No, I’m not here to tell you more about the “supersized” FTC. Berin has done yeoman’s work to highlight that issue, among other things with the PFF event you can review here. On TechDirt, Mike Masnick wrote this morning about how the feds are itching to regulate the Internet.

This is about the direct government invasions of privacy likely to occur if S. 3217 passes. On the Cato@Liberty blog I write about the detailed financial market research that new regulatory agencies would do—research aimed at you.

Example:

Section 1071(b) requires any deposit-taking financial institution to geo-code customer addresses and maintain records of deposits for at least three years. Think of the government having its own Google map of where you and your neighbors do your banking. The Bureau [of Consumer Financial Protection] may “use the data for any other purpose as permitted by law,” such as handing it off to other bureaus, like the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

“Washington, D.C. has determined that Washington, D.C. should manage the financial services industry. Your personal and private financial affairs will be managed there too.”

What would I say about my own writing but read the whole thing?

We at The Progress & Freedom Foundation announced a series of eight upcoming policy events today, taking the place of our previously scheduled Sundance Summit. Beginning this month, the events will run through the summer in the nation’s capital. By moving these events closer to home in this manner, PFF will be better positioned to speak to legislators, policymakers, and tech policy press before Washington turns its attention to the midterm elections.

The series of events (which you can add to your calendar here) will include several breakfast and luncheon panel presentations and two half-day conferences. Covering such areas as communications and competition policy, digital property, digital media freedom and Internet freedom, the events will include:

• Tuesday, April 27: “Cable, Broadcast & the First Amendment: Will the Supreme Court End Must-Carry?” — A panel of experts will debate the future of “must carry” rules in the wake of a new challenge to their constitutionality by Cablevision, and what this decision could mean for other media. (RSVP here)
• Friday, May 7: “What Should the Next Communications Act Look Like?” — A discussion with key industry stakeholders about the future of the Telecom Act in the wake of the Comcast v. FCC decision and the looming battle over Title II reclassification of broadband. (RSVP here)
• Thursday, May 20: “Can Government Help Save the Press?” — This conference will discuss the FCC’s new “Future of Media” proceeding and debate what role government should play in subsidizing the press or bailing out failing media enterprises. (RSVP here)
• Monday, June 7: “The Future of Speech on the Borderless Internet” — A panel of leading cyberlawyers will discuss trans-national regulation and litigation of defamation, hate speech, indecency and political dissent. (RSVP here)
• Monday, June 21: “Sports Programming & the Challenges of Digital Piracy“— A discussion of the challenges that digital piracy, including unauthorized streaming, poses to professional and collegiate sports that have traditionally earned revenues from telecasts of games, bouts, etc.
• Tuesday, July 13: “PFF Summit on the Future of Advertising“ — This conference will focus on Washington’s new war on advertising and data collection. It will include a range of stakeholders from related industries and policymakers who are guiding current debates in this arena.
• Late July: “How Do We Want Copyright Owners to Enforce Their Rights on the Internet?“ — A debate over the future of copyright enforcement.
• Early August: “Has the Internet Changed Economics?” — A panel of leading economists and writers about economics will discuss the theory and practice of economics in the digital realm.

Several of these events will draw on topics to be discussed in PFF’s soon-to-be announced book project:  The Next Digital Decade: Essays about the Internet’s Future, a collection of the best writing on key questions about cyberlaw, policy, economics and philosophy. That book will be launched in the fall with a day-long summit.

“With our ambitious series of upcoming events, we’re essentially bringing our annual conference eastward, and spreading it out over the summer,” said PFF President Adam Thierer. “This shift allows us to do much more of that education about technological change and make our work more accessible to everyone in the Washington policy community. This is a pivotal moment for technology policy and free speech, with debates about issues like net neutrality, privacy, and media regulation approaching a crossroads.”

As mentioned here before, PFF has been rolling out a new series of essays examining proposals that would have the government play a greater role in sustaining struggling media enterprises, “saving journalism,” or promoting more “public interest” content. We’re releasing these as we get ready to submit a big filing in the FCC’s “Future of Media” proceeding (deadline is May 7^th).  Here’s a podcast Berin Szoka and I did providing an overview of the series and what the FCC is up to.

In the first installment of the series, Berin Szoka and I critiqued an old idea that’s suddenly gained new currency: taxing media devices or distribution systems to fund media content. In the second installment, I took a hard look at proposals to impose fees on broadcast spectrum licenses and channeling the proceeds to a “public square channel” or some other type of public media or “public interest” content. The third installment dealt with proposals to steer citizens toward “hard news” and get them to financially support it through the use of “news vouchers” or “public interest vouchers.”

In our latest essay, “The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 4: Expanding Postal Subsidies,” Berin and I argue that expanding postal subsidies won’t likely do much to help failing media enterprises, will raise the risk of greater meddling by politicians with the press, and can’t be absorbed by the Postal Service without a significant increase in cost for ratepayers or taxpayers.  The entire essay is attached down below.

The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 4: Expanding Postal Subsidies

by Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka

PFF Progress on Point 17.5 [PDF]

In this ongoing series, we‘ve been exploring various tax and regulatory proposals that would have public policymakers play a greater role in propping up the press in some way. Some academics, advocacy groups, and government officials have suggested that steps need to be taken to assist struggling media enterprises, support news-gathering efforts, or expand public media options. In Parts 1 and 2 of this series, we expressed concern about proposals to impose taxes on devices, networks, or broadcast spectrum licenses to funnel money to public media projects or other “public interest” content or objectives.^[1] In Part 3, we questioned the wisdom of government officials creating “news vouchers” or “public interest vouchers.”[2] Other essays will deal with taxes on advertising as a method of funding public media, and the wisdom of welfare for journalists and bailouts for media operators.

A wrap-up essay will then focus on some potentially constructive policy reforms that could assist media enterprises without a massive infusion of state support or regulation of the press. These essays will then be cobbled together and submitted as part of PFF’s filing to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as part of its “Future of Media” proceeding (filings are due May 7^th).

In this essay we discuss an idea favored by a number of media scholars and advocacy groups: expanded postal subsidies as a method of assisting struggling media enterprises.^[3] The revisionist histories penned by some of these scholars would have us believe the Founding Fathers were practically media Marxists, enthralled with public subsidization of the press.  Of course, in reality, nothing could be further from the truth.  Just because they provided a modest postal subsidy for press materials doesn’t mean the Founders believed that government should be micromanaging or massively subsiding this sector. The “Congress shall make no law” language found in the First Amendment confirms that.

Can We Afford It?

Practically speaking, the idea of expanding postal subsidies at this time seems like a non-starter. The U.S. Postal Service simply can’t absorb the losses associated with expanded postal subsidies. The Washington Post recently noted that, “The Postal Service is on course to lose more than $7 billion this year, despite substantial recent cost-cutting, and it could lose more than $238 billion by 2020. Approaching the limits of its federal credit line, the USPS must change drastically or go bust.”^[4] The U.S. Postal Service itself has noted that, “even if its plan [to cut losses and increase revenues] was to succeed in every action that present legislation allows, the Postal Service would still face unsustainable losses of at least $115 billion by 2020.”^[5] Yet the Postal Service acknowledges it has “an unsustainable business model” as volume and revenues continue to plummet with no end in sight.^[6] Similarly, in a recent report to Congress, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the Postal Service’s business model “is not viable due to [its] inability to reduce costs sufficiently in response to continuing mail volume and revenue declines.”^[7]

One cost-saving method that the Postal Service has floated is an increase in “preferred-class pricing” (subsidized rates for media products):

Addressing the pricing of preferred mail—such as non-profit mail, Media Mail, Library Mail, and Periodicals—would ensure that these products get to a point where they cover costs while contributing reasonably to overhead costs. An alternative would be appropriations funding to cover the gap.^[8]

Thus, it seems clear that the Postal Service itself believes even existing postal subsidies place too great of a strain on an already failing system. And the GAO notes:

Historically, some types of mail were designed to channel broad public goals, such as furthering the dissemination of information, the distribution of merchandise, and the advancement of nonprofit organizations.  For example, Periodicals (mainly, mailed magazines and newspapers) have historically been given favorable rates, consistent with the view that they help bind the nation together, but this class has not covered its costs for the past 13 fiscal years.… These escalating losses have provoked growing concern and controversy.[9]

The report notes annual losses for the various categories of subsidized mail service and the mounting costs of subsidies, as illustrated in the adjoining exhibit.[10]

As the cost of existing postal subsidies mount, it seems likely the public wouldn’t take kindly to the idea of being forced to foot the bill for vastly increased subsidies. According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, more Americans would rather give up some daily service than pay more to the Postal Service to cover the massive losses the Postal Service is expected to incur in coming years:  71% of those polled said they favored ending Saturday deliveries while just 44% said they favored raising stamp prices or providing additional federal funding.^[11] For these reasons, a significant expansion of media subsidies seems both unwise and untenable.

More Subsidies, More Meddling

Importantly, as is the case with many of the other proposals discussed in our ongoing series, a significant expansion in government involvement raises the specter of increased meddling by policymakers with the media.  Proponents of expanding postal subsidies often gloss over the rather horrifying history of censorship by the Postal Service in the past.

