The Senate might vote this week on Sen. Hutchison’s resolution of disapproval for the FCC’s net neutrality rules. If ever there was a regulation that showed why independent regulatory agencies ought to be required to conduct solid regulatory analysis before writing a regulation, net neutrality is it.
For more than three decades, executive orders have required executive branch agencies to prepare a Regulatory Impact Analysis accompanying major regulations. One of the first things the agency is supposed to do is identify the market failure, government failure, or other systemic problem the regulation is supposed to solve. The agency ought to demonstrate a problem actually exists to show that a regulation is actually necessary.
But the net neutrality rules have virtually no analysis of a systemic problem that actually exists, and no data demonstrating that the problem is real. Instead, the FCC’s order outlines the incentives Internet providers might face to treat some traffic differently from other traffic, in a discussion heavily freighted with “could’s” and “may’s”. Then it offers up just four familiar anecdotes that have been used repeatedly to support the claim that non-neutrality is a significant threat (all four fit in paragraph 35 of the order). The FCC asserts without support that Internet providers have incentives to do these things even if they lack market power, and indeed in a footnote it dispenses with the need to consider market power: “Because broadband providers have the ability to act as gatekeepers even in the absence of market power with respect to end users, we need not conduct a market power analysis.” (footnote 87)
Thus far, no administration of either party has sought to apply Regulatory Impact Analysis requirements to independent agencies. If administrations won’t, Congress should.
For CNET today, I have a long analysis and commentary on the “Stop Online Piracy Act,” introduced last week in the House. The bill is advertised as the House’s version of the Senate’s Protect-IP Act, which was voted out of Committee in May.
It’s very hard to find much positive to say about the House version. While there’s considerable evidence its drafters heard the criticisms of engineers, legal academics, entrepreneurs and venture capitalists, their response was unfortunate.
Engineers pointed out, for example, that court orders requiring individual ISPs to remove or redirect domain name requests was a futile and dangerous way to block access to “rogue” websites. Truly rogue sites can easily relocate to another domain, or simply have users access them with their IP address and bypass DNS altogether. Continue reading →
Over the weekend, Janet Morrissey of The New York Times posted an excellent article on the U.S. government’s continuing crackdown on Internet gambling. (“Poker Inc. to Uncle Sam: Shut Up and Deal“) Ironically, her article arrives on the same week during which PBS aired the terrific new Ken Burns and Lynn Novick documentary on the history of alcohol prohibition in the United States. It’s a highly-recommended look at the utter hypocrisy and futility of prohibiting a product that millions of people find enjoyable. If there’s a simple moral to the story of Prohibition, it’s that you can’t repress human nature–not for long, at least, and not without serious unintended consequences. Which is why Morrissey of the Times notes:
And so the poker world now finds itself in a situation many liken to Prohibition. America didn’t stop drinking when the government outlawed alcoholic beverages in 1919. And, in this Internet age, it won’t be easy to prevent people from gambling online, whatever the government says. “It’s a game of whack-a-mole,” says Behnam Dayanim, an expert on online gambling and a partner at the Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider law firm. “They’ve whacked three very large moles, but over time, more moles will pop up.”
Exactly right (except that it should be “whac” not “whack”! There’s no K in whac-a-mole.) It reminds me of the paper that my blogging colleague Tom Bell penned back in 1999 for the Cato Institute with its perfect title: “Internet Gambling: Popular, Inexorable, and (Eventually) Legal.” As Tom noted back then: Continue reading →
Federal Communications Chairman Genachowski previewed the universal service reform plan the commissioners are discussing in a speech today.
The speech offers a masterful summary of the myriad inefficiencies created by the current universal service subsidies and intercarrier compensation payments. Most of the examples highlight plain old-fashioned waste. The universal service program collects billions of dollars from telephone subscribers, then simply wastes a goodly portion of it by subsidizing telephone competition in places where unsubsidized service from cable or satellite already exists, subsidizing multiple mobile wireless competitors, and subsidizing local phone companies that have little incentive for cost containment because they are still subject to rate-of-return regulation. The intercarrier compensation system uses per-minute charges to collect billions of dollars from telephone subscribers and hands it to phone companies that sometimes charge as little as $8 a month for phone service. There’s also a race to game this system as the companies that benefit seek new ways to inflate the regulated charges they collect, and the companies that pay seek clever ways to avoid paying.
It’s a powerful brief for reform. Never thought I’d live to see the day whan an FCC chairman would say so many things that are substantiated by economic research.
Nevertheless, a few parts of the speech give me cause for concern about the solutions the FCC commissioners may be discussing.
First, the chairman claims that 18 million Americans live in areas without access to broadband — up from the 14 million estimated in the National Broadband Plan. The size of this figure suggests to me that the FCC is still over-estimating the number of people without access by defining “broadband” as a speed fast enough to exclude 3G wireless, many small rural Wireless Internet Service Providers, and satellite. Absent an adjustment in the definition of broadband, the subsidy program will be larger than it needs to be, and so telephone consumers will pay excessive universal service charges. Continue reading →
[NOTE: The following is a template for how to script congressional testimony when invited to speak about online safety issues.]
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you inviting me here today to testify about the most important issue to me and everyone in this room: Our children.
There is nothing I care more about than the future of our children. Like Whitney Houston, “I believe the children are our future.”
