[Remarks p repared for Fifth Annual Conference on Governance of Emerging Technologies: Law, Policy & Ethics at Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, May 18, 2017.]

_________________

What are we to make of this peculiar new term “permissionless innovation,” which has gained increasing currency in modern technology policy discussions? And how much relevance has this notion had—or should it have—on those conversations about the governance of emerging technologies? That’s what I’d like to discuss here today.

Uncertain Origins, Unclear Definitions

I should begin by noting that while I have written a book with the term in the title, I take no credit for coining the phrase “permissionless innovation,” nor have I been able to determine who the first person was to use the term. The phrase is sometimes attributed to Grace M. Hopper, a computer scientist who was a rear admiral in the United States Navy. She once famously noted that, “It’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.”

“Hopper’s Law,” as it has come to be known in engineering circles, is probably the most concise articulation of the general notion of “permissionless innovation” that I’ve ever heard, but Hopper does not appear to have ever used the actual phrase anywhere. Moreover, Hopper was not necessarily applying this notion to the realm of technological governance, but was seemingly speaking more generically about the benefit of trying new things without asking for the blessing of any number of unnamed authorities or overseers—which could include businesses, bosses, teachers, or perhaps even government officials.

Today, however, we most often hear the “permissionless innovation” used in discussions about the governance of information technologies as well as a wide variety of emerging technologies. Unfortunately, scholars and advocates who have suggested that permissionless innovation should serve as the governing lodestar in these areas do not always precisely define what they mean by the term.

None of them seem to be suggesting, however, that permissionless innovation is synonymous with anarchy. To the contrary, many of them are quick to note that governments will continue to have a role to play. It is even rare to see advocates of permissionless innovation in these varied contexts calling for the abolition of any laws, programs, or agencies.

Instead, it seems to be the case that most of those defenders of permissionless innovation are using the term as a sort of shorthand when what they really mean to say is something like: “give innovators a bit more breathing room,” or, “don’t rush to regulate.”

This is consistent with my own articulation of the term, which goes as follows:

“Permissionless innovation refers to the notion that experimentation with new technologies and business models should generally be permitted by default. Unless a compelling case can be made that a new invention will bring serious harm to society, innovation should be allowed to continue unabated and problems, if any develop, can be addressed later.”

Default Policy Positions

Framing the term in this fashion makes it clear that, as it pertains to technological governance, permissionless innovation is about setting our public policy defaults closer to green lights rather than red ones.

It switches the burden of proof to the opponents of ongoing technological change by asserting five things:

• First, technological innovation is the single most important determinant of long-term human well-being.
• Second, there is real value to learning through continued trial-and-error experimentation, resiliency, and ongoing adaptation to technological change.
• Third, constraints on new innovation should be the last resort, not the first. Innovation should be innocent until proven guilty.
• Fourth, as regulatory interventions are considered, policy should be based on evidence of concrete potential harm and not fear of worst-case hypotheticals.
• Fifth, and finally, where policy interventions are deemed needed, flexible, bottom-up solutions of an ex post (responsive) nature are almost always preferable to rigid, top-down controls of an ex ante (anticipatory) nature.

Shared Shortcomings of Both Visions

At least on the surface, that sort of governance vision stands in stark contrast to the “precautionary principle.” Defenders of the precautionary principle as the general default position in technology policy debates generally believe that new innovations should be curtailed or disallowed until their developers can prove that they will not cause any harm to individuals, groups, specific entities, cultural norms, or various existing laws, norms, or traditions.

That being said, I’d like to point out some of the shared shortcomings of both of these governance visions.

First, as with attempts to define the parameters of “permissionless innovation,” the precautionary principle is not always as rigid as its critics sometimes suggest. There are as many flavors of the precautionary principle as there are ice cream. Indeed, this is why many have criticized the precautionary principle not for what it says but rather for what it doesn’t say. It doesn’t tell us exactly how and when to apply precautionary measures, or how to evaluate the trade-offs associated with precaution.

This points the second and deeper underlying problem faced by advocates of both precautionary measures and permissionless innovation: Our collective inability to craft a widely-shared definition of what constitutes “technological harm” in various contexts. This is certainly not to suggest that no attempt has been made to do so. Rather, simply that we don’t seem to be any closer to concrete agreement about how or where to draw those lines.

Of course, let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that we can find bright-line answers to all these questions. After all, for many of these technological governance issues we are operating in the realm of “Level 3” or “Earth-level” systems, as Professors Allenby and Sarewitz refer to it in their book, The Techno-Human Condition. These are systems in which we deal with, as they say, “a context that is always shifting, and on meanings that are never fixed.”

That makes it even more challenging to define what we mean by “responsible innovation” or “socially desirable innovation” for purposes of determining optimal technology policy.

Risk Analysis through the Lens of Permissionless Innovation

For me, there are no easy ways out of this mess. But I do know two things for certain.

First, we must continue to refine and improve our risk analysis tools and techniques to make better determinations of when proposed interventions are sensible and cost-effective relative to the many trade-offs at work.

Again, I recognize the challenge of doing this when many of the issues and values in play are amorphous and metaphysical conflicts exist about how to even define some of these things. Most of the emerging technology policy issues I write about today, for example, involve some sort of privacy, safety, or security concern. In each case, however, very little consensus exists about what those terms even mean in varied contexts.

Nonetheless, the fact that benefit-cost analysis is hard should not serve as an excuse for failing to go through the exercise of attempting some sort of valuation of the many variables in play.

Soft Law Alternatives

The second thing I know for certain is that, due the combination of both definitional complexity regarding what constitutes technological harm, as well as the ever-accelerating pace of the so-called “pacing problem,” all roads lead back to soft law solutions instead of hard law remedies.

Last year, I had the pleasure of reading and reviewing Wendell Wallach’s new book and then having a nice conversation with him about it at Microsoft’s DC headquarters. The most interesting thing about our exchange was that, although we do not begin in the same place philosophically-speaking, we largely end up in the same place practically-speaking.

That is, there seemed to be some grudging acceptance on both our parts that “soft law” systems, multistakeholder processes, and various other informal governance mechanisms will need to fill the governance gap left by the gradual erosion of hard law.

Many other scholars, including many of you in this room, have discussed the growth of soft law mechanisms in specific contexts, but I believe we have probably failed to acknowledge the extent to which these informal governance models have already become the dominant form of technological governance, at least in the United States.

I’m currently co-authoring a very long study which documents how the Obama Administration came to rely quite heavily on multistakeholder processes, negotiated “best practices,” and industry codes of conduct as the primary governance mechanisms for a long list of emerging tech issues, including: driverless cars, commercial drones, big data, facial recognition, the Internet of Things and wearable technology, mobile medical applications, 3D printing, artificial intelligence, the Sharing Economy, and much more.

Most of these soft law processes were driven by the NTIA and FTC, but plenty of other agencies with an “N” or an “F” at the beginning of their name have undertaken some sort of soft law process, including NHTSA, the FDA, the FAA, and so on.

Now, I’m willing to bet that many of those involved in these processes who generally favor more anticipatory regulatory approaches would have preferred to start with hard law solutions to some of these issues. And I am equally certain that many of the innovators involved in those multistakeholder processes would have probably preferred not to have had to come to the table at all.

But at the end of the day, for the most part, all sides did come to the table and worked together in a good faith effort to find some rough consensus about what sort of informal guidelines would govern the future of innovation in these sectors.

The Worst of All Systems, Except All the Others

Plenty of questions remain about such soft law systems, and the irony is that defenders of both permissionless innovation and the precautionary principle will quite often be raising very similar concerns regarding the transparency, accountability, and enforceability of these systems.

But I’m inclined to believe that no matter where you sit on the permissionless vs. precautionary spectrum, and no matter what your reservations may be about it the new world of soft law governance that we find ourselves moving into, this is the future and the future is now.

Much as Churchill said of democracy being “the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time,” I think we are well on our way to a world in which soft law is the worst form of technological governance except for all those others that have been tried before.

Of course, the devil is always in the details and I suspect that we’ll have plenty of discuss and debate in that regard. Let’s get that conversation going.

If the FCC had adopted the eligibility restrictions proposed by PISC in 2007, the United States would not have achieved the LTE leadership touted by current FCC Chairman Genachowski.

I was pleased to see FCC Chairman Genachowski praise the market-based policies of his predecessors in his remarks at Vox last week. He noted that the United States is currently leading the world in next generation mobile wireless services with 69 percent of the world’s LTE subscribers, which he attributes to “smart government policies.” He didn’t mention, however, that the “smart government policies” that led to America’s renewed mobile leadership were based on market principles adopted by the previous FCC.

Verizon built the world’s largest LTE network using 700 MHz spectrum it won in an open auction that ended in early 2008 (which also raised a record $19 billion for the U.S. Treasury). When the rules governing the 700 MHz band were developed, a coalition of so-called “public interest” groups (known as “PISC”) urged the FCC to prohibit any company with 45 MHz of spectrum from participating in the auction (the limit in the 1990s-era “spectrum cap”) as well as incumbent telephone and cable providers. The requested prohibition would have prevented the four largest nationwide wireless providers (Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile), cable incumbents, and a host of other companies from participating in the auction – which also happen to be the companies that are in the best position to invest in our Nation’s infrastructure and help America win the global bandwidth race.

Though Genachowski and others are quick to praise the results of the 700 MHz auction today, when the auction was completed, many were “disappointed” that Verizon bought the largest block of spectrum in the band. They argued that Verizon “didn’t even need” the spectrum, and believed that Verizon intended to “warehouse” it. These concerns led to a delay in the grant of Verizon’s 700 MHz licenses. Commissioners Copps and Adelstein were concerned that Verizon would have too much spectrum as a result of the auction, and demanded the application of the FCC’s “spectrum screen” after the auction had already concluded. As a result, Verizon “voluntarily” agreed to divest spectrum to secure grant of its 700 MHz licenses, and the FCC stated that it would apply its spectrum screen to future auction winners.

Four years later, it’s obvious that Verizon didn’t pay nearly ten billion dollars for its 700 MHz spectrum merely to sit on it. If, as some previously believed, Verizon had purchased the spectrum for the purpose of foreclosing competition, it would not have aggressively deployed the world’s largest 4G LTE network in that spectrum. Verizon’s deployment accelerated AT&T’s LTE plans, and sent competitive ripples throughout the rest of the mobile market, leading to LTE deployments by Sprint, T-Mobile, U.S. Cellular, and others. The rapid deployment of LTE in the United States was thus enabled by the 700 MHz auction rules, which did not contain eligibility restrictions on Verizon or any other bidders.

If the FCC had adopted the eligibility restrictions proposed by PISC in 2007, the United States would not have achieved the LTE leadership touted by current FCC Chairman Genachowski. In 2005, the Congressional Budget Office found that the FCC’s imposition of similar eligibility restrictions on the Broadband PCS band in the 1990s caused spectrum to lie fallow for a decade in many markets due to financial and legal issues that prevented the auction winners from providing service. Winning bidders in the initial auctions (FCC Auctions 5 and 10) for C-block licenses in the Broadband PCS band returned to the FCC for re-auction licenses that accounted for one-third of the block’s potential wireless coverage, and another one-third in potential wireless coverage was contested in bankruptcy and other legal proceedings. The eligibility restrictions placed on Broadband PCS spectrum deprived the mobile industry of approximately 30 MHz of nationwide bandwidth for close to a decade at a cost to society of approximately $65 billion. In all auctions other than the market-based 700 MHz and AWS-1 auctions, the FCC has generated $45 billion in net winning bids, but transmitted only $19 billion to the U.S. Treasury. The other $26 billion was lost through defaults, bankruptcies, and other licensing debacles enabled by FCC auction policies designed to favor certain bidders.

If history is any guide, the imposition of the eligibility restrictions on the 700 MHz band spectrum requested by the PISC would have delayed LTE deployment in the United States, and our opportunity to gain global leadership would have been squandered. It’s ironic that, despite his recognition of “smart government policy” in the 700 MHz auction, Genachowski championed the imposition of eligibility restrictions on the broadcast spectrum that will be repurposed for mobile use through an incentive auction and argued that more of this spectrum should be made available on an unlicensed basis. Congress wisely prohibited eligibility restrictions in the broadcast incentive auction and limited the FCC’s discretion to allocate it on an unlicensed basis, but those Congressional restraints are limited to that particular auction. The FCC retains enormous discretion to engage in the failed interventionist policies of the past when it evaluates secondary market transactions and repurposes spectrum in other ways.

Genachowski’s tendency to try to “outsmart” the market is a cause for concern in the proceeding to examine spectrum aggregation launched last week. The proceeding presents an opportunity to establish guidelines that would enhance market-based transactions in spectrum. There is a danger, however, that the FCC will use the proceeding as an opportunity to disadvantage incumbents in an effort to create new wireless competition through “smart government policies” rather than fair market opportunities.

The last time Genachowski tried to create a new competitor resulted in the LightSquared debacle. We can only hope that Genachowski has since learned that market oriented spectrum policies are the key to a U.S. victory in the global bandwidth race.

As we’ve noted here before, state and local politicians just love wireless taxes. They are going up, up, up. Dan Rothschild outlined this disturbing trend in his recent Mercatus Center paper making “The Case Against Taxing Cell Phone Subscribers,” and I discussed it in my recent Forbes essay lambasting the “Talking Tax.”  Another new study by Glenn Woroch of the Georgetown University School of Business notes how “The ‘Wireless Tax Premium’ Harms American Consumers and Squanders the Potential of the Mobile Economy.” Woroch estimates that “the American consumer forgoes over $15 billion in surplus annually compared to when cell phones receive the same tax treatment  as other goods and service.” Read the entire study but I want to draw everyone’s attention to this chart that appears on page 7 of the report comparing state and local wireless taxes burdens to beer taxes.  It really makes you realize just how drunk on wireless taxes are local lawmakers have become! [Click to enlarge. Red bar = wireless taxes.]

My latest Forbes column notes how “Taxes On Talking Are On the Rise Across the U.S.” with levies on mobile phones and devices skyrocketing.  I build my argument around data and arguments found in Dan Rothschild’s excellent recent Mercatus Center paper, which makes “The Case Against Taxing Cell Phone Subscribers,” as well as an important recent study by Scott Mackey, an economist and partner at KSE Partners LLP, which documents the growing burden of these wireless taxes and fees.