Most notably, Nichols claims that “postal subsidies… helped to foster the abolitionist press,” and claims that this proves that “we can have a dissident, challenging—anti-government press, operating within a system of subsidies.”[12] But, again, there’s a bit of revisionist history at work here.  David Walker Howe, author of the magisterial history, What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848, details the history of the Postal Service in the early Republic and its central importance (until the invention of the telegraph) as the country’s primary information distribution system.  Howe notes that the newspapers (and other printed matter) constituted the “overwhelming bulk of the mail” and his account suggests that subsidies undoubtedly played an important role in increasing readership of, and competition among, newspapers—including abolitionist newspapers.[13] But he also notes that the U.S. Postal Service effectively censored these publications in the South from the mid-1830s until secession a quarter-century later.[14] Howe notes that “The refusal of the Post Office to deliver abolitionist mail to the South may well represent the largest peacetime violation of civil liberty in U.S. history.”[15] He also suggests that censorship may have accelerated the radicalization of North against South, and accelerated the coming of war: “Deprived of access to communication with the South [by postal censorship], the abolitionists would henceforth concentrate on wining over the North.”[16]

Sadly, this kind of censorship became a distinctly illiberal American tradition.  In 1865, Congress banned sending obscene materials through the mails, apparently out of concern about adult novels being mailed to Federal troops at the front.[17] In the late 1800s, for example, Anthony Comstock, founder of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, used the mail system as the primary mechanism of his censorship crusades.  After successfully pushing Congress to pass an expanded obscenity law through Congress in 1873 that censored, among many other things, information about abortion and conception, Comstock was promptly appointed as a Post Office special agent and given the power “to seize publications and devices he considered immoral and to prosecute their senders.”^[18] Later, in 1914, the Post Office began an ongoing crackdown on James Joyce’s Ulysses and any publication that had the temerity to even publish passages from the work.^[19]

Postal system censorship was also ramped up during World War I after Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917, which included provisions giving the Postmaster General power to impound publications he deemed seditious.  According to media historians Michael and Edwin Emery, authors of The Press and America: An Interpretive History of Mass Media, “some forty-four papers lost their mailing privileges during the first year of the Espionage Act and another thirty retained them only by agreeing to print nothing more concerning the war.”^[20] They note that: “The axe fell most heavily on Socialist organs and German-language newspapers; a few other pacifist or anti-Ally publications also lost their mail privileges.  The American Socialist was banned from the mails immediately and was soon followed by Solidarity, the journal of the left-wing Industrial Workers of the World.”^[21] It wasn’t until 1946 that the Supreme Court finally began to constrain the Post Office’s censorial ways after it denied second-class mailing privileges to Esquire because it supposedly featured “morally improper” content.^[22]

Of course, the worst of the Postal Service’s censorial days are likely well behind us—especially since courts today probably wouldn’t tolerate such blatant violations of the First Amendment.   Nonetheless, a significant ramping-up of postal subsidies for the press creates new potential pressure points for policymakers to exploit, even if in marginal, indirect ways.  Policymakers, in turn, will likely feel increased pressure from vocal constituents because, the more substantial the subsidy becomes, the more obvious it will be to taxpayers that they are paying for the cost of supporting media they may find objectionable, either because of its particular viewpoint or its content. As Thomas Jefferson famously put it in the 1786 Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.”^[23] That is, we naturally—and rightly—resent subsidizing speech that is antithetical to our own values.[24]

Why Subsidize the Distribution System of the Past?

Finally, why we would want to subsidize this old form of distribution anyway?  Electronic media is clearly the way of the future.  There’s a reason science fiction movies never show someone going out to pick up the morning newspaper in the year 2200.  In addition to subsidizing newspaper delivery in the early days of the Post Office, between 1785 and 1845 the postal system was used to subsidize stagecoach travel and routes, even though it was more expensive and less efficient than using single riders to deliver the mail.  The hope was to encourage the development of stage lines and to thereby ease interstate travel for regular citizens.  Perhaps there was something to be said for that idea then, or for using postal contracts to promote the development of canals or railroads or aviation, at least these subsidies were intended to accelerate the development and adoption of emerging technologies, not waning ones.  We would laugh today if someone told us the Postal Service should be subsidizing stagecoach travel—or any other form of transportation, for that matter.  So why isn’t it considered just as laughable to say that the Post Office should be subsidizing media printed on dead trees that need to be physically shuttled around the country and then disposed of?  Why incur the additional “carbon footprint” of all that unnecessary rearranging and moving of atoms when we can just deal with bits?

This is 2010, not 1910.  It’s time to begin letting go of our old, inefficient physical systems for distributing information, and recognize that, in the Digital Era, communications and transportation have finally separated.  Even U.S. Postmaster General John Potter has noted that his organization’s business model is as outdated as the newspaper industry’s:

“Twenty years ago we would laugh at the notion that a newspaper would ever embrace the idea that maybe the channel of the future is electronic and that you may have to change your business model,” Potter told a group of reporters at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor.  He added, “Likewise, the postal service is in a situation where the behavior of America is changing and we have to fix and change our business model to adapt to it.”[25]

At some point in the future, news papers will probably gradually die out, but the news companies that print them and their emerging competitors will continue to produce journalism.  The only difference is that they will distribute their information products over the Internet to screens (and speakers and headphones) on a wide variety of devices yet to be invented.  Increasing postal subsidies merely—and quite literally—“paper over” the fundamental problem faced by traditional print media of dealing with this technological transition.

[2] Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 3: Media Vouchers, PFF Progress on Point 17.4, April 2010, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/2010/pop17.4-media_vouchers.pdf.

[3] See Robert W. McChesney & John Nichols, The Death and Life of American Journalism (2010) at 168-9; Geoffrey Cowan & David Westphal, Public Policy and Funding the News, USC Annenberg School for Communications & Journalism, Research Series, 2010, at 9, http://fundingthenews.org; Free Press, Saving the News: Toward a National Journalism Strategy, at 36-7, 2009, www.freepress.net/files/saving_the_news.pdf.

[4] Congress is Running Out of Time to Save the Postal Service, The Washington Post, March 10, 2010, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/09/AR2010030903337.html

[5] United States Postal Service, Ensuring a Viable Postal Service for America, 2010, at 1, www.usps.com/strategicplanning/_pdf/Ensuring_Viable_USPS_paper.pdf

[6] Id. at 3.

[7] United States Government Accountability Office, U.S. Postal Service: Strategies and Options to Facilitate Progress toward Financial Viability, GAO-10-455, April 2010, at 6, www.gao.gov/new.items/d10455.pdf.

[8] Id. at 14.

[9] Id. at 46 (emphasis added).

[10] Id. at 47.

[11] Ed O’Keefe & Jon Cohen, Poll Says Most Americans Back Halting Saturday Mail But Not Closing Post Offices, The Washington Post, March 30, 2010, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/29/AR2010032903823.html.

[12] Transcript: Saving American Journalism, Now on PBS, Jan. 15, 2010, www.pbs.org/now/shows/603/transcript.html.

[13] David Walker Howe, What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848 (2007) at 226-27.

[14] Id.  at 427-30.

[15] Id.  at 430.

[16] Id.

[17] Margaret A. Blanchard, Revolutionary Sparks: Freedom of Expression in Modern America (1992) at 16.

[18] Marjorie Heins, Not in Front of the Children: “Indecency,” Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth (2001) at 32.

[19] In 1918, a publication called The Little Review began published excerpts from Ulysses. Marjorie Heins explains what happened next: “The U.S. Post Office confiscated and burned four separate issues of the Review, and in January 1920 told [Review publishers] Heap and Anderson that it would put them out of business if they continued to publish Ulysses.” Id. at 40-41.

[20] Michael Emery & Edwin Emery, The Press and America: An Interpretive History of Mass Media (Prentice Hall, 6^th Ed., 1988) at 297.

[21] Id.

[22] Heins, supra note 18 at 47. The case was Hannegan v. Esquire 327 U.S. 146 (1946).

[23] http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html

[24] See Thierer & Szoka, supra note 2 at 7 (discussing the inevitability of political pressure for subsidy strings).

[25] Drew Wheatley, Postal Service Chief: Our Business Model as Outdated as the Newspaper Industry’s, The Hill Blog, March 11, 2010, http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/86265-postal-service-chief-our-business-model-as-outdated-as-the-newspaper-industrys.

Wrong Way to Reinvent Media Part 4 – Postal Subsidies [Thierer & Szoka – PFF] http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf

As I’ve mentioned here previously, PFF has been rolling out a new series of essays examining proposals that would have the government play a greater role in sustaining struggling media enterprises, “saving journalism,” or promoting more “public interest” content. We’re releasing these as we get ready to submit a big filing in the FCC’s “Future of Media” proceeding (deadline is May 7^th).  Here’s a podcast Berin Szoka and I did providing an overview of the series and what the FCC is doing.

In the first installment of the series, Berin and I critiqued an old idea that’s suddenly gained new currency: taxing media devices or distribution systems to fund media content. In the second installment, I took a hard look at proposals to impose fees on broadcast spectrum licenses and channeling the proceeds to a “public square channel” or some other type of public media or “public interest” content.

