professor Wu painted a picture of a “stalled” application market where developers were unable to create applications for mobile devices. Today, a vibrant “apps” market exists where over 170,000 applications are available for popular operating systems, and where developers as young as age 9 can navigate the approval process to become highly successful. At least seven different companies, none of whom are affiliated with wireless carriers, market the overwhelming majority of these applications. • Professor Wu criticized carriers’ control over handset design. Today, all major carriers, and most of the other carriers in the country, have extensive open network development platforms for devices and software. Intra-industry groups have developed the Open Handset Alliance (which has created the Android operating system), and several other operating systems have moved to an open platform. Additionally, as discussed above, numerous handset manufacturers are selling directly to consumers. • Professor Wu stated that the “oligopoly” in handset sales resulted in a market where consumer-friendly capabilities, such as Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and picture distribution, were “crippled.” Today, all of these capabilities, and hundreds more that reflect a broad array of consumer desires, are available to U.S. consumers. With the wealth of options, consumers can make buying decisions based on a range of factors. This is exactly the market that consumers want, and regulators should encourage.

Now, I’m sure some folks will say, “hey, we can’t trust industry to report on this stuff,” but these are facts, folks. CTIA hasn’t made anything up here. If anything, I think they’ve actually gone too easy on Tim and underplayed just how revolutionary the changes we’ve seen over the last 3 years have been.

That’s especially the case on the operating system front.  This war among Apple, Google, Microsoft, RIM (Blackberry), Palm, Symbian, and others has actually forced me to ask if we have, “Too Much Platform Competition” in this arena. App developers must now craft their offerings for so many platforms that it has become a significant developmental hassle and expense. But hey, from a consumer perspective, this is great! And it shocking how vibrant that OS-level competition continues to be. (For more details, see Berin’s post on “The Fiercely Competitive Mobile OS & Device Markets.”)

And then there’s the applications market. As I have noted in my essays repeatedly hammering Jonathan Zittrain’s equally dismal view of the digital world, today’s market for 3rd party mobile applications would have been virtually unfathomable just a few years ago. Can you even remember 2005 when we had none of those apps at our disposal? Today, by contrast, Apple’s App Store alone has over 100,000 apps in 20 different categories (available in 77 countries) to choose from. Android and Windows Mobile apps are also exploding. Frankly, I get exhausted trying to filter through the thousands and thousands of apps in the Android marketplace I now have to choose from. Again, we had zip, zero, zilch, nadda, N-O-T-H-I-N-G to choose from just a few years ago.  Folks, that is called progress—insane, amazing, beautiful, miraculous progress!

The following GigaOm chart was intended to show average app prices but also includes total app figures for each of the five leading mobile operating systems:

So, will Tim Wu come out and admit that his pessimism was unwarranted? Somehow I doubt it. But allow me to offer him a way to save face: I remember debating Tim about these issues in New York a few years back and he told me that he really didn’t want to see the feds jump in and start aggressively regulating most high-tech markets. Instead, he just wanted to shake things up and put the fear of God in the hearts of private operators so they would change their ways for the better in an effort to avoid the sledgehammer of federal regulation. (Tim, if you are reading this and have forgetting that conversation, it was at that FOSI dinner in New York where we were also debating who was a bigger Dungeons & Dragons nerd back in our childhood. I think you at least had the better of me in that debate!)

So, to save face here, Tim should declare victory and go home.  He should tell the world he single-handled revolutionized the wireless world with his vociferous agitation for a comprehensive federal regulatory regime for mobile and that it has blessed us one of the great capitalist success stories of our time.

Thank you Professor Wu for making the world a better place!