“Wireless users now face a combined federal, state, and local tax and fee burden of 16.3%, a rate two times higher than the average retail sales tax rate and the highest wireless rate since 2005,” Mackey finds. Mobile tax rates range from a high of 23.7% in Nebraska to a low of 6.9% in Oregon.  48 states have an average combined wireless tax rate above 11%.  These burdensome taxes on talking just don’t make any sense, argues Rothschild. “There is no economic justification for these high tax rates: reducing cell phone ownership is not a public policy goal, cell phone use by one customer does not affect other customers or other people, and these taxes fall disproportionately on lower-income households.”

You can read my entire essay here, but also make sure to re-read Dan Rothschild’s guest post here at the TLF on the issue. It’s much better than my own treatment.  For me, the key point is this: If the primary policy goal in this arena is to build out a first-class communications and data infrastructure and make sure all Americans have access to it, discriminatory taxes on wireless services and networks are highly counter-productive. Policymakers should hang up on the Talking Tax.

[The following essay is a guest post from Dan Rothschild, Managing Director of the State and Local Policy Project at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.]

As cell phone ownership has tripled in the United States over the last decade, policymakers have increasingly seen mobile devices as a cash cow. In some states, consumers now pay as much as a quarter of their cell phone bills in taxes. And while state revenues are beginning to tick back up from their low point during the recession, Medicaid costs are fast on their tails. So it’s likely that over the coming years, states will be looking to find taxes to hike or new taxes to create — all without calling them tax hikes, of course.

Policy makers may be tempted to hike taxes on cell phones, or to create (or “equalize”) taxes on untaxed (or “under taxed”) parts of wireless telephony, such as cell phone data plans or e-readers with cellular connections. As I argue in a recent issue of Mercatus on Policy, this is a bad idea for a number of reasons.

First, it’s bad economics. Having special taxes on cell phone violates the well-established principle of tax neutrality, which holds that taxes should treat all economic activities similarly. The purpose of taxes is to raise funds for necessary government services; when taxes treat different activities unequally, it distorts consumer behavior. Empirical evidence suggests that, at the margin, consumer spending on wireless service is elastic. This makes it a particularly poor choice for excise taxation.

There are two economic justifications for a tax that singles out a particular good or service for a higher tax: if it’s something that policymakers deem “sinful” (a so-called “sin tax”), or if it causes negative externalities that the tax corrects (a Pigouvian tax). In both of these cases, policymakers enact these taxes explicitly to discourage the use of the object of the tax; think cigarettes and alcohol. Neither of these rationales apply to cell phones, and (hopefully) no policymaker believes it’s a worthy policy to reduce consumer access to this technology. Nobody seriously argues that cell phones are sinful, nor that cell phones create net negative externalities.

Second, it runs counter to a number of other policy goals. On the national level, politicians are tripping over themselves to extoll the virtues of broadband internet access and its almost magical effects on everything from health outcomes to urban entrepreneurship. But taxing wireless service, which is frequently bundled with wireless broadband, runs counter to that goal (as would any attempts to “equalize” taxes between the voice and data sections of a bill by applying voice tariffs to data services). Similarly, the FCC’s universal service fund is meant to, inter alia, support telephone access in low-income and rural households. The most efficient way to increase take-up of telephony in these households is to lower the price rather than relying on notoriously inefficient subsidies.

Third, it’s a regressive tax. In all likelihood, cell phones are taxed at a higher rate because not so long ago they were seen as toys of the wealthy. This is obviously no longer the case. The marginal consumers today are largely lower-income, and high taxes keep them from adopting technologies.

On the federal level, the Wireless Tax Fairness Act would prohibit states and localities from “imposing a new discriminatory tax on cell phone services, providers, or property.” This is probably a step in the right direction, though it still leaves (from my reading) loopholes for states. For instance, states could argue that they are not imposing a new tax if they applied the same taxes on wireless voice products to wireless data products. This could allow them to easily slap monthly fees on Kindles, iPads, and other devices that use cellular networks. In many ways, this would be more pernicious than raising taxes on voice products.

The bottom line is that taxes on cell phones are inefficient, inequitable, and run counter to other public policies. They likely cost more in lost consumer welfare than they collect in revenues. There’s no reason for them, and states looking to improve their tax structure could do well by eliminating them altogether.

Read the whole thing here.

To believe some of the worrywarts around Washington, we find ourselves in the midst of a miserable mobile marketplace experience. Regulatory advocates like New America Foundation, Free Press, Public Knowledge and others routinely claim that the sky is falling on consumers and that far-reaching regulation of the wireless sector is needed to save the day.

I hope those folks are still willing to listen to facts, becuase those facts tell a very different story. Specifically, I invite critics to flip through the latest presentation by Internet market watchers Mary Meeker and Matt Murphy of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers on “Top Mobile Internet Trends” and then explain to me how we can label this marketplace anything other than what it really is: One of the greatest capitalist success stories of modern times. Just about every metric illustrates the explosive growth of technological innovation in the U.S. mobile arena. I’ve embedded the entire slideshow down below, but two particular slides deserve to be showcased.

The first slide illustrates “Computing Growth Drivers Over Time” from the 1960s to present and shows how roughly 10 Billion mobile Internet devices will soon be upon upon us.  TEN BILLION!!  As the subtitle of the slide summarizes: “Reduced Usage Friction via Better Processing Power + Improved User Interface + Smaller Form Factor + Lower Prices + Expanding Services = 10xMore Devices.”  Again, absolutely amazing innovation is occuring in all layers of this space.

But wait, shouldn’t we fear that the same old big, bad corporate behemoths will dominate the mobile Internet marketplace? The second slide down below explains why such pessimism is unwarranted.  True, every generation has its share of large operators in each sector, but Meeker and Murphy’s depiction of “Technology Wealth Creation / Destruction Cycles” over time illustrates why high-tech markets are far more dynamic than critics suggest.

As the subtitle of that slide notes, “New Companies Often Win Big in New Cycles While Incumbents Often Falter.”  Today’s titans often become tomorrow’s technological also-rans.  For example, who in the 1970s would have thought that anyone could give IBM a serious run for its money? And yet IBM ended up completely missing the boat on the rise of home personal computing as the company was myopically stuck in a mainframe mindset that made it serious money in the past but crippled the company for the future. (See this post for more details on the dramatic decline of Big Blue.) Ditto for AOL in the late 1990s or early 2000s.  As I’ve documented here before, AOL was considered the unassailable giant of the Internet space during that period.  Today, many of us struggle to figure out how the company even still exists!  In other words, today’s mobile marketplace giants won’t likely be tomorrow’s. New forces and faces will move in that we can not yet fathom.

Bottom line: Don’t let the cyber-Chicken Littles and tech worrywarts fool you. Things are getting better all the time!

A group of regulatory advocates that includes Free Press, Media Access Project and the New America Foundation, have fired off a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting action against the nation’s #5 mobile provider, MetroPCS.  These regulatory groups claim that “new service plans being offered by mobile provider MetroPCS block and discriminate against Internet content, applications and websites.” Wired’s Ryan Singel summarizes what the fight is about:

At issue are new, tiered 4G data plans from the nation’s fifth largest mobile carrier, which specializes in pay-as-you-go mobile-phone service. The new plans offer “unlimited web usage” for all three tiers, which cost $40, $50 and $60 a month. But MetroPCS’s terms exclude video sites other than YouTube from “unlimited web usage,” and block the use of internet-telephony services such as Skype and Tango.  The terms of service also make it very unclear whether users would be allowed to use online-radio services such as Pandora.

The parties petitioning the FCC for regulatory intervention claim that “MetroPCS appears to be in violation of the Commission’s recently adopted open Internet rules” even though they note that “these rules have not yet taken effect.”

There are four things I find interesting about this hullabaloo:

(1) The ink isn’t even dry on the FCC’s Net neutrality order and yet it already has the inside-the-Beltway lobbying machine humming.  We’re just a few weeks into the FCC’s new “light touch” Net neutrality regulatory regime and yet we’re already seeing pleadings like this one.  If this foreshadows what the future holds, it’s a troubling sign of things to come.  If the agency’s new regulatory regime sticks, I think it’s safe to say that such requests for market meddling will only increase as time goes on and the Internet will quickly be wrapped in innovation-stifling red tape.  Meanwhile, countless lawyers and lobbyists around the Beltway are licking their chops in anticipation of the lobbying and litigation bonanza that awaits.

(2) Choice is largely irrelevant to the pro-regulation Net neutrality crowd.  It seemingly doesn’t matter to these regulatory advocates that they and other consumers are free to shop around for alternative mobile plans.  In the field of competition policy, the ability to exercise such choice is typically the end of the story and no further discussion / intervention is considered warranted. These advocates, however, seemingly want control over all terms of service for all market competitors, even for the distant #5 players in the field.  I mean, for God’s sake, we are talking about MetroPCS here!  Does anyone seriously believe that there’s just no escaping their evil clutches?

And apparently we can look forward to more of this sort of across-the-board, damn-the-consequences market meddling thanks to what Randy May of the Free State Foundation refers to as “Infamous No. 78” of the FCC’s Net neutrality order. That provision of the order essentially says that the FCC can dispense with the notion that a showing of actual monopoly power and actual consumer harm should be the litmus tests for regulatory intervention. Instead, May notes:

by disclaiming reliance only on anticompetitive injury and consumer harm (generally present only when an Internet provider possesses market power), the Commission leaves itself largely at sea in enforcing its rules. By “at sea,” I mean, of course, that the Commission, as it acknowledges, is leaving itself with nearly unbridled discretion in deciding which Internet provider practices will be permitted and which will not.

Welcome to our brave new world of ‘anything goes’ Internet regulation.

(3) For Net neutrality proponents, “fairness” always trumps competition / innovation, regardless of the costs.  The people who work at these organizations are, no doubt, well-meaning in their pleadings for regulation. They really think they can make communications and broadband market outcomes more “fair” through the application of Net neutrality regulations and other rules.

But regulation is not costless.  Micromanaging markets can lead to less innovation, less investment, and less consumer choice. It can also dampen price competition. After all, while the regulatory advocates want us to get hot and bothered about the terms of service in this particular case, we should not forget the fact that, with this latest move, MetroPCS is attempting to inject more competition, new innovation, and lower prices into the mobile marketplace.  To reiterate, the company is offering a $40 per month entry level price plan for a new 4G LTE service bundle.  Most people would call this innovation. But Free Press, Media Access Project and New America Foundation want us to believe it is a massive anti-consumer scandal. What an astonishing bit of hubris.

Moreover, let’s imagine that these regulatory advocates get their way and the FCC preemptively denies this innovative move, or that the agency micro-manages the terms of the offering. Those regulatory groups would like us to believe that MetroPCS can absorb the cost of such meddling and that everything will be just fine and dandy.  Back in the real world, however, if you ask just about any serious investment analyst or market expert who monitors mobile markets what they think, most of them would first convey their shock that MetroPCS has even been able to last as long as they have given the cut-throat competition in this arena. Then they’ll tell you that the sort of price and service competition that MetroPCS is pursuing here could kill them. Finally they’d tell you that an increased regulatory burden on the company at this time is could very well result in one less competitor in the long run.

So, while the regulatory advocates will shower us with talk of how they are looking out for our best interests to ensure carriers play “fair,” from a consumer perspective, an additional competitor and more price competition is likely of more importance than a perfectly “neutral” mobile service offering.

(4) Net neutrality regulatory proponents seemingly have very little faith in “openness” prospering organically, even though it has. As I’ve noted before, no one disagrees that the Internet’s openness is what made it great, or that consumers benefit from the free flow of traffic and applications over broadband networks.  But the regulatory advocates assume that only sweeping controls on broadband networks will make that a reality. The fact is, the Internet has never been more “open” than it is today. There’s a simple reason for that: It’s what most people demand. It’s also smart business.  No company ever got rich in this space by blocking traffic.

Having said all that, it may be the case that not everyone cares as much about perfect openness as others do. [See my essay from last year on the many flavors of “openness” and how defining the term is challenging.] As noted above, many consumers would be happier with cheaper price plans and more varied service options. (I bet that is particularly true of many MetroPCS customers since the company seems to target that market niche).  And guess what technophiles… not everyone out there is dying to have Skype or Pandora at their fingertips.  Personally, I couldn’t live with out either of those services and would never own a smartphone or calling plan that disallowed them for any reason.  But I am not so arrogant as to assume that everyone else has the same values as me or that I should make this trade-off for the rest of the world.  If some consumers want to trade functionality off against an affordable entry-level 4G plan, who is to say they should not have that option?  Apparently Free Press, Media Access Project and New America Foundation, that’s who.

Pundits are foaming at the mouth about AT&T’s just-announced end to unlimited data packages for smartphones. Here is Jeff Jarvis calling the move “cynical,” “retrograde,” and “evil.” However, he provides no evidence that this is anything but AT&T facing economic reality. The iPhone was a revolution, and how much data people consume given an awesome device turned out to be much more than AT&T was ready for. Now they’re asking their customers who use the most data to pay more, and this is evil?

Not only is it not evil, it’s incredibly fair. Most people will probably pay less for service. The cheapest of AT&T’s new plans is $15 for 200 MB of data. That’s $15 cheaper than their current $30 for unlimited iPhone use. According to AT&T, 65 percent of their customers use less than 200 MB of data a month. I consider myself a heavy iPhone user, and I just came back from a trip to NYC on which my iPhone was the only device I took with me, and yet with 2 days left in my billing cycle, I’ve used 154 MB of data. So, AT&T’s change will actually be a price-cut for me and the majority of AT&T customers.

Yup, real evil.

The Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee is hosting their second annual State of the Mobile Net conference this Wednesday, April 21 at the DC Hyatt Regency (400 New Jersey Ave NW). The conference runs 12-5 pm followed by a cocktail reception. This conference and the larger State of the Net conference are probably the two best annual Internet policy events in DC, so I hope you’ll attend! This year’s SOMN includes a bonus: a “Growing Up with the Mobile Net” seminar coordinated by Common Sense Media, 9-11:45 am. I’ll be on the first panel of the morning on Kids’ Privacy on the Mobile Net: Is it PII or TMI? with:

• Amanda Lenhart of the Pew Internet & American Life Project, veritable goddess of cyber-sociological data (check out her terrific Social Media & Young Adults report);
• Phyllis Marcus, who handles childrens’ privacy and COPPA issues at the FTC (and is one of my favorite people there); and
• Alan Simpson, Common Sense Media, a tireless advocate for educating children & parents.

I can only assume Alan asked me to be on this distinguished panel panel to represent kids directly on account of my baby-faced-ness! Jerry Rubin famously said, “Don’t trust anyone over thirty”—so I’ve still got 3.5 months of trustworthiness to go! (Or perhaps he actually read the huge PFF paper Adam Thierer and I did last summer about COPPA and my recent post on the FTC’s recently announced COPPA implementation review or my testimony on Maine’s COPPA 2.0 law.) Anyway, the rest of the day looks great (so register here), including these sessions:

• 10:30-11:45 am Will Mobile Technology Transform Learning, or Destroy It?
• 12:50-1:50 pm Keynotes and Q&A: The Disruptive Pace of Mobile Net Evolution with Anna Gomez, Deputy Assistant Secretary, NTIA & Blair Levin, Director, Broadband Task Force, FCC
• 2-3 pm Creating a Ubiquitous Mobile Net: At What Cost? or  Navigating the Apps Marketplaces
• 3:30-4:30 pm Locating Your Privacy or Spectrum: The Oxygen of the Mobile Net
• 4:30-5:30 pm Consumer Protection In The Mobile Marketplace: Who’s Job Is It?

By Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka

As we mentioned yesterday, in a new series of essays, we will be examining proposals being put forward today that would have the government play a greater role in sustaining struggling media enterprises, “saving journalism,” or promoting more “public interest” content. With many traditional media operators struggling, and questions being raised about how journalism in particular will be supported in the future, Washington policymakers are currently considering what role government can and should play in helping media providers reinvent themselves in the face of tumultuous technological change wrought by the Digital Revolution. We will be releasing 6 or 7 essays on this topic leading up to our big filing in the FCC’s “Future of Media” proceeding (deadline is May 7^th).

In the first installment of our series, we will critique an old idea that’s suddenly gained new currency: taxing media devices or distribution systems to fund media content. We argue that such media income redistribution is fundamentally inconsistent with American press traditions, highly problematic under the First Amendment, difficult to implement in a world of media abundance and platform convergence, and likely to cause serious negative side effects.  Bottom line: Don’t tax our iPhones or broadband to subsidize media!

We’ve attached the entire text of the piece below. (Installment #2, on broadcast spectrum taxes to subsidize public media, will be released next week.)

The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part I: Taxes on Consumer Electronics, Mobile Phones & Broadband

by Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka*

PFF Progress on Point 17.1 [PDF]

With many traditional media operators struggling, and questions being raised about how journalism in particular will be supported in the future,[1] Washington policymakers are currently considering what role government can and should play in helping media providers reinvent themselves in the face of tumultuous technological change wrought by the Digital Revolution. For example, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently kicked off a new “Future of Media” effort with a workshop on “Serving the Public Interest in the Digital Era.” Likewise, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has hosted two workshops asking “How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?”  Meanwhile, the Senate has already held hearings about “the future of journalism,” and Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) recently introduced the “Newspaper Revitalization Act,” which would allow newspapers to become tax-exempt non-profits in an effort to help them stay afloat.

In a series of forthcoming essays leading up to the May 7 filing deadline for the FCC’s “Future of Media” proceeding, we will discuss and critique some of the leading proposals being put forward that would have the government play a greater role in sustaining struggling media enterprises, “saving journalism,” or promoting more “public interest” content.

In this essay, we discuss an old idea that‘s gained new currency: taxing media  devices or distribution systems to fund media content. We argue that such media income redistribution is fundamentally inconsistent with American press traditions, highly problematic under the First Amendment, difficult to implement in a world of media abundance and platform convergence, and likely to cause serious negative side effects.

The BBC Model: Taxing Devices

Taxing devices to subsidize media content has never gained much traction here in the U.S., but it’s been used by some foreign governments for many decades.  Most famously, taxes on radios, eventually replaced by taxes on televisions, have sustained the BBC in the U.K. since its inception as the world’s first national broadcasting system in 1922. According to the most recent BBC annual report, the annual “fee” was raised to £142.50/year (currently $213.43) as of April 2009.  Failure to pay the fee is, of course, a crime and punished with stiff fines up to £1000 ($1497.75)—and radio emissions from unlicensed televisions can be detected by government vans that rove Britain’s streets looking for violators.  The revenue generated by the tax is then allocated among various BBC media products, with most of it going to the BBC 1 and BBC 2 television channels.

The U.S. has taken a different approach.  We’ve not embedded a tax in the cost of new media devices to pay for the content delivered over those devices.  (Of course, that’s at least partially because we’ve had a strong tradition of free markets in media ever since we revolted against the Brits and mercantilism, their system of state-directed economic planning!)  Generally speaking, private media operators have been expected to pay their own way in this country and not look to government for direct support.

America has had some indirect subsidies in the form of reduced postal rates for print media, as well as tax treatment for advertising.  And taxpayer dollars have been channeled to the CPB/PBS/NPR regime, of course.  But such public subsidy is small potatoes when compared to private media in the U.S.  For example, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s 2010 budget is just $400 million.[2] While many look to CPB to fund children’s programming (among its many other activities), its entire budget is no more than a quarter of the total amount of U.S. advertising revenue produced by children’s programming from food and beverages products alone: $1.6 billion in 2006 by the FTC’s most conservative estimates.[3] That comparison illustrates the vital importance of advertising to media,[4] but subscriptions, direct sales, and private patronage have also been major economic engines of media in United States.

But the idea of more direct government support for media (and journalism, in particular) has always been lurking out there.  There’s long been a small but vociferous crowd of academics and policymakers advocating huge increases in government spending on non-commercial or public media.  And some of them have even toyed with a tax on technology to cross-subsidize the media content that flows over those devices or networks.  Most recently, Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols, authors of the new book The Death and Life of American Journalism, have proposed a 4-part tax plan to raise money ($18-21 billion) for a massive $35 billion/year “public works” program for the press (with the remainder coming from other sources):[5]

• a 5% tax on consumer electronics (they estimate it would bring in $4 billion/year)
• a 3% tax on monthly ISP & cell phone bills (estimated $6 billion/year)
• a 2% sales tax on advertising (estimated $5 to $6 billion/year)
• a 7% tax on broadcasters (estimated $3-6 billion/year)

Similarly, Leonard Downie, Jr., Vice President at Large of The Washington Post, and Michael Schudson, a Professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, have advocated the creation of a “Fund for Local News” that “would make grants for advances in local news reporting and innovative ways to support it.”[6] The Fund would make grants to news organizations through “Local News Fund Councils” and would be financed by “fees paid by radio and television licensees, or proceeds from auctions of telecommunications spectrum, or new fees imposed on Internet service providers.”[7] (Note: Proposals to impose fees on radio and television licensees will be discussed in a subsequent installment of this PFF series.  But for purposes of this installment, we reference the Downie & Schudson plan because of its call for fees on ISPs as one method of financing media going forward.)

More Platforms, More Taxes

McChesney and Nichols don’t go into a lot of detail about their tax proposals, but the consumer electronics tax they favor appears to be based on the 1967 Carnegie Commission Report, which called for a 5% tax on all new television purchases—a variant on Britain’s annual licensing fee.  But instead of just taxing “televisions”—which would be very difficult in a world of technological convergence where consumers can “watch television” on any number of devices (PCs, mobile phones, portable gaming devices, portable media players, etc.)—they apparently want to tax all consumer electronic devices.  Thus, they seem to recognize the reality of convergence but their answer is to just tax everything!

The British themselves have struggled with technological change: In 1971, the radio fee first introduced in 1922 was abolished, and in 1972, so was the BBC’s radio monopoly, with commercial radio stations being allowed to compete with BBC Radio for the first time.  One might argue that abolishing the radio tax and relying on a single tax (on televisions) to fund the BBC’s television programming (67% of BBC spending) as well as BBC radio (17%) was simply more efficient—since most consumers had a television as well as a radio.  Indeed, actually implementing any media device tax in the U.S. could prove very difficult, since countering evasion would require imposing sales taxes on online retailers ranging from Amazon.com to TigerDirect.com to countless small operators who sell TVs, DVD players, cell phones, and a wide variety of other gadgets.  So much for the Internet sales tax moratorium!

But the evasion problem is a real one. The BBC estimates an 8.7% evasion rate, and it’s not clear how much more (or less) of a problem evasion might be when the tax is imposed at the point of sale (as McChesney and Nichols propose) rather than every year (as in Britain).  But clearly, the problem can’t be solved simply by trying to tax all consumer electronics:  The higher the tax rate, the more likely a black market will develop for discounted devices—with all the problems that generally come with black markets, such as funding organized crime. Whenever someone proposes a single-digit tax rate for anything, it’s worth remembering that the federal income tax started out at 1-7% back in 1913—and, well, we all know how that turned out!  (Top rates rose to 67-73% during World War I, fell again to the mid-20s under Coolidge, then jumped again to 63% by 1933 and didn’t fall below 50% till 1986!)  Maybe McChesney and Nichols realize how ugly black markets would get if tax rates on devices rise in the future—and perhaps that’s why they’re trying to spread the pain around by taxing broadband and wireless service, advertising and broadcasting, too.  But, as discussed next, that’s another problem with the plan.

Taxation’s Negative Disincentives

Taxes distort markets and human behavior.  Long ago, Chief Justice John Marshall taught us that “the power to tax is the power to destroy.”  As the late Clarence B. Carson noted in an article of the same name:

Any level of taxation will make some undertakings unprofitable or submarginal. In practice, any increase in taxes will drive some people out of business, prevent them from going into business, or make it difficult or impossible for them to sustain themselves by whatever they are doing.[8]

This helps us understand why raising taxes on mobile phones and broadband bills would be particularly foolish way of supporting media:  it will distort beneficial behavior by both providers and consumers of communications conduit.

The FCC just recently reported that cost is a major factor for many households who decide not to buy broadband service (even though it’s available).  Why, after the FCC spent 13 months producing a 376-page, Congressionally mandated National Broadband Report on ways to increase the utilization and affordability of broadband, would we want to do anything to boost broadband bills, even in the name of “saving journalism”?  Increased taxes on broadband bills might discourage some broadband providers from rolling out innovative new services as rapidly as planned.  And once the new service tax is passed along to consumers—as all business taxes inevitably are—they might be less likely to adopt broadband, or might even cancel existing service.  How would that benefit media and journalism?

The same goes for mobile phones. CTIA—The Wireless Association estimates that wireless users already pay an average 15% tax (local state and federal) on their cell phone bills.  Moreover, if there is one thing we can count on, it’s that taxes inevitably rise once they get on the books, whatever the intention of their initial architects.  That‘s especially true when the tax creates a new class of subsidy recipients who have a vested interest in keeping the scheme alive and growing. Thus, what starts out as 3-5% tax on phones, broadband, and consumer electronics, will likely grow to be much higher over time.  Pretty soon the FCC will look like the massively inefficient Department of Agriculture, doling out subsides to everybody and his brother who qualifies for media industry corporate welfare.

How Will the Government Spend Your Money?

But the more interesting question about such a media tax may be on the  payout side of the scheme.  Herein lies a fundamental difference between the BBC model and what McChesney and Nichols are proposing: The BBC fees have always been used to fund BBC content only, not for all media.  True, the BBC once held monopolies in radio and television, but those monopolies died long ago, and when they did, the British did not share fee revenue with the BBC’s competitors.  Instead, commercial radio and television in the UK have had to rely on subscription and advertising revenues, just as in the US.  Thus, the British model does not answer a profoundly difficult question: Even if we assume government could create a reasonably effective media tax collection regime, who would qualify for a cut of the money?

In an age of user-generated content and a wide variety of hybrid media products, it would seem that defining eligibility criteria for the subsidy might be significantly more challenging than it was in the past. Would blogs qualify?  What about live reporting via Twitter or photo-journalism via Flickr?  Who gets to decide what qualifies as news worth subsidizing, as opposed to mere opinions or aggregation?  Similarly, the “Fund for Local News” and “Local News Fund Councils” favored by Downie and Schudson would be doubly problematic.  They propose that, “The criteria for grants should be journalistic quality, local relevance, innovation in news reporting, and the capacity of the news organization, small or big, to carry out the reporting.”[9] But, again, who determines “journalistic quality” and “the capacity… to carry out the reporting” or even what constitutes “local” news?

Beyond such practical problems, determining eligibility raises profound First Amendment questions because, as the Supreme Court has held, “in the realm of private speech or expression, government regulation may not favor one speaker over another.”[10] The Court has also held that “Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system.”[11] Thus, the government may not pick preferred classes of speakers for subsidies, just as it may not single out disfavored classes for penalties.  For example, a state university may not selectively deny funding to a gay and lesbian students association, because, as the Eighth Circuit has held:

a public body that chooses to fund speech or expression must do so even-handedly, without discriminating among recipients on the basis of their ideology.  The University need not supply funds to student organizations; but once having decided to do so, it is bound by the First Amendment to act without regard to the content of the ideas being expressed.  This will mean, to use Holmes’s phrase, that the taxpayers will occasionally be obligated to support not only the thought of which they approve, but also the thought that they hate. That is one of the fundamental premises of American law.[12]

And there’s also a First Amendment-related concern here associated with the potentially—if subtly—coercive effects of subsidies on the independent editorial discretion of news-gatherers.  Downie and Schudson insist they “understand the complexity of establishing a workable grant selection system and the need for strict safeguards to shield news organizations from pressure or coercion from state councils or anyone in government.”^[13] Yet they hope political pressure can, somehow, be kept to a minimum.  Likewise, McChesney and Nichols largely dismiss such concerns about undue political influence on subsidized entities—even though they cite several examples of politicians attempting to use the purse strings to influence PBS and NPR funding over the past four decades![14]

Regardless, these scholars fail to account for the fact that, going forward, political pressure would likely grow in proportion to dependence of media entities upon such public subsidy and the overall amount of those subsidies.  After all, we’re talking about taxpayer funding for the press on an unprecedented scale here.  Moreover, the more visible these subsidies become—especially then the funding goes to highly controversial media content or outlets ( e.g., involving pornography, vulgarity, politics, religion, abortion, homosexuality)—the more likely the public and politicians are to clamor for rules on who gets what.  We’ve already seen a microcosm of that concern with National Endowment for the Arts funding for controversial art and culture in the past.  Now imagine media subsidies on the scale that McChesney and Nichols envision coupled with Downie and Schudson’s “Local News Fund Councils” sorting out competing claims and concerns.  Media funding will quickly become a political circus—and another front in the ongoing Culture Wars.