Mr. Chairman, I remember with fondness the day my little Johnny and Jannie came into this world. They were my little miracles. Gifts from God, I say. At the moment of birth, my wife… oh, well, I could tell you all about it someday but suffice it to say it was a beautiful scene, with the exception of all the amniotic fluid and blood everywhere. I wept for days.
Today my kids are (mention ages of each) and they are the cutest little angels on God’s green Earth. (NOTE: At this point it would be useful for you to hold up a picture of your kids, preferably with them cuddling with cute stuffed animals, a kitten, or petting a pony as in the example below. Alternatively, use a picture taken at a major attraction located in the Chairman’s congressional district.) Continue reading →
On NPR’s Marketplace this morning, I talk about net neutrality litigation with host John Moe.
Nearly a year after the FCC passed controversial new “Open Internet” rules by a 3-2 vote, the White House finally gave approval for the rules to be published last week, unleashing lawsuits from both supporters and detractors.
The supporters don’t have any hope or expectation of getting a court to make the rules more comprehensive. So why sue? When lawsuits challenging federal regulations are filed in multiple appellate courts, a lottery determines which court hears a consolidated appeal.
So lawsuits by net neutrality supporters are a procedural gimmick, an effort to take cases challenging the FCC’s authority out of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has already made clear the FCC has no legal basis here.
Continue reading →
Here’s a sharp editorial from The Economist about Internet governance entitled, “In Praise of Chaos: Governments’ Attempts to Control the Internet Should be Resisted.” In the wake of the recent Internet Governance Forum meeting, many folks are once again debating the question of who rules the Net? Along with Wayne Crews, I edited a huge collection of essays on that topic back in 2003 and it’s a subject that continues to interest me greatly. As I noted here last week, many of those who desire greater centralization of control over Net governance decisions are using the fear that “fragmentation” will occur without some sort of greater plan for the Net’s future. I believe these fears are greatly overstated and are being used to justify expanded government meddling with online culture and economics.
The new
Economist piece nicely brings into focus the key question about who or what we should trust to guide the future of the Internet. It rightly notes that the current state of Net governance is, well, messy. But that’s not such a bad thing when compared to the alternative: Continue reading →
In a speech today before the Internet Governance Forum entitled “Taking Care of the Internet,” Neelie Kroes, Vice President of the European Commission, responsible for the Digital Agenda for Europe, argued for “a globally coherent approach” to preserve “the global character of the Internet, and keep it from fragmenting.” That sounds good in theory but, as always, the devil is in the details. No one wants to see a highly balkanized Internet with each country and continent becoming a digital island cut off from the rest of Internet. On the other hand, if “a globally coherent approach” means layers of international red tape and bureaucracy, then fragmentation doesn’t sound so bad by comparison. That’s particularly true for those of us who live in countries to cherish principles of freedom of speech and free enterprise, as we do in the United States.
For example, to most of the rest of the planet, America’s First Amendment is viewed as a pesky local ordinance that simply interferes with the ability of government to establish rules for acceptable speech and expression throughout society. What, then, does “a globally coherent approach” to Internet governance mean when America’s values conflict with other countries and continents? Does it mean that the U.S. should conform to a global norm as established by a “consensus body”? Who would that be? The OECD? The United Nations? The International Telecommunications Union? If so, it is clear that protections for freedom of speech and expression would be sacrificed on the altar of “consensus” or a “coherent global approach” to Net governance. Continue reading →
For Forbes this morning, I reflect on the publication late last week of the FCC’s “Open Internet” or net neutrality rules and their impact on spectrum auctions past and future. Hint: not good.
An important study last year by Prof. Faulhaber and Prof. Farber, former chief economist and chief technologist, respectively, for the FCC, found that the last-minute imposition of net neutrality limits on the 700 MHz “C” block in the FCC’s 2008 auction reduced the winning bid by 60%–a few billion dollars for the Treasury.
Yet the FCC maintained in the December Report and Order approving similar rules for all broadband providers that the cost impact of these “prophylactic” rules would be minimal, because, after all, they simply endorse practices most providers already follow. (And the need for the new rules, then, came from where?)
Continue reading →
I can’t help but think that there might be a big advantage of having the AT&T-T-Mobile merger go to court. For once, the high-profile action everyone pays attention to will occur in an antitrust forum where the decision criterion is the effects of the merger on consumer welfare, period. Regardless of what one thinks about the merger, it’s nice to see that we’ll finally have a knock-down, drag-out fight based on whether a big telecommunications merger harms consumers and competition. That’s the antitrust standard the Department of Justice has to satisfy in order to prevent the merger.
This will be a refreshing change from the Federal Communications Commission’s “public interest” standard, which allows the commission to object on grounds other than consumer welfare and demand all manner of concessions that have nothing to do with remedying anticompetitive effects of a deal. Case in point: Comcast must now offer broadband service for $9.95 per month to low-income households as a condition for getting approval to buy 51 percent of NBCUniversal. Now, I’m all for seeing low-income households get access to broadband, but subsidizing one subset of customers has little to do with mitigating any possible anticompetitive effects of allowing a cable company to own NBCUniversal. As FCC Commissioners McDowell and Baker said in their statement on that transaction, “Any proposed remedies should be narrow and transaction specific, tailored to address particular anti-competitive harms. License transfer approvals should not serve as vehicles to extract from petitioners far-reaching and non-merger specific policy concessions that are best left to broader rulemaking or legislative processes.”
In short, if AT&T wins in court, the FCC should approve the merger promptly without additional conditions.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.