It’s truly amazing how fast mobile broadband demand is expanding. A couple of things caught my eye yesterday that really drove that home.  First, I was reading Bernstein Research’s weekly (subscription-only) newsletter and Craig Moffett, one of America’s top media and communications analysts, summarized the growing mobile bandwidth crunch as follows:

To fully grasp the challenge facing wireless providers as we make the transition from wireless voice to wireless data, it is helpful to put some ballpark numbers around current usage levels. Today, the average voice-only customer consumes something like 50 megabytes of data every month. For that, they pay about $40, or about $0.80 per megabyte. That’s 70% of wireless industry revenues. Text messaging generates another $10 per month for a minuscule amount of data (in fact, arguably no throughput at all, since text messaging travels in a signaling band rather than in the carrier band itself). Let’s call it $1,000 per megabyte. That’s another 15% of industry revenues. On a blended basis, then, that’s $1.00 per megabyte for 85% of industry revenues. And then there’s the iPhone. By some estimates, the average iPhone user consumes as much as 800 megabytes per month. Take out their 50 Mb for voice and you’re looking at 750 Mb of data… for an additional $30. For the mathematically challenged, that’s a princely sum of… wait for it… four cents per megabyte. Worse, we noted that the FCC’s wireless net neutrality policies posed the risk of “bandwidth arbitrage,” where low bandwidth services (at $1.00 per megabyte) would be replaced with free or almost free applications that ride on $0.04 per megabyte data plans, and where carriers’ hands would be tied to prevent it. Taking a business that is currently getting $1.00 per megabyte down to just $0.04 per megabyte is, well, hard. And lest anyone think that this threat is idle fear-mongering, Google’s acquisition last week of Gizmo5, a wireless VoIP specialist, should give one pause.

Those are stunning numbers. And then I saw this new filing by CTIA listing some other statistics about growing mobile broadband demand:

According to the FCC’s most recent data, there were over 59 million mobile wireless high speed lines.

In addition, mobile wireless broadband growth continues to outpace every other broadband platform, with net additions between December 2007 and June 2008 greater than those of DSL and cable modem combined.

Mobile data and Internet traffic will increase 66 times between 2008 and 2013;

By 2010, “mobile broadband penetration will surpass fixed penetration globally.”

The simple task of watching a YouTube video consumes 100 times the bandwidth of a voice call.

The mobile data traffic footprint of a single mobile subscriber in 2015 could very well be 450 times what it was in 2005.

These projections are consistent with mobile broadband providers’ experiences to date. For example, AT&T noted that its wireless data traffic has increased nearly 5,000 percent in the past quarters and other carriers have likewise reported dramatic increases. Similarly, since T-Mobile began offering its G1 smartphone, customers of that device use, on average, 50 times the data of the average T-Mobile customer.

For these reasons, CTIA and others are calling on the federal government to find more spectrum to meet these growing mobile broadband needs.  The question is: Where to find it?  The military is one answer, but good luck getting them to budge and return any of their current spectrum holdings for reallocation.  Thus, as Barbara Esbin and I noted in a recent PFF paper, a lot of people are turning to the broadcast TV sector and hoping to find a way to make a cash-for-spectrum deal with them to get some (or all) of their spectrum back. But it may be unlikely many broadcasters will be willing to hand back their spectrum for alternative uses, even if the cash offer was generous.  Plus, Congress would have to bless any such deal, which raises another set of sticky political issues.

PFF will be hosting a debate about these issues on Tuesday, December 1st at 9am at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.  The event is called, “Let’s Make a Deal: Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband, and a Market in Spectrum.”  Seating is limited, so reserve your spot now by RSVPing here. We’ve got a terrific lineup for the event, including:

• Blair Levin, Executive Director, Omnibus Broadband Initiative, Federal Communications Commission
• Coleman Bazelon, Principal, The Brattle Group
• David Donovan, President, Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc.
• Paul Gallant, Senior Vice President, Washington Research Group
• John Hane, Counsel, Communications Practice Group, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
• Kostas Liopiros, Principal, The Sun Fire Group

The latest edition (Version 4.0) of my PFF special report on “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools & Methods” is now up.  For those not familiar with the report, it explores the market for parental control tools, rating schemes, education and media literacy efforts, and various other tools, methods, and initiatives aimed at promoting online child safety.  After evaluating that state of this market, I conclude: “There has never been a time in our nation’s history when parents have had more tools and methods at their disposal to help them decide what constitutes acceptable media content in their homes and in the lives of their children.”  Moreover, I believe that the parental controls and content management tools cataloged in the report represent a better, less restrictive alternative to government regulation.