Here’s another concern: Will this scheme lead to more or less media competition?  It would be misguided to argue that such a tax system couldn’t fund some quality journalism and even entertainment.  After all, there’s some wonderful stuff on the BBC.  But without having run the numbers for all countries, there seems to be a correlation between the level of government investment in media and the overall number of media outlets at the public’s disposal.  When visiting Europe, one is struck by how even the largest European countries have so few choices compared to what we have here in the States, and that’s true across media (video, audio, print, online).  Could that be because government spending / investment in media has had a crowding-out effect on private media?  That possibility is at least worth considering as some look to broaden public support for media here in the U.S. Government simply doesn’t have a very good track record of creating innovative, competitive businesses and markets.

How the Death of Private, For-Profit Media Becomes a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Which leads to a final concern: There’s just a gut-level discomfort many of us would have with the idea of government imposing even more taxes on us to support industries or interests we might find distasteful or not deserving of corporate welfare.  It’s one thing to say that the government should play a role at the margin funneling some money into public broadcasting efforts via the CPB for limited purposes, but it’s quite another to suggest that this should be the new model upon which all media should rest.  That’s essentially what McChesney and Nichols propose in their book, on the grounds that “the old order is collapsing” and private media is dead.

Of course, it’s virtually a self-fulfilling prophecy that private media operators will fail if you impose a smorgasbord of new tax burdens on them and related devices and distribution channels—and then channel the money to “public media” competitors!  As will be discussed in a future installment in this series of essays, taxing advertising is particularly harmful because those taxes come straight out of the advertising revenues upon which most publishers depend for their lifeblood.

But raising prices of innovative consumer electronics like readers ( e.g., Amazon’s Kindle, Barnes & Noble’s Nook, Sony’s Reader or Apple’s iPad) and the wireless broadband services that connect them isn’t such a bright idea either at a time when traditional publishers are hoping that new media distribution and consumption technologies will also allow them to experiment with new business models (like selling subscriptions for magazines or newspapers tailored for these devices).  Unlike the British annual license fee, a tax imposed at the point of purchase would discourage users from buying new devices.  This, in turn would slow adoption of new technologies and retard innovation in a market that has seen consumers move increasingly towards replacing their old devices every few years, due to the constant increased in processing power and functionality made possible by Moore’s Law.

Taken together, these tax proposals are a sure-fire way to achieve McChesney’s true radical end: the destruction of private, commercial media and journalism.  Let’s not forget, after all, that McChesney has argued (during this interview with the Canadian-based “Socialist Project”) that “the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists,” and that, “unless you make significant changes in the media, it will be vastly more difficult to have a revolution.”[15] And in his book with Nichols, he concludes by noting that “We have responded in a time of crisis not with tinkering reforms but with revolution.”[16]

Indeed they have!  But such radicalism must be rejected if we hope to sustain a truly free press and uphold America’s proud tradition of keeping a high and tight wall of separation between Press and State.  Americans would do well remember to remember the (other) Golden Rule: “Whoever Has the Gold, Makes the Rules!”[17] The more control politicians have over funding media, the more control they will inevitably have over media itself.

Related PFF Publications

• Testimony at FCC’s Hearing on “Serving the Public Interest in the Digital Era ,” Adam Thierer, March 2010.
• Public Option for Press Should Get the Red Pen, Adam Thierer, The Daily Caller, Jan. 2010.
• Chairman Leibowitz’s Disconnect on Privacy Regulation & the Future of News, Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, Progress Snapshot 6.1, Jan. 13, 2010.
• Socializing Media in Order to Save It, Adam Thierer, City Journal, March 2009.
• A Manifesto for Media Freedom , Adam Thierer & Brian Anderson, 2008.
• Media Ownership Proceedings, W. Kenneth Ferree, Testimony before the Federal Communications Commission, Nov. 3, 2009.
• Media Myths: Making Sense of the Debate over Media Ownership, Adam Thierer, June 2005.

[1] The Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism reports that: “The numbers for 2009 reveal just how urgent these questions are becoming. Newspapers, including online, saw ad revenue fall 26% during the year, which brings the total loss over the last three years to 43%. Local television ad revenue fell 22% in 2009, triple the decline the year before. Radio also was off 22%. Magazine ad revenue dropped 17%, network TV 8% (and news alone probably more). Online ad revenue over all fell about 5%, and revenue to news sites most likely also fared much worse. Only cable news among the commercial news sectors did not suffer declining revenue last year.” Pew Project For Excellence in Journalism, Introduction, The State of the News Media 2010, March 2010, www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/overview_intro.php.

[2] Corporation for Public Broadcasting, FY 2010 Operating Budget, www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/leadership/board/resolutions/090915_fy10OperatingBudget.pdf.

[3] See FTC’s 2008 report, Marketing Food to Children and Adolescents: A Review of Industry Expenditures, Activities, and Self-Regulation, at ES-1-2, www.ftc.gov/os/2008/07/P064504foodmktingreport.pdf.

[4] Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, The Hidden Benefactor: How Advertising Informs, Educates & Benefits Consumers, PFF Progress Snapshot 6.5, Feb. 2010, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/ps/2010/ps6.5-the-hidden-benefactor.html.

[5] Robert W. McChesney & John Nichols, The Death and Life of American Journalism (2010) at 210-11.

[6] Leonard Downie, Jr. & Michael Schudson, The Reconstruction of American Journalism, Columbia Journalism Review, Oct. 20, 2009, at 92, available at www.scribd.com/doc/21268382/Reconstruction-of-Journalism.

[7] Id.

[8] Clarence B. Carson, The Power to Tax is the Power to Destroy, The Freeman, Vol. 26, No. 10, Oct. 1976, www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-power-to-tax-is-the-power-to-destroy.

[9] Downie & Schudson, supra note 6 at. 93.

[10] Rosenberger, 515 U.S. 819, 828 (1995).

[11] Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, 461 U.S. 540, 544 (1983).

[12] Gay & Lesbian Students Assoc, 850 F.2d 361, 362 (8th Cir. 1988).

[13] Id.

[14] McChesney & Nichols, supra note 5 at 193-99.

[15] Socialist Project, Media Capitalism, the State and 21st Century Media Democracy Struggles: An Interview with Robert McChesney, The Bullet, Socialist Project, E-Bulletin No. 246, Aug. 9, 2009, www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/246.php.

[16] Id.

[17] The Big Apple, Golden Rule (“He Who Has the Gold Makes the Rules”), June 13, 2009,  www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/golden_rule_he_who_has_the_gold_makes_the_rules.

Wrong Way to Reinvent Media Part 1 – Media Taxes [Thierer & Szoka – PFF] http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf

By Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka

In a series of upcoming essays, we will be examining proposals being put forward today that would have the government play a greater role in sustaining struggling media enterprises, “saving journalism,” or promoting more “public interest” content. The reason we’re working up this multi-part series is because, with many traditional media operators struggling, and questions being raised about how journalism in particular will be supported in the future, Washington policymakers are currently considering what role government can and should play in helping media providers reinvent themselves in the face of tumultuous technological change wrought by the Digital Revolution.

For example, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently kicked off a new “Future of Media” effort with a workshop on “Serving the Public Interest in the Digital Era.” (The  filing deadline for the FCC’s “Future of Media” proceeding is May 7^th).  Likewise, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has hosted two workshops asking “How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?”  Meanwhile, the Senate has already held hearings about “the future of journalism,” and Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) recently introduced the “Newspaper Revitalization Act,” which would allow newspapers to become tax-exempt non-profits in an effort to help them stay afloat.

Thus, in light of Washington’s sudden interest in the future of media and journalism, we will be taking a hard look at several issues and proposals that are being floated today, including:

• Taxes on media devices, mobile phones, or broadband bills to channel money to media enterprises / content;
• Taxes / fees on broadcasters to funnel support to their public sector competitors or to public interest programs;
• “News vouchers” or “public interest vouchers” that would encourage citizens to channel support to media providers;
• Taxes on private advertising to subsidize non-commercial / public media content;
• Expanded postal subsidies for media mail; and
• Targeted welfare programs for out-of-work journalists or corporate welfare in the form of bailouts for failing media enterprises.

You won’t be surprised to hear that we are generally quite skeptical of most of these ideas, but we promise to give each one serious consideration.  We’ll kick things off tomorrow with our essay on why taxing media devices or distribution systems to fund media content is not a particularly good idea.

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!

Worth It?

OK, time for a quick rant. What is all this confusion and consternation over early termination fees (ETFs) for high-end smartphones?  I mean, seriously, how hard is this process to understand?  The FCC has worked itself into a lather over this and is bombarding wireless operators and Google with hate mail letters of inquiry harassing asking them about their ETF policies.  I just don’t get it.  Let’s review some simple realities:

• Smartphones — especially high-end devices like the iPhone, the Droid, and the Nexus One — are basically mobile mini computers.
• Mini mobile computers do not grow on trees; someone has to make them and sell them at a profit or else no one would offer them to begin with.
• But the people who make and sell these devices (and wireless service for these devices) want to ensure rapid, widespread distribution to win over customers and recoup their costs.
• So, they offer a classic business inducement — an upfront subsidy for the product in exchange for monthly payments to amortize the upfront “loan” they have given the customer;
• AND THEN THEY FORM A CONTRACT WITH THE BUYER TO MAKE THE DEAL WORK. And that contract obligates both sides to live up to their end of the deal.
• Hey… did I mention they need to form a contract to make the deal worth it? OK, good, wanted to make sure I got that point across.
• Then they give you a nice shiny new mobile mini-computer that for some reason we Americans still insist on calling a cell phone.
• Then you start paying off the “loan” they’ve given you for that device over the span of the service contract. This is called “prorating.”
• But, if you default on that loan by breaking your contract, you’ll be hit with a penalty — an early termination fee — since it would leave the carrier without a way to recoup the cost of that shiny new mobile mini-computer that they handed you on the cheap when you just absolutely had to have the hot new toy in town.

Is this process really all that complicated? And why is it so controversial? It certainly shouldn’t be. Prorating happens every day in countless ways in a capitalist economy.  And yet in the apparent techno-entitlement society we live in these days, some people seem to think there’s something scandalous about this process when it happens with our beloved mobile devices.  In reality, the smartphone subsidy and prorated contract system is really one of the great pro-consumer accomplishments of our time. With various inducements and buyer loyalty credits, I recently got my Motorola Droid from Verizon for just $99 bucks. Like the iPhone and Google’s new Nexus One, the Droid is worth over $500 bucks, and yet millions of Americans have been able to obtain these spectacular devices because of this system of upfront subsidies and prorating. And it’s not like Lucifer is present at the signing of the contract asking for a blood offering or your first born as part of the exchange. Nobody forces you to buy a $500 phone!

Moreover, if you really want, there are plenty of “unlocked” mobile devices you can pay full freight for and then take to any carrier you want to get service. Needless to say, not a lot of people bother. I think that tells us something. And, again, who can really blame consumers… just look at the prices of these unsubsidized phones! $574.99 for the Droid, $649.99 for the Nexus One, and $909.99 for the Sony Ericsson Xperia!  You could buy a used car for that kind of money.

Look, I can appreciate arguments about “better transparency” in this process to make sure consumers know what they are getting into, but you don’t need a PhD in economics to understand that you’ll have to make some payments over the long haul to pay off what you got up front on the cheap. My guess is that most people who buy an expensive smartphone have likely also has had a car or home loan at some point in their lives–or any loan for that matter.  The principle in all cases is the same: There is no free lunch.

I’ve always generally agreed with the conventional wisdom about micropayments as a method of funding online content or services: Namely, they won’t work.  Clay Shirky, Tim Lee, and many others have made the case that micropayments face numerous obstacles to widespread adoption.  The primary issue seems to be the “mental transaction cost” problem: People don’t want to be diverted–even for just a few seconds–from what they are doing to pay a fee, no matter how small.  [That is why advertising continues to be the primary monetization engine of the Internet and digital services.]

That being said, I keep finding examples of how micropayments do work in some contexts and it has kept me wondering if there’s still a chance for micropayments to work in other contexts (like funding media content).  For example, I mentioned here before how shocked I was when I went back and looked at my eBay transactions for the past couple of years and realized how many “small-dollar” purchases I had made via PayPal (mostly dumb stickers and other little trinkets). And the micropayment model also seems to be doing reasonably well in the online music world. In January 2009, Apple reported that the iTunes Music Store had sold over 6 billion tracks.

And then there are mobile application stores.  Just recently I picked up a Droid and I’ve been taking advantage of the rapidly growing Android marketplace, which recently hit the 20,000 apps mark. Like Apple’s 100,000-strong App Store, there’s a nice mix of paid and free apps, and even though I’m downloading mostly freebies, I’ve started buying more paid apps. Many of them are “upsells” from free apps I downloaded. In most cases, they are just 99 cents. A few examples of paid apps I’ve downloaded or considered buying: Stocks Pro, Mortgage Calc Pro, Currency Guide, Photo Vault, Weather Bug Elite, and Find My Phone. And there are all sorts of games, clocks, calendars, ringtones, heath apps, sports stuff, utilities, and more that are 99 cents or $1.99.  Some are more expensive, of course.

I don’t have any idea how big this marketplace is in the aggregate, but according to AndroLib, “fully 62.2% of the apps available are completely free, compared to just 37.8% that are paid apps. That’s in stark contrast to the [Apple] App Store, which now has over 100,000 individual apps, of which (by some recent counts) a hefty 77% are paid applications — although only 30% of total App Store downloads are for paid apps.” That suggests that micropayments are doing quite well in mobile marketplaces. And this Wall Street Journal piece I was reading just yesterday, “Mobile-Payment Services Grow,” suggests there are lots of innovative things are happening in this space right now.