In our latest essay, “The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 3: Media Vouchers,” Berin and I consider whether it is possible to steer citizens toward so-called “hard news” and get them to financially support it through the use of “news vouchers” or “public interest vouchers”?  We argue that using the tax code to “nudge” people to support media — while less problematic than direct subsidies for the press — will likely raise serious issues regarding eligibility and be prone to political meddling.  Moreover, it’s unlikely the scheme will actually encourage people to direct more resources to hard news but instead just become a method of subsidizing other content they already consume.

I’ve attached the entire essay down below.

The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 3: Media Vouchers

by Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka*

PFF Progress on Point 17.4 [PDF]

Should the government play a greater role in the media sector in the name of sustaining struggling media enterprises, “saving journalism,” or promoting public media?  In this ongoing series of essays, we’ve been analyzing proposals that would have public policymakers use taxes, subsidies, or regulations to accomplish those objectives.

Part 1 of this series examined proposals to fund media content via a tax on consumer electronics, broadband service, or cell phone bills.^[1] Part 2 critiqued proposals to impose fees on broadcast spectrum licenses and channeling the proceeds to a “public square channel” or some other type of public media or “public interest” content.^[2] Other essays in this series will address proposals to tax private advertising revenues to support public media; expand postal subsidies; directly subsidize out-of-work journalists; and to prop up or bail out failing media entities.  A wrap-up essay will then focus on some potentially constructive policy reforms that could assist media enterprises without a massive infusion of state support or regulation of the press.

In this installment, we will consider whether it is possible to steer citizens toward so-called “hard news” (“serious” journalism)—and get them to financially support it—through the use of “news vouchers” or “public interest vouchers”?  We will argue that using the tax code to nudge people to support media—while less problematic than direct subsidies for the press—will likely raise serious issues regarding eligibility and be prone to political meddling.  Moreover, it’s unlikely the scheme will actually encourage people to direct more resources to hard news but instead just become a method of subsidizing other content they already consume.

Funding Hard News is Hard

Funding “hard news” has always been challenging.  Financing a team of dedicated local beat reporters, investigative journalists, national desks, foreign bureaus, and all the associated production facilities and support staff is an extremely expensive undertaking.[3] And, for all that trouble and expense, hard news rarely turns a healthy profit.  Often it has been considered a “loss leader” for media companies and has been cross-subsidized by other types of content or services.[4] This is why “bundling” has been such a popular model for many media operations such as newspapers, magazines, and cable television.  By tying news production to other types of content or services, media operators have been able to sustain the production of hard news, despite its general unprofitability on its own.

It’s worth recalling that a business model to sustain hard news production and dissemination on a mass scale really only developed mid-way through our Republic.  The early history of media in this country was characterized by the “partisan press” due to the heavy reliance on a patronage model and direct association with political parties and figures. This changed with the rise of large daily newspapers in the mid-1800s and then broadcast radio and television in the early half of the 20 ^th century.[5] Media providers were able to cross-subsidize news production independent of private or political patronage thanks to three things: (1) high-speed printing presses or broadcast facilities, (2) geographic-based market and pricing power, and (3) the widespread advertising base that was made possible by (1) and (2).

Over just the past 15-20 years, we’ve seen this traditional model upended.  Increased competition and technological/platform proliferation are placing an enormous strain on traditional media operations and business models. Schumpeterian “creative destruction” is at work in a serious, and for many, painful, way.

This is what is keeping the Federal Communications Commission,[6] the Federal Trade Commission,[7] some in Congress,[8] and many media worrywarts up at night: the fear that, as traditional financing mechanisms falter (advertising, classifieds, subscription revenues, etc.), many traditional news-gathering efforts and institutions will disappear.  And that’s leading to calls for government intervention or assistance of some sort to prop up struggling entities or directly subsidize the hard news that many of them have traditionally provided but may not be able to for much for longer.

Can Vouchers “Nudge” Citizens to Support Hard News?

One much-discussed proposal would create a “public interest voucher” or what Robert W. McChesney & John Nichols, authors of the new book The Death and Life of American Journalism, call a “Citizenship News Voucher.”^[9] This is a variant on the “artistic freedom voucher,” an idea first put forward in 2003 by economist Dean Baker as an alternative to copyright law as a means of incentivizing artistic creation.[10] The regulatory activist group Free Press, which McChesney founded, has also endorsed a news voucher scheme.[11]

The idea is fairly straightforward: give every American a voucher (McChesney and Nichols propose $200) to support the non-profit news entities of their choice by listing those entities on their tax return.  (If half of all adult Americans actually used their voucher, that would cost at least $20 billion/year.[12])  They assume this would be an efficient way of channeling money to hard news providers while avoiding the serious concerns that arise when government officials or agencies are the ones providing or steering the subsidies.  McChesney and Nichols go so far as to call their tax-and-redistribute proposal “a libertarian’s dream,” since “people can support whatever political viewpoint they prefer or do nothing at all.”[13]

McChesney and Nichols seem to be building on the approach popularized by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein in their highly influential 2008 book Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness.^[14] Based on behavioral economics studies, Thaler and Sunstein argue that both government and private actors must inevitably make decisions about “choice architecture” and that, by setting defaults, incentives and rules smartly, “choice architects” can and should improve private decision-making—but only where they can do so without blocking, fencing-off or significantly burdening choices.^[15] While their proposal might not qualify as a nudge in the strict sense defined by Thaler and Sunstein, the essential similarity between the concepts lies in trying to restructure the choices Americans make about media consumption by changing how they spend money on media—with the declared goal of “improving” both media consumption and the media itself (by “freeing it” of supposedly evil corporate influences).

Problems with the News Voucher Proposal

While nudges might be less objectionable in circumstances where it’s objectively evident what’s really “good” for us, the same can hardly be said for media consumption.  “Nudging” consumers towards better media choices isn’t based on clear science about, say, eating better or getting more exercise, but on highly subjective decisions about what kind of information consumption is really good for individuals, communities, and polities.  For policymakers to imagine that they can steer the public’s tastes or behavior in more desirable directions through law (including media subsidy schemes) is a profoundly elitist enterprise.^[16] In the case of “news vouchers,” the hope is that the public can be encouraged to at least channel some additional support to news-gathering activities and institutions.  The problem, however, is that some people just don’t much like being “nudged” by officials from afar and they’ll often take steps to evade such paternalism—however ostensibly “libertarian” it might be.  And it could lead to a host of unintended consequences, discussed further below.[17]

As a general matter, it simply isn’t possible to make consumers choose the “right” media in an age of information abundance.^[18] With so many voices competing for our attention, it’s impossible make people watch, listen, or read if they don’t want to.  That’s especially true with hard news, which has never netted major ratings.  As Ellen P. Goodman of the Rutgers-Camden School of Law has noted: “Given the proliferation of consumer filtering and choice, these kinds of interventions are of questionable efficacy.  Consumers equipped with digital selection and filtering tools are likely to avoid content they do not demand no matter what the regulatory efforts to force exposure.”[19] As Goodman rightly argues, “regulation cannot, in a liberal democracy, force viewers to consume media products they do not think they want in the name of the public interest.”[20] There’s no reason to believe this situation has ever been different or will ever change:  Writing in 1922, famed journalist Walter Lippmann noted that, “it is possible to make a rough estimate only of the amount of attention people give each day to informing themselves about public affairs,” but “the time each day is small when any of us is directly exposed to information from our unseen environment.”[21]

McChesney and Nichols’ effort to sell this scheme as “a libertarian’s dream” is a huge stretch.  There aren’t too many libertarians—or anyone else for that matter—who favor sending more money to the federal government only to win back the right to spend it on “qualifying media entities.”  And regarding their claim that “people can support whatever political viewpoint they prefer or do nothing at all,” well, people are already free to do whatever they want with their money when it comes to media products!  Why do we need to send money to Washington first and then have policymakers tell us how we can spend it?  This seems like a needless nudge—and one that would likely result in government bureaucracy taking a cut of the money or meddling in media markets.

Analogies to educational vouchers don’t work because we long ago decided to treat education as a public good and force everyone to pay for it.  “Voucherization” may make sense as a more efficient and “libertarian” way to fund such traditional public goods, when we absolutely have to force people to spend money on certain goods or services.  While McChesney and Nichols claim that the time has come for the government to fund media as such a public good, most people probably wouldn’t agree, since the private provision of media services has worked quite well for some time—being funded by a mix of advertising and subscription revenues for centuries.  They repeatedly claim that era is over (with little substantiation) but, in reality, it is their policies that would end private, for-profit media by taxing and regulating it to death.[22]

Second, what counts as a “qualifying media entity,” and how will the IRS make that call?  Can just any outlet that purports to gather and report “news” draw support from this new federal program?  McChesney and Nichols aren’t clear: They want the IRS to “determine eligibility—according to universal standards that err on the side of expanding rather than constraining the number of serious sources covering and commenting on issues of the day.”[23] They specify only that the entity must be a non-profit (though not necessarily a federally-recognized 501(c)(3)); not accept advertising; “do exclusively media content”; “cannot be part of a larger organization or have any non-media operations”; and that everything the medium produces must be made available immediately upon publication on the Internet and made available for free to all.”[24] But, anticipating objections about the dangers of political meddling, they also insist that “the government will not evaluate the content to see that the money is going toward journalism.  Our assumption is that these criteria will effectively produce that result, and if there is some slippage so be it.”[25] The only mechanism they can suggest for reducing fraud and ensuring “seriousness” is that, “for a medium to receive funds it would have to get commitments for at least $20,000 worth of vouchers” (100 full donations of the $200 voucher).[26]

But will policymakers really let citizens redeem their vouchers on The National Inquirer or People magazine?  How about the satirical The Onion or Jon Stewart’s Daily Show?  “This is a risk we are more than willing to take,” McChesney and Nichols say since they are “operating on a gut instinct that people will use their vouchers to fund serious media while reaching into their pockets to pay for copies of The National Inquirer at the supermarket checkout.”^[27] Of course, it’s always easier to take such risks when you are playing with other people’s money!  (Nearly half of all Americans don’t pay any Federal income taxes,[28] so their $200 news voucher is definitely coming out of someone else’s tax bill.)