Version 4.0 of the report is now over 250 pages long (up from 200 pages in Version 3.0) and it contains almost 70 exhibits (up from 50), 725 references (up from roughly 500), and numerous updates in all five sections of the book. Major updates have been made to the Internet, social networking, and mobile media sections, reflecting the growing importance of those sectors and issues. Other new sections or appendices have also been added to the report, including:

• a new section examining how many households really need parental control tools;
• a new appendix on the downsides of mandatory parental controls and restrictive default settings;
• a new section on the dangers of “deputizing the online middleman” solution as an approach to solving child safety concerns;
• a new appendix reviewing the findings of 5 past online safety task forces;
• … and much more.

I issue major updates once a year and 1 or 2 minor tweaks during the course of the year to reflect the evolution of the parental control and online child safety marketplace and debate. The report is available free-of-charge on the PFF website, and the previous editions of the report are housed there too in case you want to see how it has evolved over the past couple of years. For those interested in taking a quick look at the report, I have embedded it down below the fold as a Scribd file. Finally, as is always the case, I encourage readers to send me updates and suggestions for how to improve the report and I will incorporate them into future versions.

Just FYI, the latest update of my booklet on “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools & Methods” is now live. The new version, Version 3.1, provides minor updates to all sections of the book and a new appendix of relevant research in the field. I issue major updates early each year and 1 or 2 tweaks during the course of the year to reflect the evolution of the parental control and online child safety market and debate.

For those not familiar with the report, it explores the market for parental control tools, rating schemes, education efforts, and initiatives aimed at promoting online child safety. I believe that the parental controls and content management tools cataloged in the report represent a better, less restrictive alternative to government regulation. As I conclude after evaluating that state of the market: “There has never been a time in our nation’s history when parents have had more tools and methods at their disposal to help them decide what constitutes acceptable media content in their homes and in the lives of their children.”

The report is available free-of-charge on the PFF website, and the previous editions of the report are housed there too in case you want to see how it has evolved over the past two years. For those interested in taking a quick look at the report, I have embedded it down below the fold as a Scribd file. Finally, as is always the case, I encourage readers to send me updates and suggestions for how to improve the report and I will incorporate them into future versions.

A few days ago, I posted an essay about the recent history of “moral panics,” or “technopanics,” as Alice Marwick refers to them in her brilliant new article about the recent panic over MySpace and social networking sites in general.

I got thinking about technopanics again today after reading the Washington Post’s front-page article, “When the Phone Goes With You, Everyone Else Can Tag Along.” In the piece, Post staff writer Ellen Nakashima discusses the rise of mobile geo-location technologies and services, which are becoming more prevalent as cell phones grow more sophisticated. These services are often referred to as “LBS,” which stands for “location-based services.”

Many of phones and service plans offered today include LBS technologies, which are very useful for parents like me who might want to monitor the movement of their children. Those same geo-location technologies can be used for other LBS purposes. Geo-location technologies are now being married to social networking utilities to create an entirely new service and industry: “social mapping.” Social mapping allows subscribers to find their friends on a digital map and then instantly network with them. Companies such as Loopt and Helio have already rolled out commercial social mapping services. Loopt has also partnered with major carriers to roll out its service nationwide, including the new iPhone 3G. It is likely that many other rivals will join these firms in coming months and years.

