It might be tempting to laugh at France’s ban on words like “Facebook” and Twitter” in the media. France’s Conseil Supérieur de l’Audiovisuel recently ruled that specific references to these sites (in stories not about them) would violate a 1992 law banning “secret” advertising. The council was created in 1989 to ensure fairness in French audiovisual communications, such as in allocation of television time to political candidates, and to protect children from some types of programming.

Sure, laugh at the French. But not for too long. The United States has similarly busy-bodied regulators, who, for example, have primly regulated such advertising themselves. American regulators carefully oversee non-secret advertising, too. Our government nannies equal the French in usurping parents’ decisions about children’s access to media. And the Federal Communications Commission endlessly plays footsie with speech regulation.

In the United States, banning words seems too blatant an affront to our First Amendment, but the United States has a fairly lively “English only” movement. Somehow, regulating an entire communications protocol doesn’t have the same censorious stink.

So it is that our Federal Communications Commission asserts a right to regulate the delivery of Internet service. The protocols on which the Internet runs are communications protocols, remember. Withdraw private control of them and you’ve got a more thoroughgoing and insidious form of speech control: it may look like speech rights remain with the people, but government controls the medium over which the speech travels.

The government has sought to control protocols in the past and will continue to do so in the future. The “crypto wars,” in which government tried to control secure communications protocols, merely presage struggles of the future. Perhaps the next battle will be over BitCoin, an online currency that is resistant to surveillance and confiscation. In BitCoin, communications and value transfer are melded together. To protect us from the scourge of illegal drugs and the recently manufactured crime of “money laundering,” governments will almost certainly seek to bar us from trading with one another and transferring our wealth securely and privately.

So laugh at France. But don’t laugh too hard. Leave the smugness to them.

The WSJ reports that the French government has “rejected the sole bid it had received for the so-called third-generation, or 3G license, from French Internet start-up Iliad SA, on the grounds that it didn’t meet required financial criteria.” It also says that the “failed auction for a fourth mobile-operator license could forestall new competition and keep prices at their lofty levels for consumers[.]”

It seems like the French government is going to try to remove the technical roadblocks stopping the deal, and that desire for more competition is certainly gratifying. But what I’m more curious about is why there aren’t more bidders? After all the WSJ also says, “France is one of the more desirable markets in Europe for operators. Prices have remained high and competition — limited to the three operators — isn’t as brutal as elsewhere. Italy, for example, has four mobile operators and is set to roll out more.”

It wouldn’t have anything to do with forced business models, would it?

I love my iPhone. Despite what others might say, it is the most innovative mobile phone in a decade. I also think innovators should be rewarded, which is why I’m fine with the iPhone being locked to AT&T’s network. As a result, Apple gets a cut of my (and every other iPhone owner’s) wireless bill.

France might be left behind when it comes to this innovation, however. That country has laws similar to the wireless Carterfone rules Tim Wu, Skype, and others have advocated for the U.S. Locked phones in France must be unlocked by the carrier upon user request, and wireless carriers must also sell unlocked versions of their mobile phones. As a result, Apple is considering keeping the iPhones off French shelves indefinitely.

To me it’s clear that forced access laws limit innovation. I think folks who propose such rules want to have their cake and eat it, too. That is, they want the innovation that comes from entrepreneurs acting in a free market (and often fueled by exclusive deals such as the one between Apple and AT&T), and they also want the forced openness of networks. They think that the latter will have no impact on the former; that innovators will innovate regardless of the incentives. The iPhone snag in France, however, shows that incentives do matter.