But it’s naïve to believe this idea is going to change the face of journalism in any serious way.  Most people will spend their vouchers on whatever media outlets and content they are currently consuming, which probably isn’t what McChesney and Nichols (or most policymakers) would prefer.  “The program may not develop exactly the type of journalism our greatest thinkers believe is necessary,” McChesney and Nichols admit.[29] But the real question is: What sort of demands will policymakers begin making if the voucher program ends up channeling money into media entities that don’t measure up to their standards or desires?  Qualification criteria would inevitably become the tool of political meddling.

The Inevitable Strings & the Political/Constitutional Paradox

This raises a fourth concern: How long will it be before government starts attaching more strings to the vouchers?  To borrow a recent headline from The Wall Street Journal, how long will it be before the “Economic Policy ‘Nudge’ Gives Way to a Shove?”^[30] Although, in theory, the news voucher idea lets consumers figure out how to steer the funds, it’s unlikely much of those funds would go toward hard news, civic-minded or “high brow” content if consumers were actually free to choose.  How do we know this?  Because we already know what consumers choose today—and those “poor” choices are part of the supposed “problem” to be solved by media vouchers.  Once people start redirecting taxpayer dollars to content that the elites and policymakers don’t like, the nudge will become a shove and more interventions will follow in the form of “voucher guidance and compliance” hearings, rules, etc.

But the pressure for strings won’t just come from the top down because, as Thomas Jefferson famously put it in the 1786 Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.”[31] That is, we naturally—and rightly—resent subsidizing speech that is antithetical to our own values.  McChesney and Nichols dismiss this natural (presumably bourgeois?) indignation by saying, “people will have to accept that some of the vouchers are going to go to media that they detest.”^[32] In one sense, they are dead wrong: People won’t just accept that.  They may accept subtle, indirect subsidies, but the more clear it becomes that they are being forced to pay for media they detest—and that could scarcely be more clear than with a refundable tax credit “voucher”—they will protest and demand that certain viewpoints, or at least kinds of content, be deemed out of bounds.

But in another sense, McChesney and Nichols are probably correct: For such a scheme to work, it probably can’t come with any content strings, because this is probably what the First Amendment would require.  Yet they don’t actually explain that point, stopping only to say that we all just have to become more tolerant of “dissent”— i.e., subsidize those who disagree with us!  In this sense, news vouchers therefore would likely fall prey to a common paradox faced by proposals for the government to subsidize speech: What’s politically feasible is unconstitutional and what’s constitutional is politically impossible.  Specifically, the kinds of eligibility restrictions necessary to push a voucher scheme through Congress would probably cause the courts to strike down the whole scheme.  Even if the courts were willing to strike down only the eligibility provisions as “severable” from the rest of the scheme, the whole scheme would likely die in the very next federal budget if the courts require the funding of “offensive” or “frivolous” content.  Understanding why this is the case requires a brief overview of key First Amendment case law.

In general, “when the Government appropriates public funds to establish a program it is entitled to define the limits of that program.”^[33] Thus, in its 1991 Rust v. Sullivan decision, the Supreme Court upheld a law forbidding federal funding for family planning services to go to abortion counseling.^[34] But the Supreme Court later clarified that such viewpoint discrimination is permissible only “[w]hen the government disburses public funds to private entities to convey a governmental message.”^[35] By contrast, where subsidies are “designed to facilitate private speech,” government may not discriminate against viewpoints it does not like.^[36] Thus, the government may not fund legal services but bar funding for defendants trying to amend or otherwise challenge existing welfare law.^[37]

The First Amendment prohibits not only such viewpoint discrimination but content discrimination as well.  In 2003, the Supreme Court held that the University of Virginia could not exclude religious groups from drawing on the University’s Student Activity Fund, even though the Fund’s eligibility requirements did not discriminate against any particular religion.^[38] Yet in 1995, the Court had upheld another content restriction: a requirement that the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) “take into consideration general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public” when making grants to “help create and sustain not only a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry but also the material conditions facilitating the release of . . . creative talent.”^[39] The Court concluded, in an 8-1 majority, that the “’decency and respect’ criteria do not silence speakers by expressly threaten[ing] censorship of ideas.”^[40] This decision rested largely on the fact that “Educational programs are central to the NEA’s mission” and “it is well established that ‘decency’ is a permissible factor where ‘educational suitability’ motivates its consideration.”^[41] The Court left the door open to future First Amendment challenges to the statute “as applied,” such as “[i]f the NEA were to leverage its power to award subsidies on the basis of subjective criteria into a penalty on disfavored viewpoints.”^[42]

What explains these starkly different outcomes is that the Court decided that the University of Virginia’s Student Activity Fund constituted a “limited public forum”^[43] intended to “encourage a diversity of views from private speakers,” but the NEA did not.  The University had funded all speech except “religious editorial viewpoints” from its Student Activities Fund, into which every student paid a $14 mandatory fee each semester.  By contrast, the NEA made only a limited number of grants through a “competitive process” according to principles of inherently content-based principles of “excellence” as well as “geographic, ethnic, and esthetic diversity.”  Thus, it was permissible, in principle, for the NEA to exclude “indecent” content.

The Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. American Library Association, Inc. (2003) also suggests that content restrictions regarding Citizen News Vouchers would be struck down.  The Court held that the First Amendment did not bar Congress from requiring in the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) that “a public library may not receive federal assistance to provide Internet access unless it installs software to block images that constitute obscenity or child pornography, and to prevent minors from obtaining access to material that is harmful to them.”^[44] Critically, the Court held that libraries were not public fora:

A public library does not acquire Internet terminals in order to create a public forum for Web publishers to express themselves, any more than it collects books in order to provide a public forum for the authors of books to speak. It provides Internet access, not to “encourage a diversity of views from private speakers” … but for the same reasons it offers other library resources: to facilitate research, learning, and recreational pursuits by furnishing materials of requisite and appropriate quality.^[45]

But what is the purpose of the news voucher scheme if not to “encourage a diversity of views from private speakers?”  Indeed, this is precisely how McChesney and Nichols attempt to sell their scheme—as a “libertarian’s dream.”  But, paradoxically, the more “libertarian” and broader subsidies for speech are, the more likely the political/constitutional paradox mentioned above is to arise.

The Citizenship News Voucher Fund proposed by McChesney and Nichols strongly resembles the University of Virginia’s Student Activity Fund:  In both cases, consumers are taxed to finance a fund that is, in theory, available to any entity that meets certain basic eligibility criteria.  No attempt is made in either case to ensure the quality of content or activities being funded.  Indeed, McChesney and Nichols explicitly reject such oversight of voucher spending and insist that taxpayers must accept that much of the fund will simply be wasted on media that falls well short of the “hard” or “serious” news they’re trying to save.  (By contrast, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, whose budget McChesney and Nichols propose increasing nine-fold to fund more public media,[46] more closely resembles the NEA as a selective grant-maker.)

Also distinguishing the Court’s decision upholding CIPA’s content-based restrictions is the fact that both Justice Kennedy in his concurrence and Justice Souter in his dissent (joined by Justice Ginsburg) agreed that First Amendment problems could be solved to the extent that adults could opt-out of filtering.^[47] But with news vouchers, the government either restricts the eligibility of certain publications to receive vouchers depending on their eligibility or it does not.

Furthermore, unlike with CIPA or the NEA, the Citizenship News Voucher wouldn’t be related to educational settings, so it’s not even clear a “decency” requirement like that Congress imposed on the NEA’s grant-making could be imposed on voucher eligibility.[48] Magazines like Playboy offer a mix of pornography and thoughtful commentary on the news, proving that there is a market for such combination of journalism and controversial entertainment and photography.  Going even further, “Naked News” is a daily show whose buxom anchors strip while delivering the news.^[49] Why wouldn’t millions of Americans, especially younger men, use their voucher for such content?  Who’s going to draw the line between porn-spiced news and “serious” content?