These new LBS services present exciting opportunities for users to network with friends and family, and it also open up a new world of commercial / advertising opportunities. Think of how stores could offer instantaneous coupons as you walk by their stores, for example. And very soon, you can imagine a world were many of our traditional social networking sites and services are linked into LBS tools in a seamless fashion. But as today’s Washington Post article notes, mobile geo-location and social mapping is also raising some privacy concerns:

what many users may not realize is that by sharing this information, they are creating often permanent records that can tell not only wireless providers, but also social networking sites, other users, and potentially law enforcement and civil attorneys every place they are and have been, as long as their phone and tracking device are on.

My friend Jim Dempsey of Center for Democracy & Technology was also quoted in the WP story raising additional concerns:

“How easy is it for the user to turn the location function on and off, and how easy it is for the user to delete past location information?” he said. “What are the companies collecting? Who are they sharing it with? How long do they store it? And what control does the consumer have over the information? These are the fundamental questions.” The wireless industry, through CTIA The Wireless Association, has issued guidelines for location-based services that stress consumer notice and consent and data security. But, Dempsey said, self-regulation is only part of the solution. What is needed, he said, is baseline federal legislation covering all firms that collect personal electronic data.

Moreover, when child safety advocates become more aware of this technology, you can imagine some of the other types of bogeyman scenarios that some people will conjure up: stalkers, jealous boyfriends, predators, etc, etc. So, I don’t think I’m going out on too much of limb here when I predict that mobile geo-location and social mapping will become America’s next great technopanic.

But before the hysteria begins, let’s step back and try to take a level-headed look at this issue and understand why we likely don’t have as much to fear as some privacy advocates or child safety advocates might suggest.

First, no one is forcing you to buy the phones equipped with LBS or purchase / download these technologies! These tools are luxuries that we are blessed to have at our disposal. These technologies are barely out of the cradle and we already have people hinting that preemptive regulation might be necessary based merely on hypothetical fears. That’s a recipe for destroying innovation.

Second, if you do choose to use LBS services, you will obviously first need to own a mobile phone. That means you pay money for that phone and a monthly plan. To the extent, therefore, this becomes a child safety issue, we have a very important tool for parents in place right up front: the power of the purse. As I have written in my book on parental controls and online child safety (p. 33), when media and communications technologies cost good money—and cell phones and mobile data plans certainly do!—parents have a very important additional check on the child’s media exposure or interactive communication capabilities. In the case of LBS, parents can first decide if they want to buy their kids phones with those technologies. If they do, then they will also be able to monitor and manage usage of such tools by keeping a close tab on the monthly statements. After all, the kids don’t pay the bills! Mom and Dad do.

Third, just as is the case with other child safety and privacy-based technopanics (social networking, Gmail, etc) the likely harm is being greatly over-stated and self-help tools and controls are being completely ignored. In this case, even if you do choose to purchase or use these services, you must take active steps to share your information to others.

Consider how Loopt works. Luckily, I have had the opportunity to play with the Loopt service and learn more about it. It’s very cool. But what really impresses me about Loopt is how the company has layered on safety and security controls. Loopt has put together a slick “privacy & security” website that summarizes the advice they give their customers. The best part about it is the “Be Safe Guide” that offers sensible guidance for safe and responsible use of this new technology. Loopt stresses that you should only open your network and share location-based information with a close circle of friends. And Loopt encourages users to confirm phone numbers with other users after they have open up their network to others. Because Loopt is a closed, private network, this process means it would be very difficult for privacy violations of any sort to occur. Here’s how they describe it:

To initiate a friend-request (or contact other users in any way), a subscriber must already know the other user’s mobile phone number. Even when a friendship request is successfully sent, the prospective friend must consent as well to a reciprocal “friendship connection” before any location sharing will occur. In other words, Loopt users only see where their established friends are, not strangers. Loopt is not an “open” social network and does not offer any browsing or searching of full profiles by non-friends.

And Loopt doesn’t retain all that “location history” over an extended period; just the most recent locational position such that users can connect when they want. So, in light of these many layers of protection, it is difficult for me to see how anyone can raise privacy concerns about how Loopt works.