Of course, this gets into the semantic issue of, “what is a micropayment”? Does 99 cents qualify? I don’t know. I’ve never found any widely accepted definition of the term. Moreover, even if it’s true that a lot of people are buying “small-dollar” apps in mobile marketplaces, that doesn’t mean micropayments can fund all media going forward. It’s unlikely, for example, that we can fund quality journalism one micropayment at a time. People are just not going to pay a quarter (or even a penny) every time they want to read an article.  They might, however, be willing to pay a small monthly or annual access fee for some sites or services.  But with the exception of The Wall Street Journal and a handful of other media services, that model just doesn’t seem to have legs right now. [Although take a look at Dale Jefferson’s amazing newspapers app in the Android marketplace. Very cool. Perhaps media providers will learn from aggregation efforts like that and find a way to charge a small fee for access. But at less that one British pound — the cost of Jefferson’s app — I can’t imagine that funding a lot of content. They’ll need plenty of ads and other revenue streams to make up for what they are losing.]

Anyway, I’m not saying I have any answers here, just that my mind is still open regarding the possibility of micropayments as a method of funding online services and content. It may end up being easier for the former rather than the latter, however.

PFF has just released the transcript of an excellent panel discussion I moderated last week entitled, “Let’s Make a Deal: Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband, and a Market in Spectrum.”  As I’ve mentioned here before, one of the hottest issues in DC right now is the question of broadcast TV spectrum reallocation.  Blair Levin, who serves as the Executive Director of the Omnibus Broadband Initiative at the Federal Communications Commission, recently raised the possibility of reallocating a portion of broadcast television spectrum for alternative purposes, namely, mobile broadband. Such a “cash-for-spectrum” swap would give mobile broadband providers to spectrum they need to roll out next generation wireless broadband networks while making sure broadcaster receive compensation for any spectrum they hand over.  The FCC just recently released a public notice on “Data Sought on Users of Spectrum,” (NBP Public Notice # 26) that looks into the matter. “This inquiry,” the agency says,” takes into account the value that the United States puts on free, over-the-air television, while also exploring market-based mechanisms for television broadcasters to contribute to the broadband effort any spectrum in excess of that which they need to meet their public interest obligations and remain financially viable.” Meanwhile, the House Energy and Commerce Communications Subcommittee is set to hold a hearing on the issue next Tuesday.

PFF’s panel discussion on this issue featured an all-star cast of characters, including opening remarks by Blair Levin, and a terrific discussion ensued. [You can hear the full audio from the event here.]  Down below I have highlighted some of the major points each speaker made during the discussion and also embedded the complete transcript in a Scribd reader.  Also, just a reminder that my PFF colleague Barbara Esbin and I authored a short paper on this issue recently: “An Offer They Can’t Refuse: Spectrum Reallocation That Can Benefit Consumers, Broadcasters & the Mobile Broadband Sector.”

• Blair Levin, Executive Director of the FCC’s Omnibus Broadband Initiative, began the discussion by describing how additional spectrum will be needed to expand wireless broadband and why spectrum currently held by broadcasters would be a good option.  In addition to identifying spectrum that has the technical qualities to support broadband, he explained, “You also would look at things like where there’s an economic gap between the current use and potential wireless use.  You would want to look at bands where maybe there are regulations which constrain the market mechanism.  You also might want to look at bands where you can have a meaningful reallocation of spectrum while, nonetheless, preserving current uses.”
• Coleman Bazelon, Principal at The Brattle Group, presented findings from his recent paper on the value of spectrum currently held by broadcasters if it was reallocated to commercial mobile or wireless broadband uses. “This analysis shows that there are significant gains from reallocating the broadcast band, and I think the takeaway should be that there are significant gains, not that its $42 billion or $51 billion, but that its tens and tens of billions of dollars,” Bazelon stated.
• David Donovan, President of the Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc., questioned the estimates of the additional value of broadcast spectrum that could be gained if it was auctioned for other uses.  “If you are valuing over the air television broadcasting and its importance to the American public, using a snapshot based on an auction valuation at a particular point in time is really highly inappropriate,” he stated. “The business model of broadcasting is heavily regulated. … and that defines, of course, the value, just like heavy zoning defines the price of land.”
• Kostas Liopiros, Principal of The Sun Fire Group, discussed the technical feasibility of using various blocks of spectrum for wireless broadband use.  “Only additional spectrum can produce the required gains of capacity in the future, but if the gains capacities are oriented towards wireless broadband, for national wireless broadband capability, you need to focus on the right type of spectrum,” he explained.
• John Hane, Counsel in the Communications Practice Group of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, warned of the legal difficulties of modifying broadcast licenses.  “Extinguishing licenses requires a hearing, potentially hundreds of them, each one affecting one or more Congressional districts.”  Although the FCC is able to modify a license without the licensee’s consent, he continued, “that is a very long and complicated process with an uncertain time frame.  If there really is a spectrum crisis, the stick approach …is not going to solve it very fast.”
• Paul Gallant, Senior Vice President of Concept Capital, discussed the possible effects of Congress involvement in auction of broadcast spectrum.  If broadcasters are reluctant to modifying their business model, Gallant explained, it might be beneficial for them to have Congress involved in such a deal.  However, he warned that Congressional involvement could also result in uncertainty for the broadcasters.  “It is not clear, if Congress does pass a bill, whether broadcasters come out better or worse than they would if they had worked something out with the FCC.  The main reason is there is tremendous budget pressure in Congress today.  They are looking for new sources of revenue,” Gallant explained.
• Andrew Jay Schwartzman, President and CEO of Media Access Project, expressed that he was resistant to the idea of auctioning spectrum.  “It isn’t property,” He stated.  “They favor incumbents.  They’re rigged.  They don’t generate the revenues that OMB and Congress seem to think they will.” He also warned of the possible impact of auctions on innovation. “Auctions lock in existing technology and near-term foreseeable technology. The people who are able and willing to bid are basing it on technology that they know they can generate and that does not allow the spectrum to be used in better ways coming down the road.”

Transcript of Dec 1 PFF Event on Broadcaster TV Spectrum Reallocation [PFF – Thierer] http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=23980532&access_key=key-wdpoolnrm5gxq1xu7c6&page=1&version=1&viewMode=list

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

As I noted in a recent paper with my PFF colleague Barbara Esbin (“An Offer They Can’t Refuse: Spectrum Reallocation That Can Benefit Consumers, Broadcasters & the Mobile Broadband Sector“) an official at the Federal Communications Commission (Blair Levin) recently suggested that it might be possible to craft a grand bargain whereby television broadcasters get cash for some (or all) of their current spectrum if they return it to the FCC for reallocation and auction.  Such a deal could, eventually, open up significant amounts of prime spectrum for next-generation mobile broadband and data services.

Is such a deal feasible and in the best interests of broadcasters?  Is the arrangement necessary to encourage growth in broadband penetration consistent with the goals of the Recovery Act?  Will Congress go along with the deal, or would it be blocked as contrary to “the public interest?” Alternatively, would lawmakers back the deal but seek a significant cut of the auction proceeds, leaving less available for broadcasters?  These and other policy issues will be discussed at “ Let’s Make a Deal:  Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband, and a Market in Spectrum,” a congressional seminar hosted by The Progress & Freedom Foundation. The event will be held Tuesday, December 1st from 9:00am to 11:00am in the Holeman Lounge, 13th Floor, at the National Press Club, 529 14th Street, NW in Washington, DC.

Panelists confirmed so far for the event include:

• Blair Levin, Executive Director, Omnibus Broadband Initiative, Federal Communications Commission
• Coleman Bazelon, Principal, The Brattle Group
• David Donovan, President, Association for Maximum Service Television
• Kostas Liopiros, Principal, The Sun Fire Group
• John K. Hane, Counsel, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
• and 1 or 2 more to come!

I will be moderating the event.  Those interested in attending can register here.  Should be a spirited debate.

Along with my colleague Barbara Esbin, the Director of PFF’s Center for Communications and Competition Policy, I have just released a new paper on discussing the possibility of reallocating a portion of broadcast television spectrum for alternative purposes, namely, mobile broadband. As I discussed here before, Blair Levin, the Executive Director of the FCC’s Omnibus Broadband Initiative, has been suggesting that it might be possible to craft a grand bargain whereby broadcasters get cash for some (or all) of their current spectrum allocations if they return spectrum to the FCC for reallocation and re-auction, likely to mobile broadband services.

In our paper, “An Offer They Can’t Refuse: Spectrum Reallocation That Can Benefit Consumers, Broadcasters & the Mobile Broadband Sector,” [PDF] Barbara and I argue that:

the benefits of such a deal could be enormous for wireless broadband providers, developers of digital technologies, and consumers.  Expanding the pool of spectrum available for next-generation wireless broadband offerings will ensure that innovative new networks, devices, and services are made available to the public on a timely basis.  Ultimately, that will mean more high-speed choices for consumers, especially those in rural areas harder to reach with high-speed wireline networks.  Finally, more generally, anything that moves us in the direction of a freer market in spectrum is a good thing. But fairness to broadcasters lies at the heart of this spectrum reallocation plan. If a deal can’t be structured that broadcasters would find acceptable, they should not be forced to come to the table. When we speak of an offer they can’t refuse, we mean one so attractive that no rational businessperson or investor would pass it up. It is essential broadcasters be willing partners in the deal, and be full participants in the process of shaping its contours.

Read the entire thing here, or below the fold as a Scribd document.

Broadcast TV Spectrum Reallocation (Thierer & Esbin – PFF) http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=22365493&access_key=key-2cs1sry5qv9xd3x6d5bv&page=1&version=1&viewMode=list

I’ve ranted on here before about technological etiquette, or that lack thereof by many people. (See my tedious screed from 3 years ago: “A Few Snooty Words about Technological Etiquette.” Man, I was really angry when I wrote that piece!)  As much as I love technology and defend its unrestricted use, I think it’s important to encourage social norms about proper technology use to make it less likely people will call government in to act as a nanny.

That’s why I found this new “Intel Holiday Mobile Etiquette” poll so intriguing. According to the poll, which was conducted by Harris Interactive and sponsored by Intel:

most online U.S. adults (80 percent) feel there are unspoken rules about mobile technology usage, and approximately 7 in 10 (69 percent) agreed that violations of these unspoken mobile etiquette guidelines, such as checking e-mails, sending text messages and making phone calls while in the company of others, are unacceptable.

Hmmm… While I’m glad that such a large majority still have a sense of propriety about such things, this sounds like a case of people saying one thing when they likely do quite another. Then again, my perspective might be biased by life in a big city where people have PDAs practically glued to their hands full-time.  I’ve even grown accustomed to people staring at their digital devices more than me during conversations and meetings.  Of course, that could just be because I am so damn boring.  [My colleague Jim Harper will, no doubt, suggest the latter.]  Regardless, I just remain shocked by how people feel they simply must take every call, answer every email, or do whatever else on their devices in the presence of crowds or others.  In my rant from 3 years ago, I offered “Two Simple Rules of Techno-Etiquette” that I will reiterate here as the first steps down the path to techno-etiquette recovery:

(1) If you absolutely MUST take that cell phone call or answer that e-mail right away, try saying this: “Excuse me, do you mind if I do this real quick?”

(2) Do not EVER, under any circumstances, answer a cell phone call while you are in a restaurant, movie theater or other public establishment where relative quiet is expected. If you have to take the call, go outside.

Seriously, would that be so hard?

Wal-Mart is often cast as a villain by some labor unions, local politicians and small retailers, but for the average consumer Wal-Mart has been a savior: A relentless price-cutting machine that instantly changes the dynamics of every market it touches. Indeed, when Wal-Mart decides to jump into a sector by offering a new good or service in its stores, something akin to “the Southwest effect” on steroids kicks in: That market segment is often transformed overnight in that the good or service Wal-Mart starts delivering is essentially instantly commoditized. For the seller of that good or service, this is both a blessing and a curse: They gain the massive market reach that goes along with being in Wal-Mart’s 8,000 retail stores. On the other hand, they instantly surrender any semblance of pricing power they once had.  And this typically also puts downward pressure on prices not just for the particular good carried in the Wal-Mart stores, but for that entire market segment more generally. [This exact scenario is currently playing out in the book marketplace as Wal-Mart has gone to war with Amazon in cost-cutting bonanza.]

The reason I bring all this up is because, as most of you probably already heard, Wal-Mart jumped into the prepaid cell phone business this week with the launch of Straight Talk:

a new solution in no-contract cellular, exclusively at more than 3,200 Walmart stores nationwide starting October 18, 2009. Straight Talk will bring to the market a new low price for no-contract wireless service with two prepaid plans now available to customers nationwide at $30 and $45 a month. Straight Talk will only be available in Walmart stores and online at www.Walmart.com and www.StraightTalk.com. The average U.S. adult spends $78 on his or her cell phone bill to receive 1000 minutes a month. By switching to the $30 Straight Talk plan, for example, the average 1,000 minutes-per-month consumer could save more than $500 per year and still be on a reliable nationwide network.

I don’t want to overplay the significance of this development, but I really do believe that Wal-Mart’s presence in this field is significant, at least for entry-level mobile phones. While it would be easy for those of us who use more advanced smartphones to shrug off the Wal-Mart announcement, it would be a mistake for reasons made clear by David Worthington over at Technologizer:

As a technophile, it’s tempting for me to point out the short comings of those devices. There are only a few stock applications available, and unlimited data on a flip phone does not translate to the same experience that I have surfing the Web on my iPhone. But that does not matter, because the people who would buy these phones wouldn’t care. … It’s.. an economical choice for families with shoestring budgets. Leading wireless companies provide family plans, but they aren’t cheap, and usually require a commitment. … A pre-paid plan doesn’t require families to purchase much more than what they want to pay for. Whether Wal-Mart becomes a viable wireless company or not is up to the market, but its track record is pretty solid. Wal-Mart rapidly became the largest grocery store in the United States after all, and it has more locations than other pre-paid wireless companies. I’m guessing it’ll do well.