The typical taxpayer will be outraged by having to subsidize some media outlet, whether because of its objectionable viewpoint or indecent or unserious content.  He will fiercely resist being compelled “to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors,” as Jefferson put it.  Good luck getting even the most “tolerant” gay voters, for example, to accept being taxed to pay for fundamentalist Christian perspectives on the news—or vice versa!  McChesney and Nichols don’t actually say anything about the First Amendment, but do recognize that, for their program to be accepted, the American people will have to swallow the “hard pill” of accepting that “some of the vouchers are going to go to media that they detest” and “embrace dissent in reality and not just rhetoric.”^[50] They seem to think this “hard pill” is a benefit of their scheme because it would teach us all to be more tolerant of “dissent.”  That’s easy for an endowed professor at a taxpayer-funded university and avowed neo-Marxist like Robert McChesney to say, but it’s not likely to fly with most Americans.  Disputes over “qualifying entity” eligibility will only add new rancor to the Culture Wars (over sex, abortion, religion, politics, etc.).

Realistically, it would likely take years for a news voucher bill to make its way through Congress, and if it ever did pass, it would likely be tied up in the courts for years, requiring at least one visit to the Supreme Court.  If any content strings are included, the law could well lead to the same kind of ordeal as with the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, which spent nearly 9 years in litigation and went up to the Supreme Court twice.^[51] Yet somehow McChesney and Nichols imagine their proposal will save media today at this critical moment of technological transition.

Down with Copyright, Down with Capitalism?

There’s another problematic caveat to the McChesney-Nichols variant of the news voucher idea: They would disallow any copyright protection or advertising support for an entity who receives voucher funds.  That’s an effort by the authors to steer even more media activity away from the commercial sphere and toward what might be thought of as a “public option” for the press—what McChesney and Nichols euphemistically (and repeatedly) call “post-corporate” media.

Let’s not forget that McChesney has argued (during an interview on 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.”  So, it’s important to keep his true intentions in mind when he starts claiming to have found “a libertarian’s dream” of a solution to what ails America’s media sector.^[52] It sounds more like a central planner’s dream.  The true “libertarian’s dream” would be to leave Americans free to make their own choices about media without additional meddling from the State, and to look to innovation to fund media through a combination of advertising, sponsorship, subscriptions and micropayments.

Related PFF Publications

• The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 2: Broadcast Spectrum Taxes to Subsidize Public Media , Adam Thierer, Progress on Point 17.2, March 2010.
• The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 1: Taxes on Consumer Electronics, Mobile Phones & Broadband, Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, PFF Progress on Point 17.1, March 2010.
• 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 and 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] Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 1: Taxes on Consumer Electronics, Mobile Phones & Broadband, PFF Progress on Point 17.1, March 2010, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/2010/pop17.1-the_wrong_way_to_reinvent_media.pdf.

[2] Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 2: Broadcast Spectrum Taxes to Subsidize Public Media, Progress on Point 17.2, March 2010, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/2010/pop17.2-wrong_way_part_2.pdf

[3] “Until now, the iron core of news has been somewhat sheltered by an economic model that was able to provide extra resources beyond what readers—and advertisers—would financially support. This kind of news is expensive to produce, especially investigative reporting.” Alex S. Jones, Losing the News: The Future of the News that Feeds Democracy (2009) at 4.

[4] “For a long time, publishers have used news as a ‘loss leader,’ a product sold below costs to create other sales.” The Media Consortium, The Big Thaw: Charting a New Future for Journalism, July 2009, at 36, www.themediaconsortium.org/thebigthaw.

[5] James T. Hamilton notes that, “nonpartisan reporting emerged as a commercial product in American newspaper markets in the 1870s.  Before that time, many papers openly proclaimed association with a particular political party.”  James T. Hamilton, All the News That’s Fit to Sell (2004), at 3.

[6] 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.” See Federal Communications Commission, FCC Launches Examination of the Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities in a Digital Age, FCC Public Notice, GN Docket No. 10-25, Jan. 21, 2010, at 2, http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-100A1.pdf

[7] The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has hosted two workshops asking “How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?” www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/index.shtml

[8] Both the Senate and House of Representatives have 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 nonprofit organizations in an effort to help them stay afloat—but also curtail their political editorializing.  See http://cardin.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=310392.

[9] Robert W. McChesney & John Nichols, The Death and Life of American Journalism (2010) at 201-206. McChesney discussed this idea in more detail when he spoke at the recent FTC event on saving journalism.  Robert W. McChesney, Rejuvenating American Journalism: Some Tentative Policy Proposals, Presentation to FTC Workshop on Journalism, March 10, 2010, www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/mar9/docs/mcchesney.pdf

[10] Dean Baker, The Artistic Freedom Voucher: An Internet Age Alternative to Copyrights, Nov. 5, 2003, www.cepr.net/documents/publications/ip_2003_11.pdf.

[11] Free Press, Saving the News: Toward a National Journalism Strategy, May 2009, at 36, www.freepress.net/files/saving_the_news.pdf.

[12] McChesney & Nichols, supra note 9 at 205.

[13] Id. at 204.

[14] Richard H. Thaler & Cass R. Sunstein, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness (2008).

[15] They define choice architecture as follows:  “A structure designed by a choice architect(s) to improve the quality of decisions made by homo sapiens. Often invisible, choice architecture is the specific user-friendly shape of an organization’s policy or physical building when homo sapiens come into contact with it. Examples of choice architecture include a voter ballot, a procedure for handling well-meaning people who forget a deadline, or a skyscraper.”  Nudge Glossary of Terms, www.nudges.org/glossary.cfm.

[16] See Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, What Unites Advocates of Speech Controls & Privacy Regulation?, Progress on Point 16.19, Aug. 11, 2009, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/2009/pop16.19-unites-speech-and-privacy-reg-advocates.pdf.

[17] As Glen Whitman notes in challenging such “nudging”: “the new paternalism carries a serious risk of expansion. Following its policy recommendations places us on a slippery slope from soft paternalism to hard. This would be true even if policymakers — including legislators, judges, bureaucrats, and voters — were completely rational. But the danger is especially great if policymakers exhibit the same cognitive biases attributed to the people they’re trying to help.”  Glen Whitman, The Rise of the New Paternalism, Cato Unbound, April 5, 2010, www.cato-unbound.org/2010/04/05/glen-whitman/the-rise-of-the-new-paternalism.

[18] Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Why Expansion of the FCC’s Public Interest Regulatory Regime is Unwise, Unneeded, Unconstitutional, and Unenforceable, Testimony Before the Federal Communications Commission Hearing on “Serving the Public Interest in the Digital Era,” March 4, 2010, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/testimony/2010/2010-03-04-Thierer_Remarks_at_FCC_Hearing.pdf.

[19] Ellen P. Goodman, “Proactive Media Policy in an Age of Content Abundance,” in Philip M. Napoli, ed., Media Diversity and Localism: Meaning and Metrics (2007) at 370, 374.

[20] Id.

[21] Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion (1922), at 53, 57.

[22] For example, among other things, McChesney and Nichols call for a 5% tax on consumer electronics, a 3% tax on monthly ISP & cell phone bills, a 2% sales tax on advertising, and a 7% tax on broadcasters.  See McChesney & Nichols, supra note 9 at 209-11.

[23] Id. at 202.

[24] Id.

[25] Id.

[26] Id.

[27] Id. at 205.

[28] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001289_who_pays.pdf

[29] McChesney & Nichols, supra note 9 at 205.

[30] Jonathan Weisman, Economic Policy ‘Nudge’ Gives Way to a Shove, Wall Street Journal, March 8, 2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704869304575103980232739138.html.

[31] http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html

[32] McChesney & Nichols, supra note 9 at 205.

[33] Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 194 (1991).

[34] Id. (emphasis added).

[35] Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 833 (1995) (emphasis added).

[36] Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 US 533, 542 (2001).  The Court in Rosenberger noted:

even in the provision of subsidies, the Government may not “ai[m] at the suppression of dangerous ideas,” Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Wash., 461 U.S. 540, 550 (1983), and if a subsidy were “manipulated” to have a “coercive effect,” then relief could be appropriate. See Arkansas Writers’ Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221, 237 (1987) (Scalia, J., dissenting); see also Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U.S. 439, 447 (1991) (“[D]ifferential taxation of First Amendment speakers is constitutionally suspect when it threatens to suppress the expression of particular ideas or viewpoints”). In addition…, a more pressing constitutional question would arise if Government funding resulted in the imposition of a disproportionate burden calculated to drive “certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace.” Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N. Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 116 (1991).

Id. at 587.

[37] 531 U.S. at 542.

[38] Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 833 (1995).  The University’s rule prohibited funding of any group that “primarily promotes or manifests a particular belie[f] in or about a deity or an ultimate reality.”

[39] National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569, 574 (1998).

[40] 524 U.S. at 583 (quoting R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) (internal quotations omitted).

[41] Id. at 584 (citing  Board of Ed., Island Trees Union Free School Dist. No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 871 (1982); see also Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 683 (1986)).

[42] Id. at 587.

[43] 515 U.S. 819 (1995).

[44] U.S. v. American Library Association, Inc., 539 U.S. 194 (2003).  See generally Robert Corn-Revere, United States v. American Library Association: A Missed Opportunity for the Supreme Court to Clarify Application of First Amendment Law to Publicly Funded Expressive Institutions, Cato Supreme Court Rev. 105, 2003, www.cato.org/pubs/scr2003/publiclyfunded.pdf.