Of course, it is true that there will be other rivals to Loopt in coming years, and they might have somewhat different policies or procedures. But remember three things:

First, the industry as a whole has been working together to develop a set of best practices on this front. As part of their effort to create and refine their “Wireless Content Guidelines,” the CTIA, the wireless industry’s trade association, has worked with its member companies to create privacy and safety guidelines for this emerging industry sector.

Second, the combination of that industry self-regulation and vigilant oversight / pressure from privacy groups and industry watchdogs will put enormous pressure on LBS providers to make sure they take steps to protect user privacy / safety. Consumers will come to expect a certain baseline level of privacy and security based on industry leaders like Loopt. Those who ignore the wishes of consumers will have hell to pay in the marketplace. And bad PR or grief from all those privacy and child safety advocates will be a real killer for LBS providers who don’t craft and enforce sensible policies.

Third, self-help tools exist that can help users (or parents) take additional steps to protect privacy. And consumer education / safety awareness efforts for younger users is increasing. I talk at length about those efforts in my book. While LBS providers certainly should take steps to help consumers protect privacy, personal responsibility has to play a role here too. We shouldn’t be rejecting every new innovation that hits the market just because there is some potential theoretical downside or some way that consumers could really screw up and do something stupid with it. People have to be responsible. And self-help tools are flourishing to help consumers protect their privacy in many different contexts. Just as those self-help tools represent a better, less-restrictive way of dealing with concerns about media content, so too do they offer a superior way of dealing with privacy concerns. (I often wonder why it is that some of the free speech groups out there defend the existence of such tools as the “less-restrictive means” of protecting children as compared to speech-stifling regulations, but when it comes to privacy regulation they never bother to mention those same self-help tools and methods. What gives? If the tools represent the better alternative to regulation in the free speech context then why not also in the privacy context?? It makes no sense to me, and in an upcoming PFF report, Berin Szoka and I are going to be discussing this issue at much greater length.)

Regardless, and in conclusion, before people go making a mountain out of a molehill and creating a technopanic around LBS and services like Loopt, I do hope they take a deep breath and consider these facts before they rush to regulate this exciting new technology and emerging industry sector.

The white space debate has been the subject of much attention lately, with Microsoft, Dell, and Google pitted against the CTIA on the question of how to allocate white spaces between UHF channels. The two competing proposals are 1) auction off white spaces, similar to the 700mhz auction, or 2) leave them unlicensed and managed (like 2.4Ghz) but allow devices which don’t cause interference.

This controversy again raises the issue of the desirability of unlicensed spectrum. I’ve been reading about the merits of unlicensed spectrum, inspired by a 2006 exchange between Jerry Brito and Mike Masnick on TLF and TechDirt. Jerry makes a compelling argument that command-and-control commons rules might hinder the emergence of superior networks operating with devices emitting greater than 4w EIRP.

The public interest is to allocate the spectrum in the most economically efficient manner, so if unlicensed spectrum uses do not make the best use of scarce airwaves, unlicensed bands should be auctioned off. Tim envisions privately managed commons that would provide for much the same openness now offered by unlicensed spectrum, but without a monolithic regulator imposing centralized rules.

Privately managed commons are naturally appealing to libertarians, as they accomplish the virtue of openness and participation without the need for government intervention. But there’s the question of whether a spectrum commons would actually emerge. With the immense profit potential that comes with owning even a tiny chunk of spectrum and offering restricted communications services, it’s not easy to imagine firms ponying up billions simply to manage spectrum for open, unrestricted use—unless each user must pay to become a commons member. Supporters of licensed spectrum suggest that wireless device manufacturers could confer spectrum usage rights to the end user for a small fee, rolled up in the cost of the product. But with myriad small wireless devices now on the market made by upstart overseas companies, abolishing unlicensed spectrum would necessitate that each device have some privately granted right to broadcast, possibly adding new entry barriers. And what about the geek who wants to build a low-power, home wireless device with off-the-shelf parts from Radio Shack? Does she have to buy spectrum rights from a third-party in order to broadcast in her own home without facing “spectrum infringement” litigation? If so, perhaps Faraday Cages will one day become a nerd luxury.