You better believe it. Have you seen the stacks of prepaid calling cards that adorn the shelves in every Wal-Mart checkout line?  Do you think they just have those there for decoration?  That’s a huge business, folks. While some of us haven’t touched a prepaid calling card since our college days decades ago, millions of people buy and use such cards every day.  As Worthington notes, prepaid plans mean you don’t have to pay for more than you’ll think you need and for many folks that’s about all they want to hear.  Esoteric inside-the-Beltway debates about tethering, Net neutrality, app stores, etc., are meaningless to most people.  They just want a phone that works at the right price — namely, cheap!

Finally, this development certainly calls into question the asinine theories being bandied about in Washington these days about the mobile marketplace lacking competition and innovation, something recent studies have shown to be complete bunk.  I’m not saying that Wal-Mart’s entry into this sector is going to turn cell phones into the equivalent of the toothpick or napkin market; there will always be room for differentiated phones and plans, especially at the higher end of the market. But as the retailing giant expands its reach in this sector, it’s bound to have an impact — especially for the entry-level devices and plans that low-income consumers might want.  Somehow I doubt this will let the regulation-happy gang over at our current FCC sleep any easier at night, but it should.

The smell of high-tech regulation is increasingly in the air these days and many lawmakers and some activist groups now have the mobile marketplace in their regulatory cross-hairs. Critics make a variety of claims about the wireless market supposedly lacking competition, choice, innovation, or reasonable pricing. Consequently, they want to wrap America’s wireless sector in a sea of red tape.   Two important new studies thoroughly debunk these assertions and set the record straight regarding the state of wireless competition and innovation in the U.S. today. These reports are must-reading for Washington policymakers and FCC officials who are currently contemplating regulatory action.

First, Gerald Faulhaber and Dave Farber have a new report out entitled “Innovation in the Wireless Ecosystem: A Customer-Centric Framework.”  Here’s what Faulhaber and Farber find:

the three segments of the wireless marketplace (applications, devices, and core network) have exhibited very substantial innovation and investment since its inception. Perhaps more interesting, innovation in each segment is highly dependent upon innovation in the other segments. For example, new applications depend upon both advances in device hardware capabilities and advances in spectral efficiency of the core network to provide the network capacity to serve those applications. Further, we find that the three segments of the industry are also highly competitive. There are many players in each segment, each of which aggressively seeks out customers through new technology and new business methods. The results of this competition are manifest: (i) firms are driven to innovate and invest in order to win in the competitive marketplace; (ii) new business models have emerged that give customers more choice; and (iii) firms have opened new areas such as wireless broadband and laptop wireless in order to expand their strategic options.

They continue on to address the policy issues in play here and discuss the “consumer-centric” approach they recommend that the FCC adopt:

Having found that all three segments are highly competitive, we ask, where is the market failure? If none, then the principle of customer-centric applies: let customers make the key decisions regarding which products, services, open vs. managed business models, net neutrality, et al. will survive in the marketplace. While there is no shortage of pundits, advocates, lobbyists and academics advising the FCC that it, rather than customers, should be making these decisions and advising the FCC what those decisions should be, a customer-centric FCC must leave these decisions to customers in a competitive marketplace. Should the FCC decide to preempt customers and make choices for them, it follows as does night from day that the result will be (i) less customer choice, and therefore reduced customer well-being; (ii) higher costs for producers and therefore customers; (iii) lower incentives to invest and innovate, harming customers, producers and the American economy. In this case, economics and technology are on the same page: economists advise intervention only in the case of demonstrated market failure, and then only if there is evidence that the intervention will do more good than harm. The technologist’s advice is more pithy and down to earth: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!

Amen to that.  Let’s hope our lawmakers are listening.

Second, Everett Ehrlich, Jeffrey Eisenach, and Wayne Leighton have a terrific new paper out entitled “The Impact of Regulation on Innovation and Choice in Wireless Communications,” which reaches similar conclusions to those Faulhaber and Farber found in their report. Here’s the executive summary from the Ehrlich-Eisenach-Leighton report:

Proposals to increase regulation of mobile wireless services, for example, by applying “net neutrality” regulation, are often based on claims that such regulation would enhance innovation and increase consumer choice. In fact, they would have the opposite effect. The business practices that would be banned by such regulation are efficient mechanisms for spreading and reducing risk, lowering transactions costs, and enhancing marketing activities, all of which contribute to innovation and choice. Moreover, product differentiation increases competition and thus contributes both directly and indirectly to consumer choice. While some types of exclusive agreements and other “discriminatory” practices can theoretically harm competition, the precondition for such harm to occur – i.e., market power in one or more of the affected markets – generally is not present in wireless markets. Hence, the proposed regulations cannot be justified on grounds of market failure. Rather than increasing innovation and consumer choice, as promised, they would severely disrupt the wireless sector’s highly successful business model and significantly reduce innovation and consumer choice.

Like the Faulhaber-Farber paper, the Ehrlich-Eisenach-Leighton paper examines the major segments of the wireless marketplace — applications, devices, and networks — and shows them all to be vigorously competitive and experiencing significant innovation. Some of the following tables and charts help to illustrate this.

This first table shows how concentration ratios for the U.S. market (as measured by HHI) are among the lowest in the world.

The next two charts show that U.S. carriers have the lowest revenue per minute (60% lower than the average OECD country) even though average minutes per use are more than twice the amount of the next highest ranked country (Canada).

Finally, this final chart from their report offers a snapshot of mobile Internet penetration in 16 countries showing the U.S. on top:

Incidentally, the Faulhaber-Farber study also does a nice job listing the various mobile application stores out there today:

Device Manufacturer App Stores Apple’s App Store BlackBerry’s App World Palm’s App Catalog Nokia’s Ovi Store Samsung’s Application Store Sony’s PlayNow arena LG’s Application Store

Software Developers Google’s Android Market Microsoft’s Windows Mobile

Carriers AT&T’s MEdia Mall Verizon Wireless’ Tools & Applications Sprint’s Software Store US Cellular’s easyedge Cellular South’s Discover Center Cricket’s Downloads

Independent Stores Handango GetJar

And the Ehrlich-Eisenach-Leighton paper provides some addition perspective on innovation in the handset and applications space:

On the metrics that seem to be of greatest concern to regulation advocates – choice and innovation – the data also show the industry is performing well. For example, CTIA reports there are more than 630 different wireless handsets and devices available in the U.S., compared with only 147 in the United Kingdom, and notes that many of the most advanced handsets introduced in recent months have been launched in the U.S., including (among others) the iPhone 3G, the Google G1, and the Blackberry Storm. Amazon’s highly popular Kindle was also launched in the U.S. with connectivity provided by Sprint – while its European launch was delayed for a full year by Amazon’s inability to reach agreement with a mobile carrier there. As noted above, the number and variety of available applications is increasing rapidly: In addition to the Apple Apps Store, application downloads are now available from the Android Market (Google), the Palm Software Store, Blackberry App World and the Nokia Ovi Store, offering a total of more than 60,000 different applications. On July 14, 2009 Apple announced that more than 1.5 billion applications had been downloaded from its iPhone App Store since its launch in July 2008.

Actually, that number is even higher now.  As I noted here recently, in just a little over a year, Apple reports there’s been 2 billion downloads of over 85,000 apps from over 125,000 developers.  It’s just stunning when you think about it.

I encourage everyone to read both reports cover-to-cover.  They provide a comprehensive look at the reality on the ground — or in the air, as the case may be — in America’s mobile marketplace.

In a week in which neutrality regulation is making a lot of news, I hope that Robert Hahn and Hal Singer’s terrific new study, “Why the iPhone Won’t Last Forever and What the Government Should Do to Promote its Successor” gets some attention. It provides a wonderful overview of how dynamically competitive the mobile marketplace has been over the past two decades and why critics are wrong to get worked up about the short-term “dominance” of Apple’s iPhone. Here’s the abstract of their paper:

Because of the overwhelming, positive response to the iPhone as compared to other smart phones, exclusive agreements between handset makers and wireless carriers have come under increasing scrutiny by regulators and lawmakers. In this paper, we document the myriad revolutions that have occurred in the mobile handset market over the past twenty years. Although casual observers have often claimed that a particular innovation was here to stay, they commonly are proven wrong by unforeseen developments in this fast-changing marketplace. We argue that exclusive agreements can play an important role in helping to ensure that another must-have device will soon come along that will supplant the iPhone, and generate large benefits for consumers. These agreements, which encourage risk taking, increase choice, and frequently lower prices, should be applauded by the government. In contrast, government regulation that would require forced sharing of a successful break-through technology is likely to stifle innovation and hurt consumer welfare.

“New technologies often seemingly emerge from nowhere, but also frequently lose their luster quickly,” Hahn and Singer go on to argue. As evidence they cite the recent examples of Second Life and MySpace, which were hyped as potentially become dominant providers in their respective areas just a few years ago, but now are subjected to intense competition. “[T]he the mobile handset market is subject to these same disruptive forces,” they argue:

an iconic handset emerges, is quickly crowned the “winner,” and soon thereafter is replaced by another technology that was not even conceived of at the time the “winner” was launched. Many iPhone-inspired smartphones, including the Blackberry Storm and the HTC G1, could unseat the iPhone in the smartphone segment. We argue that heavy-handed regulation of such dynamic markets is likely to reduce welfare on net. The cost of erring through regulatory intervention—for example, by restricting voluntary private agreements that promote risk taking—can be significant. Delaying the benefits associated with innovation in mobile handsets could cost consumers dearly. In sum, exclusive contracts between handset makers and wireless carriers benefit consumers by encouraging innovation by both handset makers and wireless service providers that are vying for market share, and by enabling some handset makers to remain viable. These benefits take the form of greater variety of choices in handsets, greatly enhanced capabilities, and a more affordable range of device options. Banning exclusive contracts could have the unintended consequence of reducing innovation, reducing options, raising prices, and potentially establishing market dominance for an incumbent handset maker.

The End of Innovation?

In their excellent history of handset innovation over the past two decades, Hahn and Singer point out that there were many other “iconic” phones that some felt represented the end of the road in terms of innovation. I just love this quote they unearthed from a 1989 Fortune article about how the release of Motorola’s MicroTAC flip phone represented the apparent pinnacle of handset innovation: “Portable phones won’t get a lot smaller than this one. After all, they have to reach from your ear to your mouth.”

This highlights the myopia that sometimes accompanies technological forecasting and public policymaking.  We sometimes just can’t think “outside the box” and comprehend the ways in which technological devices or services might come along and leapfrog today’s market leaders. It gets back to the point I made in my recent book review of Gary Reback’s over-the-top ode to antitrust regulation, Free the Market:  Those who view markets through the lens of the a static competition, fixed-pie mentality always seem to live in fear of short term “market power” while those of us who believe in dynamic competition see markets in a constant state of flux and expect that sub-optimal market developments or configurations are exactly the spark that incentivizes new form of market entry, innovation, price competition, and so on.  And the real problem with that static competition mentality is that it often leads to knee-jerk regulatory responses.  Here’s how I put it in my recent debate with Larry Lessig:

What concerns me about the way Prof. Lessig approaches these issues in Code and in his subsequent work is that he is far too quick to declare the debate over by labeling short-term.. hiccups as sky-is-falling market failures. The end result of such myopic techno-pessimism is the inevitable call for governments to intervene and “do something” to correct supposed [market] failures.

In other words, have a little faith and some patience.  Apple’s iPhone is today’s hottest handset, but it’s hardly the end of innovation in this marketplace.  And we certainly don’t need handset regulation or “device neutrality” as a solution to this non-problem.  Read Hahn and Singer’s dynamite new paper for a better understanding of why that’s the case.

Yesterday up on Capitol Hill, I hosted a very interesting discussion about “Next-Generation Parental Controls & Child Safety Efforts.”  I thought I’d provide a quick recap here for those who couldn’t attend. [Note: audio of the event will be up shortly at the link above and transcript is in the works.] The event featured Steve Crown, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel of Microsoft Corporation’s Entertainment & Devices Division; Dane Snowden, Vice President of External & State Affairs of CTIA – The Wireless Association; and Stephen Balkam, Chief Executive Officer of Family Online Safety Institute.

Steve Crown of Microsoft kicked the show off with a terrific overview of some the current and next-generation parental control tools and awareness efforts that Microsoft is deploying to help empower parents and keep kids safer both online and in gaming environments. Crown outlined Microsoft’s 5-prong strategy regarding how they have approached these issues on the gaming front, and I think it represents an excellent model of how sensible industry self-regulation and “best practices” can go a long way toward addressing concerns that many parents and policymakers have. The five strategies Crown outlined were: (1) Respect both the freedom of game creators and freedom of choice for game consumers; (2) empower parents with ratings, tools, and information; (3) use independent ratings (like the ESRB) to label content; (4) require all games be rated before they can be used on a platform so that parents can implement blocking controls; and (5) respect regional laws and rating systems in different parts of the globe.

In my book on Parental Controls & Online Child Safety: A Survey of Tools & Methods, I’ve documented many of the empowerment tools that Microsoft has deployed in recent years to make this empowerment vision a reality. One of the most important things MS does on its XBox 360 console is to provide an immediate “out-of-the-box” prompt for parents to set up parental controls and establish other limitations on online chat, spending, or Internet access. Microsoft announced another cool new feature in November 2007, the “Family Timer.” It lets parents limit how and when children play games on the console. This is similar to the time management tools Microsoft offers in its Vista operating system for PCs.  Incidentally, my wife has asked me to start using the Family Timer on our XBox — not for our kids, but for me!  This particular 40-year-old man is still a big kid at heart.

Crown also stressed the importance of “deep cooperation and coordination” when it comes to making parental empowerment a reality.  For example, when announcing the Family Timer, Microsoft also launched a new awareness campaign in conjunction with the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) referred to as the “Is Your Family Set?” campaign At the same time, Microsoft and the PTA also rolled out a new “P.A.C.T.” agreement form that parents and their children could sign to reach an agreement on acceptable video game usage in the home.