[45] Id. at 207 (quoting Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 834).

[46] McChesney & Nichols, supra note 9 at 192, 199.

[47] “If, on the request of an adult user, a librarian will unblock filtered material or disable the Internet software filter without significant delay, there is little to this case.” American Library Association, 539 U.S. at 214 (Kennedy, J. concurring).  Justice Souter agreed that it would ‘‘tak[e] the curse off the statute for all practical purposes’’ if adult patrons could obtain an unblocked Internet terminal ‘‘simply for the asking,’’ but doubted this would actually happen in practice.  Id. at 232.

[48] Cf. Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 584 (“Educational programs are central to the NEA’s mission.… And it is well established that ‘decency’ is a permissible factor where ‘educational suitability’ motivates its consideration.”).

[49] See www.nakednews.com.

[50] Id. at 205.

[51] See Adam Thierer, Closing the Book on COPA?, Technology Liberation Front, Jan. 21, 2009, http://techliberation.com/2009/01/21/closing-the-book-on-copa/.

[52] Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Free Press, Robert McChesney & the “Struggle” for Media, Aug. 10, 2009, http://blog.pff.org/archives/2009/08/free_press_robert_mcchesney_the_struggle_for_media.html

Wrong Way to Reinvent Media Part 3 – Media Vouchers [Thierer & Szoka – PFF] http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf

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

Noting that the Telecom Act has become ” irrelevant to the ecosystem that has developed,” Verizon’s Executive Vice President Tom Tauke today called for Congress to overhaul the nation’s archaic communications laws and the regulatory regime that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is currently attempting to pigeonhole the Internet and entire Digital Economy into.  It’s an excellent speech, and I encourage you to read the entire thing (which I have embedded down below the fold in a Scribd reader).

“[T]he test for government intervention in the marketplace is to prevent either harm to users or anti-competitive activity,” he said. He rightly noted that, in an age of technological convergence and vigorous cross-platform competition, the old silo-based approach of the Telecom Act — with its various Titles for outmoded market definitions — no longer makes any sense. He noted:

by the very nature of the Internet Ecosystem, many are working together or competing in other company’s turf. Computer companies sell phones, and quite successfully. Search engines sell open operating systems. Network providers create their own apps stores. That means that the value proposition to the consumer is really a package created by many companies acting together with little, if any, regard to their previous corporate histories. So no set of companies should be immune from scrutiny.

Of course, a regulatory regime already exists that accomplishes this goal: antitrust law. But Tauke’s proposal isn’t quite that sweeping. He doesn’t call for the FCC to be dynamited the ground and to just shift everything into the antitrust bucket, which some of us would prefer. Instead, he speaks generically about the need for a more sensible process — most likely still enforced by the FCC — that would work as follows:

we could structure a process that uses the innovative, flexible and technology-driven nature of the Internet to address issues as they arise. Instead of the traditional rule-making process, federal enforcement agencies could structure themselves around an ongoing engagement with Internet engineers and technologists to analyze technology trends, define norms to guide such questions as network management, and understand in advance the implications of new, emerging technologies.

Moreover, he advocates greater reliance on expert technical opinion and interaction to help inform the policy process:

Technology leaders and experts from all players involved in the Internet should set up voluntary organizations and forums to provide advice, recommendations, and advisory opinions to government agencies. This will help inform the agencies’ role as backstops that deter damaging activities that undermine the vibrant competition and openness that defines the Internet.

Again, he doesn’t really make it clear who will be administering this new process; his focus on getting Congress to clear out the old regulatory cobwebs and adopt a fresh policy approach for the Digital Age.

Of course, it remains to be seen if anyone in Congress will bite. Many policymakers’ idea of “reform” is to just layer on more misguided regulations to the old system. It’s like attempting to renovate a dilapidated old home by adding a fresh coat of paint and new window treatments. That fact is, the foundations are still crumbling.  Fundamental change is needed, and fast.

I was hoping that Tauke would come right out and endorse what continues to be the best “third way” alternative out there: Progress & Freedom Foundation’s “Digital Age Communications Act” or “DACA” framework. In 2005-6, PFF brought together over 50 leading scholars–a non-partisan collection of lawyers, economists, engineers and others—with the ultimate aim of crafting a regulatory framework that is adaptive to the frequently changing communications landscape. The resulting Digital Age Communications Act  proposal advocated tearing down the old regulatory paradigms and replacing them all with a Federal Trade Commission-like “unfair competition” standard.

Under DACA, the FCC would retain some baseline regulatory authority to oversee the marketplace but this authority would be quite limited and would be based on more settled principles of competition law and economics (namely, streamlined antitrust regulation). Serious anti-competitive corporate actions that lead to demonstrable consumer harm would still be policed and punished under DACA. But this would be done on a limited, case-by-case basis without prejudging business models or practices or by imposing prophylactic regulatory regimes. In essence, DACA stood for the proposition that an  ex post form of regulatory oversight was infinitely preferable to ex ante forms of preemptive and prophylactic regulation by the FCC.

To be clear, this is regulation. And, on a personal note, when the DACA working group released its initial framework in June 2005, I dissented to the plan on the grounds that DACA did not do enough to tie the hands of regulators. Moreover, I argued that there was no need to import a competition policy regime into the FCC when the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice remain perfectly capable of enforcing antitrust laws when anti-competitive conduct can be proven.

Nonetheless, the DACA framework would be vastly superior to the sort of heavy-handed regulatory approach that some defenders of the ancien regime still favor.  DACA has the added advantage of not being as susceptible to the problems of regulatory creep and regulatory capture.

Tauke didn’t go quite that far today, but I do hope that if Congress got around to reopening the Telecom Act and freshening up public policy in this area that they’d give DACA a second look.  It’s a reasonable “third way” approach that would satisfy many of the goals of traditional regulatory policy regime without all the excess baggage. Tom Tauke’s call for Congress to at least reopen and reconsider the broken old regime is the first step toward that goal.

Prepared Remarks of Verizon EVP Tom Tauke 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.

By Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer

This morning, The Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed joint comments with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the inquiry “Empowering Parents and Protecting Children in an Evolving Media Landscape.” (MB Docket No. 09-194)  As Adam summarized here before, the stated purpose of this FCC Notice of Inquiry is to:

seek information on the extent to which children are using electronic media today, the benefits and risks these technologies bring for children, and the ways in which parents, teachers, and children can help reap the benefits while minimizing the risks [and] to gather data and recommendations from experts, industry, and parents that will enable us to identify actions that all stakeholders can take to enable parents and children to navigate this promising electronic media landscape safely and successfully.

In our joint comments with Lee Tien and Seth David Schoen of EFF, we warned that the FCC should tread carefully when considering taking action on areas described in their inquiry. The agency simply has no authority to act on many of the topics discussed throughout the NOI, and it should not attempt to preempt successful private sector solutions. Congress never authorized the Commission to regulate Internet media, nor asked the agency to consider doing so.  In fact, Congress plainly declared that the Internet should be kept “unfettered by Federal or State regulation.”

Any regulation of online media would also fail to pass First Amendment scrutiny, as there are less restrictive means than government regulation to control minors’ access to objectionable content.  In addition, any mandate on content creators or access providers to rate or tag content would constitute compelled speech.

In response to the agency’s request for comments on the awareness and adoption of parental control technologies, we catalog the diverse array of tools and methods available to parents to tailor their exposure to potentially objectionable media and advertising, but advise that only a small percentage of U.S. households potentially need such technologies.  We also warn against a government-run content ratings system because of the overwhelming volume of content available online and because content outside the U.S. would be outside the government’s jurisdiction but just as easily accessible.

Finally, we also respond to the agency’s questions concerning children and advertising, explaining that, in addition to jurisdictional and First Amendment concerns, increased regulation of advertisements could have a negative impact on the production of children’s programming and content, since the majority of this content is supported by advertising or, on the Internet, flows over platforms like YouTube and Facebook that are supported by advertising.

In light of such concerns, “the Commission should continue what it began with its Child Safe Viewing Act Notice by expanding information and education about existing tools and ratings systems and encouraging parents to use these tools and methods and to talk to their children about appropriate media use,” we conclude.  “Beyond that narrow Congressionally-sanctioned mission, the Commission should tread cautiously.”

Read the entire filing here or down below in the Scribd reader.

PFF-EFF Response to FCC Empowering Parents Protecting Children NOI MB 09-194 http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf

Can the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) just do anything it wants? If it wants to bring the entire Internet under its thumb, or regulate any speech uttered over electronic media, can it just do so on a whim? The agency’s recent actions on the Net neutrality and free speech fronts seems to suggest that the agency thinks so.

I don’t need to rehash here what the FCC has been up to on the Net neutrality front.  Most everyone is familiar with how the agency has essentially been trying to invent its authority to regulate out of thin air.  If you want the whole ugly history of how this charade has unfolded over past few years, I encourage you to read these amazing comments filed today in the FCC’s net neutrality NPRM proceeding by my PFF colleague Barbara Esbin.  Barbara simply demolishes the FCC’s argument that it can do anything it wants under the guise of its “ancillary jurisdiction.” As Barbara argues in her comments, the FCC’s position “is akin to saying that the FCC can regulate if its actions are ancillary to its ancillary jurisdiction, and that is one ancillary too many.”  She notes that:

The proposed rules regulating the services and network management practices of broadband Internet providers must rest, if at all, on the Commission‘s implied or ancillary jurisdiction and the NPRM fails to provide a basis upon which the exercise of such jurisdiction can be considered lawful.