Currently, mobile phone services run fairly well using licensed frequencies. People spend hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars a year for wireless service plans. Perhaps the ability of unlicensed spectrum to greatly reduce transaction costs explains its appeal to consumers and producers alike. According to the Coase theorem, unhindered market allocation of property rights should generate a Pareto optimal outcome. But that outcome might be skewed if transaction costs eat up a huge portion of consumer and producer surplus. The ability to broadcast a Bluetooth signal ten or fifteen feet, for example, is far less valuable than mobile phone service.

The amazing success of the unlicensed 2.4Ghz band, even compared to widely deployed 3G networks like EVDO, suggests there’s something to the argument for unlicensed, lightly regulated spectrum. Who would have envisioned a mere 73mhz chunk of spectrum playing such a major role in technology?

Unfortunately for unlicensed spectrum management, the economic calculation problem is unavoidable. The FCC cannot possibly ascertain the socially optimal rule-making scheme for unlicensed spectrum. Who knows if 4W EIRP is too much, or too little? Despite this problem, 2.4 Ghz has still arguably resulted in a hotbed of innovation rivaling the achievements of any other band on a megahertz-for-megahertz basis.

To be sure, spectrum rights should be sold on the free market, with the federal government acting as a registrar of spectrum deeds. The real question is, should every last bit of the spectrum be licensed, or is there a valid case for setting aside a small portion of the airwaves for open, unlicensed, government-regulated use?

PFF has just releasing an updated edition of my booklet on “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools & Methods.” The new version, Version 3.0, includes two new appendixes and updates to each section to reflect new parental control tools and programs developed in the last nine months.

The updated report is timely as it comes on the heels of the recently-announced Internet Safety Technical Task Force, which is being chaired by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School. I am privileged to serve as a member of the Task Force, which is evaluating various online safety technologies and strategies and then reporting back to state attorneys general with our findings.

Those issues and much more are covered in the latest edition of my report. The report explores the market for parental control tools, rating schemes, education efforts, and initiatives aimed at promoting online child safety. I believe that the parental controls and content management tools cataloged in the report represent a better, less restrictive alternative to government regulation. As I conclude after evaluating that state of the market: “There has never been a time in our nation’s history when parents have had more tools and methods at their disposal to help them decide what constitutes acceptable media content in their homes and in the lives of their children.”

Version 3.0 of the special report, now over 200 pages, contains over fifty exhibits and numerous updates in all five sections of the book. Major updates have been made to the Internet, social networking, and mobile media sections, reflecting the growing importance of those sectors and issues. A greatly expanded section on video empowerment technologies has also been included. Finally, two appendices have also been added: a comprehensive legislative index cataloging over thirty bills introduced in Congress on these issues (complied with John Morris of Center for Democracy & Technology), and a glossary of 35 relevant terms and cases.

The report is available free-of-charge on the PFF website, as are the previous editions. And I am happy to provide hard copies to those who are interested.

PFF has just released my latest paper entitled “Parental Control Perfection? The Impact of the DVR and VOD Boom on the Debate over TV Content Regulation.” In the report, I focus on the extent to which new video technologies, such as digital video recorders (DVRs) and video on demand (VOD) services, are changing the way households consume media and are helping parents better tailor viewing experiences to their tastes and values. I provide evidence showing the rapid spread of these technologies and discuss how parents are using these tools in their homes. Finally, I argue that these developments will have profound implications for debates over the regulation of video programming. As parents are given the ability to more effectively manage their family’s viewing habits and experiences, it will lessen—if not completely undercut—the need for government intervention on their behalf.

This 16-page report can be found at: http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop14.20DVRboomcontentreg.pdf