To bring all these efforts together and give parents a sort of “one-stop shop” for all these gaming tools and information, in early 2009, Microsoft launched a new portal, “Get Game Smart.com.”  The GetGameSmart site provides instructions and video tutorials about how to set up parental controls and family settings, tips and advice from child safety experts, a frequent newsletter, and much more.

Again, “cooperation and coordination” was central to the Get Game Smart effort, with over 15 partners being involved. Moreover, Crown pointed out, cooperation and coordination has also been essential to the efforts of Microsoft and others in the gaming industry when it comes to “point of sale” awareness-building about game ratings.  Obviously, game developers and console makers can’t have staff on hand at every store where games or consoles might be sold. Consequently, it often falls to sales clerks and others in retail stores to convey ratings info.  Luckily, because of the partnerships that have been struck between various stakeholders all along the food chain, public awareness and use of ratings has grown rapidly. Microsoft, the ESRB, and others in the gaming industry have worked with retailers like Best Buy, WalMart, and many online vendors to make sure relevant ratings information is used at the point of sale to inform parents or limit underage access to games rated for more mature audiences.

The chart below illustrates the dramatic increase in ratings use and awareness since 1999 — from 49% awareness in 1999 to 86% by 2008.  That’s an incredible success story in terms of how industry self-regulation and best practices can go all long way toward addressing the concerns of parents and policymakers without denying the public access to a broad range of games for all ages.

Also on hand at our Hill event yesterday was Dane Snowden of the CTIA – The Wireless Association. Snowden also stressed the importance of partnerships and coordination among many diverse players to build awareness about parental controls and online safety in the mobile context. Snowden pointed out that there are well over 600 different mobile communications devices on the market today, which makes devising controls a daunting task. But both the wireless industry and independent vendors are responding with a wave of new integrated tools and add-on services that can help parents control handset use and online interactions.

For example, beginning in November 2005, CTIA unveiled new “Wireless Carrier Content Guidelines” that industry members would follow “to proactively provide tools and controls to manage wireless content offered by the carriers or available via Internet-enabled wireless devices.  According to an April 2009 filing by CTIA to the FCC, the guidelines work as follows:

Under these guidelines, participating carriers agree to develop content classification standards and educate consumers about the meaning of the chosen categories and ratings. The Notice describes the bifurcation in these content classification guidelines between “Carrier Content” and content available from other sources. The guidelines for Carrier Content cover materials that are available through a carrier’s managed content portal as well as third-party materials for which customers may be billed directly by their wireless carrier. These materials are divided into “Generally Accessible Carrier Content,” which is available to all consumers, and “Restricted Carrier Content,” which is not available to wireless users under 18 years of age without specific parental authorization.

Many major wireless carriers have already announced their plans or policies regarding such content or developed family tools to help parents protect their children. Market leaders AT&T (“SmartLimits” and “Media Net”),Verizon Wireless (“Family Locator”), T-Mobile (“Web Guard”), and Sprint (“Net Safety“) already have excellent parental control services and websites up and running.

Dane Snowden also noted that a vibrant marketplace of independent parental control tools is now thriving on many platforms, including Apple iTunes apps and Windows Mobile apps. Thus, just as was the case in the traditional PC world, we can expect to see parental control tools integrated within networks and devices and then also on top of networks and devices. That’s the best of both worlds since it gives parents a lot of flexibility and options.

Finally, my old friend Stephen Balkam of Family Online Safety Institute placed all these developments in a broader historical context. He believes we are finally seeing a shift from a “fear-based approach” to online safety toward a “fact-based approach.” Balkam cited the early fears and techno-panics that motivated misguided and ultimately unconstitutional laws such as the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and the Child Online Protection Act of 1998. He also pointed out just how irrelevant such laws would have been even if they had remained on the books in light of the recent rise of problems like cyberbullying and “sexting.”

To address such concerns, Balkam stressed the importance of media literacy and digital citizenship and the need for a “Web 3.0” approach along the lines of what Anne Collier and Larry Magid have outlined in their work on the issue. Balkam also put in a plug for the “School and Family Education about the Internet (SAFE Internet) Act” (S. 1047), which was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and in the House by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL). The measure proposes an Internet safety education grant program that would be administered by the Department of Justice.  Balkam argued, and I agree, that such education and counseling-based approaches represent the better approach to a “criminalization” solution.

In closing, I think the 3 key take-aways from yesterday’s discussion were:

1. Cooperation and coordination are essential when devising parental control solutions and trying to build awareness of them.
2. Additional parental empowerment tools are great, but focusing on striking the right balance is crucial.  Parental empowerment tools must be both sophisticated and simple to use at the same time.
3. Education is absolutely essential in every child safety context. Whether it’s potentially objectionable content or unwanted forms of communications, we must talk to our kids and better prepare them for life in the Digital Age.  The best “parental control” is parental interaction and ongoing conversation with our kids.

Jeff Jonas has published an important post: “Your Movements Speak for Themselves: Space-Time Travel Data is Analytic Super-Food!”

More than you probably realize, your mobile device is a digital sensor, creating records of your whereabouts and movements:

Mobile devices in America are generating something like 600 billion geo-spatially tagged transactions per day. Every call, text message, email and data transfer handled by your mobile device creates a transaction with your space-time coordinate (to roughly 60 meters accuracy if there are three cell towers in range), whether you have GPS or not. Got a Blackberry? Every few minutes, it sends a heartbeat, creating a transaction whether you are using the phone or not. If the device is GPS-enabled and you’re using a location-based service your location is accurate to somewhere between 10 and 30 meters. Using Wi-Fi? It is accurate below 10 meters.

The process of deploying this data to markedly improve our lives is underway. A friend of Jonas’ says that space-time travel data used to reveal traffic tie-ups shaves two to four hours off his commute each week. When it is put to full use, “the world we live in will fundamentally change. Organizations and citizens alike will operate with substantially more efficiency. There will be less carbon emissions, increased longevity, and fewer deaths.”

This progress is not without cost:

A government not so keen on free speech could use such data to see a crowd converging towards a protest site and respond before the swarm takes form — detected and preempted, this protest never happens. Or worse, it could be used to understand and then undermine any political opponent.

Very few want government to be able to use this data as Jonas describes, and not everybody wants to participate in the information economy quite so robustly. But the public can’t protect itself against what it can’t see. So Jonas invites holders of space-time data to reveal it:

[O]ne way to enlighten the consumer would involve holders of space-time-travel data [permitting] an owner of a mobile device the ability to also see what they can see:

(a) The top 10 places you spend the most time (e.g., 1. a home address, 2. a work address, 3. a secondary work facility address, 4. your kids school address, 5. your gym address, and so on);

(b) The top three most predictable places you will be at a specific time when on the move (e.g., Vegas on the 215 freeway passing the Rainbow exit on Thursdays 6:07 – 6:21pm — 57% of the time);

(c) The first name and first letter of the last name of the top 20 people that you regularly meet-up with (turns out to be wife, kids, best friends, and co-workers – and hopefully in that order!)

(d) The best three predictions of where you will be for more than one hour (in one place) over the next month, not counting home or work.

Google’s Android and Latitude products are candidates to take the lead, he says, and I agree. Google collectively understands both openness and privacy, and it’s nimble enough still to execute something like this. Other mobile providers would be forced to follow this innovation.

What should we do to reap the benefits while minimizing the costs? The starting point is you: It is your responsibility to deal with your mobile provider as an adult. Have you read your contract? Have you asked them whether they collect this data, how long they keep it, whether they share it, and under what terms?

Think about how you can obscure yourself. Put your phone in airplane mode when you are going someplace unusual – or someplace usual. (You might find that taking a break from being connected opens new vistas in front of your eyes.) Trade phones with others from time to time. There are probably hacks on mobile phone system that could allow people to protect themselves to some degree.

Privacy self-help is important, but obviously it can be costly. And you shouldn’t have to obscure yourself from your mobile communications provider, giving up the benefits of connected living, to maintain your privacy from government.

The emergence of space-time travel data begs for restoration of Fourth Amendment protections in communications data. In my American University Law Review article, “Reforming Fourth Amendment Privacy Doctrine,” I described the sorry state of the Fourth Amendment as to modern communications.

The “reasonable expectation of privacy” doctrine that arose out of the Supreme Court’s 1967 Katz decision is wrong—it isn’t even founded in the majority holding of the case. The “third-party doctrine,” following Katz in a pair of early 1970s Bank Secrecy Act cases, denies individuals Fourth Amendment claims on information held by service providers. Smith v. Maryland brought it home to communications in 1979, holding that people do not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the telephone numbers they dial. (Nevermind that they actually have privacy—the doctrine trumps it.)

Concluding, apropos of Jonas’ post, I wrote:

These holdings were never right, but they grow more wrong with each step forward in modern, connected living. Incredibly deep reservoirs of information are constantly collected by third-party service providers today.

Cellular telephone networks pinpoint customers’ locations throughout the day through the movement of their phones. Internet service providers maintain copies of huge swaths of the information that crosses their networks, tied to customer identifiers. Search engines maintain logs of searches that can be correlated to specific computers and usually the individuals that use them. Payment systems record each instance of commerce, and the time and place it occurred.

The totality of these records are very, very revealing of people’s lives. They are a window onto each individual’s spiritual nature, feelings, and intellect. They reflect each American’s beliefs, thoughts, emotions, and sensations. They ought to be protected, as they are the modern iteration of our “papers and effects.”

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.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has just released a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) in the matter of “Implementation of the Child Safe Viewing Act; Examination of Parental Control Technologies for Video or Audio Programming.” (MB Docket No. 09-26)  This NOI was required by S. 602, the “Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007,” which Congress passed last October and President Bush signed into law on December 2nd.  The measure requires the FCC to examine:

(1) the existence and availability of advanced blocking technologies that are compatible with various communications devices or platforms; (2) methods of encouraging the development, deployment, and use of such technology by parents that do not affect the packaging or pricing of a content provider’s offering; and (3) the existence, availability, and use of parental empowerment tools and initiatives already in the market.

The Act defines the term “advanced blocking technologies” as “technologies that can improve or enhance the ability of a parent to protect his or her child from any indecent or objectionable video or audio programming, as determined by such parent.”  Importantly, the Act also directs the agency to look into blocking technologies that “may be appropriate across a wide variety of distribution platforms, including wired, wireless, and Internet platforms” and which “operate independently of ratings pre-assigned by the creator of such video or audio programming.”   The Act requires that the FCC issue a report to Congress about these technologies no later than August 29, 2009.

When writing about the Child Safe Viewing Act shortly after its introduction in the summer of 2007, I noted that the measure potentially represented the beginning of “convergence-era content regulation” at the FCC.  Those two clauses highlighted above are of particular importance in that regard.  Congress has essentially invited the FCC to engage in unprecedented oversight of media platforms and ratings systems that the agency previously had very little ability to influence. 

First, the Act’s stipulation that the FCC examine advanced content blocking technologies that “operate independently of ratings pre-assigned by the creator,” seems to imply that existing voluntary rating and labeling systems cannot be trusted. That is a dangerous presumption that suggests the FCC might be able to come up with better media ratings on its own. But the fact that the agency has been empowered to look into rating systems for media content outside its area of authority (ex: movies, mobile media, online video) means that the agency might now be potentially placing greater pressure on media providers and distributors in those fields to “clean up” their content that same way that the agency pressures TV and radio broadcasters.

Similarly, the Act’s requirement that the agency look into blocking technologies on “wired, wireless, and Internet platform” is an open-ended invitation for the FCC to oversee content on platforms and mediums that the agency previously had no control over.  This clause on page 4 of the FCC’s NOI is telling in that regard:

The Senate Report also explains that the Act requires the Commission to consider technologies that may be appropriate across a variety of content distribution platforms “[i]n recognition of the fact that television content is currently being made available over the Internet and over mobile devices.” This language suggests that Congress intended that we focus on television content and the variety of platforms over which such content can be displayed and consider technologies capable of blocking inappropriate audio or video content transmitted as part of such programming.

In some ways, this makes all the sense in the world. The fact that Congress and the FCC have long been engaged in the regulation of content by its means of transmission to the viewer or listener has always been a bit silly. Basing regulation on what Randy May has called “techno-functional constructs” has resulted in a jurisprudential Twilight Zone in terms of speech regulation: identical words and images transmitted over one medium end up being regulated different than when transmitted over another. (See my article “Why Regulate Broadcasting?” for more discussion.)  Traditionally, this has meant broadcasting drew the short straw when it came to First Amendment treatment, with their analog signals or digital bits being deemed worthy of less First Amendment protection than the signals or bits transmitted over cable, satellites, fiber, or even print media.

As lawmakers increasingly realize that an age of media abundance and technological convergence has made those silly techno-functional constructs even more preposterous, we can expect Congress to introduce more legislation like the Child Safe Viewing Act and encourage FCC scrutiny of content regardless of its means of transmittal.  But such proposals raise a number of interesting questions, including:

(1) Does the FCC have the statutory authority to be regulating (or even investigating) speech on those other platforms?  What are the First Amendment issues at stake here?

(2) Assuming it has some authority, if the FCC finds that “advanced blocking controls” are not present, or do not work effectively, what remedies would the agency pursue?  (Can you say “universal ratings”?)

(3) Just what sort of resources will be required to allow the FCC to police all “wired, wireless, and Internet platforms”?

I don’t want to go overboard here and suggest that the agency is going to jump right onto the censorship bandwagon and start regulating everything under the sun thanks to S. 602.  Again, to be clear, the Child Safety View Act only authorizes the agency to study to market for advanced blocking tools.  It’s hard to argue against “the study” of anything.  But what concerns me here is the specter of regulatory creep. As I concluded in an earlier essay about the measure:

We have to hope that the FCC doesn’t use this “study” as an excuse to undermine existing voluntary parental controls and private content rating efforts or, worse yet, embark on an effort to impose new speech controls or mandatory rating and labeling schemes on media content. If they follow that path, a serious First Amendment battle awaits.