She shows how farcical it is for the FCC to concoct its supposed authority to regulate from provisions of the Communications Act that have nothing whatsoever to do with Net neutrality or even expanding regulation in general. Specifically, the agency’s reliance on sections 230(b) and 706(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is completely outlandish.  Anyone who knows a lick about telecom law and the nature of those two sections understands they were never intended to serve as the basis of an expansive new regulatory regime for the Internet. As Barbara puts it:

This exercise—searching for snippets and threads of regulatory authority over a communications medium as significant as the Internet in multiple, unrelated statutory provisions—should signal to the Commission that no credible source of authority to regulate Internet services exists.

All I have to say is, thank God for checks and balances. I believe the courts will put a stop to this nonsense, but it will take some time.  Until then, I suppose the FCC will continue to act like a rogue agency, hell-bent and tossing the constitution to the wind and concocting asinine theories about why they should be allowed to do anything they want. But there are signs that the courts are ready to start holding the FCC more accountable.

If you want some concrete proof, Exhibit A would be the recent D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals oral arguments in the Comcast v. FCC case, which involves the FCC’s assertion of Net neutrality authority from vague “principles” it laid down a few years back. The headline from Wired about the court arguments really says all you need to know: “Court to FCC: You Don’t Have Power to Enforce Net Neutrality.”  Indeed, by all accounts, things did not go well for the agency. “No decision has been made yet,” reports Tony Bradley of PC World, ” but, if Friday’s arguments… are any indication, it doesn’t appear that the FCC will prevail in exerting its authority over Comcast.”

Exhibit B would be the stunning oral arguments that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York heard this week in the remand hearing of the case Fox Television v. FCC. You have to watch this video of the arguments to appreciate just how fed up some judges are with this agency.  It is like nothing else I have ever seen.  Andy Schwartzman of Media Access Project described it as “a slaughter,” and an unnamed source told John Eggerton of Broadcasting & Cable, “To say that the justices were extremely skeptical of the FCC’s application of the indecency law from a constitutional perspective in this case is an understatement.”  I’ll say.  Watch it yourself to see.

Meanwhile, as I’ve been writing here lately, the FCC is busy trying to expand or invent new authority to regulate digital media and online safety issues in its “Child Safe Viewing Act” and “Empowering Parents and Protecting Children” proceedings. The agency also recently began looking at cloud computing, forcing me to wonder, “Is the FCC Becoming the Federal Cloud Commission?”  And then there was the Commission strong-arming of Apple about the iPhone app store process. Who knows where that authority came from.  Finally, just yesterday, the FCC launched a new inquiry into privacy issues — get this — as part of its National Broadband Plan! The agency is asking for public comment about “the use of personal information and privacy in an online, broadband world.” (Someone should probably call the Federal Trade Commission and let them know that that there is a new sheriff in town!) Again, no word where the FCC’s authority to do any of this comes from.  When it comes to statutory authority, it’s an ‘anything-goes’ world over at the FCC these days. They just make it up as they go along.

Simply put, the FCC is out of control and I sincerely hope the courts rope it back in soon. If the agency wants the authority to regulate in any of these areas, it should go to Congress and ask for it.  That’s how things are suppose to work in a constitutional republic.  Until then, FCC officials should stop behaving as if they are above the law.

by Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, Progress Snaphot 6.1

Stephanie Clifford of the  New York Times posted a very interesting article this week summarizing a recent “on-the-record chat” the Times staff had with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chairman Jon Leibowitz and FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection chief David Vladeck.  The interview [discussed by Braden here] is profoundly important in that it reveals an alarming disconnect regarding the relationship between “privacy” regulation and the future of media, which were the subjects of their discussion with Times staff.  Namely, Leibowitz and Vladeck apparently fail to appreciate how the delicate balance between commercial advertising and journalism is at risk precisely because of the sort of regulations they apparently are ready to adopt.  Because the value of online advertising depends on data about its effectiveness and consumers’ likely interests, and because advertising is indispensable to funding media, what’s ultimately at stake here is nothing short of the future of press freedom.

The “Day of Reckoning” Is Upon Us

Leibowitz and Vladeck spend the first half of The Times interview wringing their hands about “privacy policies,” the declarations made by websites and advertising networks about their data collection and use practices (for which the FTC can and must hold them accountable).  But the two feel that privacy policies don’t adequately inform consumers.  Chairman Leibowitz claims that online companies “haven’t given consumers effective notice, so they can make effective choices.”  And Mr. Vladeck states that advise-and-consent models “depended on the fiction that people were meaningfully giving consent.” But he and the FTC seem ready to abandon the notice and choice model because the “literature is clear” that few people read privacy policies, Vladeck told the Times.  He and Leibowitz continue:

“Philosophically, we wonder if we’re moving to a post-disclosure era and what that would look like,” Mr. Vladeck said. “What’s the substitute for it?” He said the commission was still looking into the issue, but it hoped to have an answer by June or July, when it plans to publish a report on the subject. Mr. Leibowitz gave a hint as to what might be included: “I have a sense, and it’s still amorphous, that we might head toward opt-in,” Mr. Leibowitz said.

This clearly foreshadows the regulatory endgame we have long suspected was coming.  When the FTC released its “Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising” eleven months ago, we asked: “What’s the Harm & Where Are We Heading?”  Their answers to both questions have become clearer with each new calculated comment—all apparently intended to slowly “turn up the heat” on the advertising industry so that the proverbial frog will stay in the pot until the water finally boils.  Leibowitz’s FTC has simply dodged the “harm” question with a four-part strategy:

1. Cobble together a “record” full of sympathy-evoking anecdotes submitted by advocates of regulation in comments and the FTC’s ongoing “Exploring Privacy” Roundtables;
2. Let the most extreme Chicken Littles fulminate about the grand conspiracy of “neuromarketing manipulation” and the like (and sometimes even shout down FTC staff in panel discussions) in order to redefine the “reasonable center” of the debate;
3. Define-down “harm” as purely a matter of “consumer expectations” or consumers’ “dignity interests” (whatever that vague and infinitely elastic term means); and
4. Attack the effectiveness of “consent” itself by suggesting that consumers cannot be trusted to understand privacy policies or be expected to make any effort to protect their own privacy.

Conveniently, this strategy leads right back to the “day of reckoning” Chairman Leibowitz threatened was coming last February: We are heading precisely where he told us we would be—to full-on, opt-in regulation.  The writing on the wall becomes more apparent every day: Leibowitz set out to bring online advertising to heel even before becoming Chairman, and his Commission is reprising almost precisely the same approach that led to the passage of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) of 1998: building a case for new authority, dismissing industry self-regulation as ineffective, and finally presenting a report to Congress intended to produce a rapid legislative response.  After the FTC presented its report on the need for regulation in congressional testimony in June 1998, it took Congress just four months to pass COPPA—and much of that time was consumed by the summer recess.  In short, Leibowitz is mounting a carefully choreographed campaign for increased regulation.

The only real question is whether Leibowitz will somehow try to use the FTC’s existing authority over “unfair or deceptive” trade practices or wait for expanded authority from Congress.  While most observers typically assume that such expanded authority would come in the form of a privacy-specific bill—be it a broad “baseline” privacy bill or one specifically focused on online data collection for advertising purposes—the authority Leibowitz yearns for could just as easily come in the form of increased rulemaking authority as part of a broader bill that allows the FTC to preemptively regulate practices that are not deceptive but merely deemed “unfair.”

This would take the agency “ Back to the Future”—to the late 1970s, when the agency reached the height of its efforts to regulate purely on “unfairness” grounds by trying to ban advertising to children.  The agency’s behavior earned it the moniker “National Nanny” from the Washington Post, hardly a bastion of regulatory skepticism.[1] That outpouring of popular resentment caused a heavily Democratic Congress to cut-off the Democratic-led agency’s regular funding and prohibit it from regulating advertising merely on the grounds of “unfairness.”  In essence, they told the agency to “go back to its knitting” and focus on protecting consumers from demonstrated harms.^[2] Duly chastened (and actually shut down for several days), the FTC formulated a meaningful legal standard for “unfairness,” which Congress codified in 1994: for a practice to be unfair, the injury it causes must be (1) substantial, (2) without offsetting benefits, and (3) one that consumers cannot reasonably avoid.

Under this statutory standard, as FTC Commissioner Thomas Rosch has argued, the commission must carefully consider:

[the] legitimate pro-consumer and pro-competitive benefits that result from [targeted advertising]. Absent hard data weighing these benefits against the limited “invasion of privacy interests” involved, it would seem difficult to conclude that treating that practice as an actionable violation of the “unfairness” prong of Section 5 will pass muster.[3]

So Leibowitz and Vladeck either need to get serious about weighing the costs and benefits of targeted advertising—or, in the absence of such actually measuring these trade-offs, get Congress to give them the authority to regulate.  But one thing is clear from their past statements: they are in a hurry to do  something. As Vladeck told The Times last August, “There is a sense of urgency around here… Consumers, I don’t think are sufficiently protected under the current regime.”  Apparently, the case is closed in their minds.