Is that a valid concern, or am I over-stating things? Well, consider this.  Between pages 15-20 of the NOI, in a section on”Content Available over the Internet,” the agency poses dozens of questions about new digital technologies and services including: Hulu,YouTube, TiVo, iTunes and the iPhone, iPod and Mp3 players, peer-to-peer networks, wi-fi hot spots, Teen Second Life, and even video game consoles.  In fact, on page 16 of the NOI the agency asks: “What impact, if any, does the interface between video gaming systems and the Internet have on children’s online safety?”  It’s certainly a legitimate question for public debate, but is anyone else besides me uncomfortable with the fact that the Federal Communications Commission is asking it?  If, like me, you’ve spent you’re life fighting over-zealous FCC content regulation, then you might appreciate my concern.  Will the FCC soon be fielding complaints about the next installment of “Grand Theft Auto”?  Are uncensored “Saturday Night Live” clips on Hulu suddenly going to be subjected to broadcast TV-like indecency fines?  Is my iTunes podcast fair game for federal regulators?  Again, I hope none of this paranoia is justified, but I think there are reasons to be concerned.

The more constructive path forward for the FCC is to help highlight the useful tools and rating systems already on the market and encourage parents to take advantage of them if they feel so compelled. As FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein noted in his statement about the NOI, “Blocking technology strikes a balance beneficial to all parties involved: it allows us to protect our children while respecting the creative and expressive rights of content creators.”  Indeed, as I have argued in my book on “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection:”

The ideal state of affairs, therefore, would be a nation of fully empowered parents who have the ability to perfectly tailor their family’s media consumption habits to their specific values and preferences. Specifically, parents or guardians would have (1) the information necessary to make informed decisions and (2) the tools and methods necessary to act upon that information. Importantly, those tools and methods would give them the ability to not only block objectionable materials, but also to more easily find content they feel is appropriate for their families.

If the FCC can help build public awareness about such user-empowerment tools, that’s wonderful. I’m all for that. But it’s what the agency might do above and beyond that which has my spider sense tingling.

Anyway, you can read the bill and the NOI below and judge for yourself. [Note: The version of S. 602 below is the version passed by the Senate. The final version agreed to by the House stripped out Sec. 2, the findings section, and Sec. 3 became the new Sec. 2. For some reason, the GPO never produced a final PDF version of the bill as passed by the full Congress. If someone else has it, please forward it to me so I can post it here.]

S602 Child Safe Viewing Act http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=12963165&access_key=key-1uqqvj45uwpa1z9qihzq&page=1&version=1&viewMode=list

FCC NOI for Child Safe Viewing Act (MB 09-26) http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=12963105&access_key=key-12ctxrbeq6b7cuh98m6t&page=1&version=1&viewMode=list

Looks like we can count on another tax landing on our cell phones soon thanks to the taxaholics in the Obama Administration.  According to Jeff Silva of RCR Wireless:

Though details on the Obama budget are few and far between, some information was made available. The administration estimates that spectrum license fees would raise $4.8 billion over the next 10 years.

Don’t be fooled into thinking that wireless carriers will just eat those fees.  Those fees will be coming to bill near you soon in the form of another stupid government tax burden on our wireless phones.

You know, because we’re not already paying enough in taxes on our phones.

(P.S.  I’m actually a little surprised that the “progressives” in this administration would support this proposal since a tax on mobile phones will end up being about as regressive as taxes can get.)

As Berin and I have noted here before (here and here), there seems to be no shortage of competition and innovation in the mobile operating system (OS) space. We’ve got:

1. Apple’s iPhone platform,
2. Microsoft’s Windows Mobile,
3. Symbian,
4. Google’s Android,
5. BlackBerry,
6. Palm OS (+ Palm’s new WebOS),
7. the LiMo platform, and
8. OpenMoko.

I am missing any? I don’t think so. Even if I have, this is really an astonishing degree of platform competition for a network-based industry. Network industries are typically characterized by platform consolidation over time as both application developers and consumers flock to just a couple of standards — and sometimes just one — while others gradually fade away. But that has not yet been the case for mobile operating systems.  I just can’t see it lasting, however. As I argued in my essay on “Too Much Platform Competition?,” I would think that many application providers would be clamoring for consolidation to make it easier to develop and roll out new services.  Some are, and yet we still have more than a half-dozen mobile OS platforms on the market.

Regardless, the currently level of platform competition also seems to run counter to the thesis set forth by Jonathan Zittrain and others who fear the impending decline or death of digital “generativity.” That is, technologies or networks that invite or allow tinkering and all sorts of creative uses are supposedly “dying” or on the decline because companies are trying to exert more control over proprietary or closed systems. You will recall that in his book The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It, Zittrain casts the iPhone as the enemy of generativity and suggests that more and more devices will look like it in the future. (Ignore the fact that the iPhone becomes more open to 3rd party apps with each passing day and that Apple’s latest iPhone OS was cracked in a matter of hours after release). Zittrain and many others have been beating this gloomy ‘generativity-is-dying’ drum now for awhile, so you would think that they would have some substantive evidence to point to in defense of their thesis.

But today’s mobile OS market certainly doesn’t seem to help them make their case — whether we are talking about OS-level competition or innovation at the applications level by third parties. Indeed, take a look at the latest PC World magazine in which Harry McCracken conducts a “Smart Phone OS Smackdown” to see how the the current mobile operating systems stack up and what they offer consumers in terms of both built-in functionality and third-party add-ons. It’s the third-party stuff that is most of interest to our inquiry here regarding the Zittrain-ian fear of declining mobile generativity. Here’s what PC World reports about the third-party apps available for 5 major mobile OS platforms:

Apple iPhone: “Just months after Apple opened up the iPhone to other developers, thousands of programs are available, and downloading them directly via the App Store is a cakewalk.”

Windows Mobile: “The best thing about this OS is the sheer variety of available applications in every category. Utilities such as Lakeridge Software’s WisBar Advance let you tweak the interface’s look, feel, and functionality, compensating for some of its deficiencies. But you get no built-in app store à la iPhone OS and Android.”

Google Android: “Developers are just beginning to hop on the Android bandwagon. The iPhone-like Market service lets you download apps directly to the phone from Google; unlike with the iPhone, you can also snag programs from third-party merchants such as Handango. …   Android’s potential is gigantic, especially if it winds up on scads of phones.”

BlackBerry: “Once upon a time, users didn’t have many BlackBerry programs to choose from, but recently the market has boomed–thousands, from productivity apps to games, are available now. Windows Mobile and S60 have even more bountiful selections, though. Currently BlackBerry has no over-the-air storefront comparable to Apple’s App Store or Android Market. RIM’s BlackBerry storefront is expected to launch in March 2009.”

Symbian: “A profusion of useful S60-compatible applications is available at sites such as Handango–one of the deepest libraries for any platform, thanks to Symbian’s long life span and wide usage.”

Importantly, McCracken didn’t even take a look at the Palm OS or Palm’s aftermarket offerings, and he failed to mention the significant “home brew” market for hacks and add-ons that countless people like me take advantage of through sites like PPC Geeks and Howard’s Forums. Regardless, as the PC World article illustrates, there’s lots of innovation and generativity out there in the mobile space today. Of course, it’s true that Apple’s iPhone isn’t quite as open as the rest of the platforms out there.  As McCracken notes of the iPhone:

But the limitations that Apple puts on third-party apps–they can’t run in the background or access data other than their own–place major obstacles in the way of everything from instant messengers to office suites. And Apple, the sole distributor of iPhone software, has declined to make available some useful applications that developers have submitted.

But as I have said before, there is a simple solution to that: Just buy a different phone!!  No one has any sort of God-given right to a perfectly “open” OS. You know what you’re getting when you buy an iPhone and realize that it may not be perfectly open to all third-party apps or hacks. But hey, it’s still a pretty damn spectacular phone. Apparently it’s even good enough for the generativity-worshiping Jonathan Zittrain, who I outed at this New America Foundation debate as an iPhone user himself!

Bottom line: Generativity in the mobile marketplace is alive and well. And, contrary to what worrywarts like Zittrain and other critics claim, the trend is clearly in the direction of MORE openness and generativity over time, not less.

Update: I just caught Tim Lee’s post on “The Perpetual Peril of Open Platforms” over at Freedom to Tinker. Worth reading if you are interested in more on this subject.

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.

How much platform competition is too much competition? For example, what is the optimal number of mobile operating systems or video game consoles that will spur competition and innovation in those respective sectors?

It is an interesting business question, but it also has some policy implications since some might propose laws or regulations to remedy a perceived lack of platform competition in various sectors. After all, many people would answer the above question by saying that there is never such a thing as too much competition. The more platforms the better. But there can be costs associated with too much competition. Let’s consider those two case studies mentioned above: mobile operating systems or video game consoles.

Mobile Operating Systems As my colleague Berin Szoka has pointed out, we are witnessing the rapid proliferation of mobile operating systems, especially on the open source front. So, we’ve got Apple’s iPhone platform, Microsoft’s Windows Mobile, Symbian, Google’s Android, the LiMo platform, and OpenMoko.

One one hand, all this platform competition sounds great. But as Ben Worthen of the Wall Street Journal’s “Business Tech Blog” points out in a piece today:

there’s a new platform war being waged, but this time the battleground is mobile devices. The bad news for businesses looking to standardize on a winner: The most likely outcome is multiple survivors. […] In fact, rather than consolidating, the number of platforms for which developers can write mobile-device software keeps growing, says Benjamin Gray, an analyst at Forrester Research. That’s a challenge for businesses, in part because workers increasingly want to be able to choose the device that they think is the best fit for their life. In the PC world, the answer would be simple: Write software that people access over the Internet through a Web browser, which isn’t dependent on an operating system. But most devices can’t connect to the Internet at the speed necessary to run such software, Mr. Gray says. And besides, screen size varies from device to device, meaning that software that looks good on one might not on another. Add it all together and it means that businesses need to pick and choose their battles. It’s probably wise to let workers who only need to access email or software that runs on multiple mobile platforms use whatever device they choose. But it probably won’t be cost-effective to give the same choice to workers who have to access custom-developed software through their devices — not unless a business wants to spend the time and money developing a version of the software for every platform out there.

This is the other side of the platform competition coin that many people never consider, especially in the policy arena. At some point, increased mobile OS competition is going to impose serious costs on application developers looking to push their innovations our far and wide, and as quickly as possible.

Consider a really exciting new mobile application like Loopt, which I have written about here before. Loopt is a great little mobile app that allows users to instantly geo-locate each other and network in ways unimaginable just a few years ago. Loopt has been working hard to make its service available on as many platforms as possible, but the company has to deal with dozens of handsets and a growing number of OS platforms used by multiple carriers. A friend of mine who works with Loopt was telling me this week how this is really making it difficult for Loopt to push its technology out as far and wide as they would like. With each new handset, carrier, and OS standard, the company faces formidable development costs. Essentially, Loopt needs an in-house development team for each standard.

Thus, it is possible to reach a point of diminishing returns in terms of platform competition. While few would call for an mobile operating system monopoly, a world of dozens of competing standards could hurt product development and diffusion.

Video Game Consoles The same principle applies to video game console competition and its effect on innovation. Some would say that there is already far too much platform competition in this field. Consider the platforms or consoles that game developers must code for just here in the United States: Microsoft Xbox 360 and the older Xbox, Sony PS3 and the old PS2, Sony PlayStation Portable, Nintendo Wii, Nintendo DS, sometimes the Mac, and finally the good old PC platform. Large developers have the scale and resources to develop new games for most of those platforms. (For example, EA’s latest “Madden 08” football game is being developed for all of those platforms. But most developers don’t have the resources to match Electronic Arts and can’t develop for all those platforms.

It is ironic, therefore, that EA has actually been making waves lately by calling for a single gaming platform or standard. Gerhard Florin, a senior executive at EA, told BBC News last year that proliferating platform competition has made life harder for developers and consumers. “We want an open, standard platform which is much easier than having five which are not compatible,” he argued.

So, when even Electronic Arts is saying there’s too much competition in this regard, you know something is up. After all, it would be in their competitive advantage to absorb the costs associated with multi-platform development since smaller competitors can’t match that sort of multi-platform capital outlay.

How steep are those development costs? And what does it mean for both developers and consumers of games? I think Matt Peckman over at PC World has done a pretty good job summarizing the costs:

Just remember, having too many choices can be just as onerous as having none. I don’t know about you, but I play games, not hardware. An open-standard approach to the engine under the hood sounds like it’d give me more choices in terms of software and peripherals long term, not fewer. […] A unified game hardware architecture would make life for software studios dramatically easier. It levels the playing field and simultaneously increases competition by pitting more developers against each other. It says “Everyone has access to the same toolset, so you can stop complaining about how hard X is to code for or worrying about allocating resources to different teams for different platforms, and instead simply focus on making really, really, really mind-bending stuff for one system.”

Of course, there is another side to the story. Video game platform competition has yielded remarkable innovations at the console level. I can think of at least three ways this is true:

(1) The race to constantly increase processing power: Just look at the competition between Microsoft and Sony to produce state of the art graphical capabilities by packing massive processing power into their the new machines. (2) Unique innovations in console peripheral devices: If we only had one gaming console or standard, would we have ever seen Nintendo’s amazing motion sensitive controller for the Wii? (3) The race to develop consoles that are not just gaming devices, but are full-blown integrated entertainment hubs. I use my XBox 360 and Sony PS3 to download all sorts of movie and TV content — especially high-def movies and new movie trailers. I can also use those consoles to ship my media around my house from computer to computer.

But do such benefits outweigh the costs? Would it be the case, as Matt Peckman suggest above, that reallocating resources to single platform development would result in “really, really, really mind-bending stuff for one system”? The problem with that logic is that we already have some really mind-bending stuff being developed for the multiple platforms these days. Think “Gears of War” (exclusive to XBox), “Metal Gear Solid” (exclusive to PS3), and “World of Warcraft” (exclusive to PC). Then again, why should we need to own 3 different platforms to play these 3 wonderfully innovative games?

In sum, there are profound trade-offs at work when we think about platform competition, whether we are talking about video games or mobile operating systems. There is no right answer to the question of how many platforms is too many. Markets decide these things in an evolutionary way over time. I think it is exciting that we are lucky enough to live in a world where intense platform competition is possible and new entrants are free to jump in the game at any time. That being said, I am equally comfortable with the fact that markets might eventually settle for fewer platforms — perhaps even a single standard — at other times. So long as that process is the result of natural market evolution, and not artificial government choices, I am fine with it.