“Left Hand, Meet Right Hand”

The second half of the  Times interview concerns the future of news. Chairman Leibowitz is not optimistic:

“There are some areas where you clearly see positive creative destruction,” Mr. Leibowitz said, giving the example of travel agents who were replaced by Orbitz and other online-booking systems. The news, he said, was not one of those. “When you’re dealing with something as critical as news is to a democracy, you need to ensure, certainly, that it’s independent, but also that it’s vibrant going forward,” he said. Areas like investigative reporting, foreign and domestic bureaus, and state-house reporting, he said, would likely falter under blog operations because of “economies of scale.”

He said he wasn’t sure what the solution was, but threw out a few ideas discussed at the conference: maybe special tax treatment for newspapers, a Corporation for Public Broadcasting-like fund, or for the newspaper industry to charge fees for the re-use of its content, similar to the model that the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers uses. [emphasis added]

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, haven’t you forgotten about the solution that has powered private media for a few centuries in this country?  You know— advertising!  Indeed, what’s stunning about these comments is the complete disconnect with what Leibowitz and Vladeck said earlier in the interview.  It certainly may be the case that they said more on the subject than what The Times has reported, but given their escalating rhetoric, it seems likely that significantly increased FTC regulation is on the horizon.  And, yet, as Chairman Leibowitz marches us into this brave new world of regulating Internet media through their key funding source, he and Mr. Vladeck seem to have little appreciation of the vital role played by advertising in sustaining a truly free and vibrant press.

An Attack on Advertising Is an Attack on Media Itself

Let’s step back and revisit Media Economics 101.  Almost every serious scholar in the field acknowledges this truism: Advertising cross-subsidizes media platforms and the creation of valuable information—especially news.  “Advertising is the mother’s milk of all the mass media,”  Wall Street Journal technology columnist Walt Mossberg has noted.  Similarly, Harold L. Vogel, author of Entertainment Industry Economics, the leading text in the field, has noted, “Advertising is the key common ingredient in the tactics and strategies of all entertainment and media company business models.  Indeed, it might further be said that advertising has substantively subsidized the production and delivery of news and entertainment throughout the last century.”[4] Mossberg agrees and notes, “Without ads, most editorial products and other programming would be either unavailable or prohibitively expensive.”

The reason for the indispensability of advertising is simple: Information (including news and other forms of “content”) has “public good” characteristics that make it is very difficult (and occasionally impossible) for information-publishers to recoup their investments.  Simply put, they quite literally lack pricing power: Whatever they charge, someone else will charge less for a close substitute, inevitably leading to “free” distribution of the content, even though the content is anything but free to produce.  Advertising is the one business model that has traditionally saved the day by rewarding publishers for attracting the attention of an audience.

Which raises another under-appreciated point: Private advertising promotes press independence.  “Newspapers, magazines, radio, television, and many websites all receive their primary income from advertising,” notes William F. Arens, author of  Contemporary Advertising, another leading textbook in the field. “This facilitates freedom of the press and promotes more complete information” he concludes.[5] Why?  Because, contrary to what some critics claim, advertising and marketing help keep private media providers independent of the need for taxpayer subsidies or private patrons.  This begs an even more profound question: If not advertising, then what else?

A “Public Option” for the Press?

What’s most troubling about Chairman Leibowitz’s comments to the Times is that he has apparently found his alternative to advertising: a “public option” for the press! He mentions special tax treatment for newspapers or a new CPB-like fund (don’t we already have one?) as two possibilities.  That certainly will be music to the ears of radical, pro-regulatory activist groups like the ironically-named “Free Press,” which wants to see a massive “public works” program for the media sector.

Free Press recently filed comments with the FTC in the agency’s recent workshop, “Can Journalism Survive the Internet Age?” and proposed a far-reaching industrial policy for “saving the news.”  They call for over $50 billion in subsidies for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and other bureaucracies, a “journalism jobs program” for that would be part of AmeriCorps, a variety of new tax incentives for struggling media operations or individuals who support favored institutions, and an assortment of government incentives to encourage local ownership and media divestiture (by handing over control to smaller operators or minority-owned groups).  Ironically, “Free Press” has also floated the concept of “a small tax on advertising” as one way to pay for a press bailout.

The organization’s founder Robert W. McChesney, the prolific neo-Marxist media scholar, penned an essay with John Nichols of The Nation last year, claiming that saving journalism essentially requires that media become an appendage of the State.  Although advertising has supported journalism as a “public good” for centuries, the only way they can conceive to provide a public good is to socialize its means of production.  Thus, journalism, like education and national defense, requires constant government oversight and support: “A moment has arrived at which we must recognize the need to invest tax dollars to create and maintain news gathering, reporting and writing with the purpose of informing all our citizens.”  They ask us to consider the $60 billion in government spending they propose as a “free press ‘infrastructure project,’” which would “keep the press system alive.”

Some in Congress seem willing to listen.  The Senate has already held hearings about the future of journalism.  And Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) recently introduced what he has called the “Newspaper Revitalization Act,” which would allow newspapers to become nonprofit organizations in an effort to help them stay afloat.  Importantly, however, the bill would also disallow political endorsements on newspaper editorial pages—which, like campaign finance restrictions, would be a boon for incumbent politicians.  That bill should serve as fair warning to journalists about the sort of strings lawmakers will attach to press-welfare efforts going forward.  What other “golden shackles” might come with media subsidies?

To be clear, Chairman Leibowitz hasn’t called for a complete press takeover along the lines of the Free Press plan.  Yet, he hasn’t answered a key question in this debate: Who pays for news?  He appears ready to endorse a bold new regulatory scheme for the Internet and online media that, in the name of “protecting privacy” would put at risk the one traditionally successful method of supporting private media operations—advertising.  As the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism noted in its latest State of the News Media report, “The problem facing American journalism is not fundamentally an audience problem or a credibility problem.  It is a revenue problem—the decoupling… of advertising from news.”  There’s probably no way policymakers can stop this process, nor should they try.  But they shouldn’t be creating new obstacles to the survival of traditional media creators, either.

Unfortunately, that’s exactly what Chairman Leibowitz’s new regulatory scheme would do.  The revenue “delta” between “smart” advertising (tailored to consumers’ likely interests and measured for effectiveness in producing clicks, purchases, etc.) and “dumb advertising” (based purely on surrounding keywords or demographics of users presumed to visit the site) is difficult to measure but potentially enormous—even 10 times as great for some sites.[6] The difference between opt-in and opt-out could be nearly as dramatic, because it’s difficult to get consumers to opt-in for anything, especially for small players—which means that opt-in regulation could, perversely, force consolidation in the online advertising and content markets.  If the FTC cares about its statutory responsibility to safeguard competition, they should take this dynamic seriously and be hyper-cautious about heavy-handed mandates that could derail smarter advertising.

Finally, to be fair, in his interview, the Chairman also suggests the newspaper industry might want to find new way “to charge fees for the re-use of its content.”  We’re certainly not opposed to the notion and think that, if it could somehow be made to work (especially by removing antitrust obstacles), it could part of a diverse revenue mix for digital journalism.  But, there’s the rub.  Micropayments inevitably face the problem of “mental transaction costs”  that likely swamp the perceived value of most content and, like pay-walls, have generally worked only in media environments characterized by a scarcity of providers and a uniqueness of a sufficiently valuable product.  These cold, hard economic realities are why advertising remains indispensable.

The Principled Alternative to Regulation

Convinced that privacy policies simply don’t work, Leibowitz and Vladeck are asking what a “post-disclosure era” would look like.  We appreciate the continued sensitivities expressed by certain groups and individuals about online privacy and data use more generally.  But there is another way forward.  We have proposed the following “5-E” layered approach to concerns about online privacy, focusing on restraining government access to data as a clear harm, rather than crippling the private sector uses of data that directly benefit consumers:

1. Erect a higher “Wall of Separation between Web and State” by increasing Americans’ protection from government access to their personal data—thus bringing the Fourth Amendment into the Digital Age.
2. Educate users about privacy risks and data management in general as well as specific practices and policies for safer computing.
3. Empower users to implement their privacy preferences in specific contexts as easily as possible.
4. Enhance self-regulation by industry sectors and companies to integrate with user education and empowerment.
5. Enforce existing laws against unfair and deceptive trade practices as well as state privacy tort laws.

Such a layered approach would not only be a “less restrictive” alternative to top-down, one-size-fits-all government regulation, but also potentially more effective in key respects than government data use/collection mandates.  In an ideal world, adults would be fully empowered to tailor privacy decisions, like speech decisions, to their own values and preferences (“household standards”).  Consumers 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 block the things they don’t like—annoying ads or the collection of data about them, as well as objectionable content—while also helping them find the information and content they desire.

But of course, the devil’s in the details.  Leibowitz and Vladeck would set the bar so high as to what constitutes “effective” consumer choice that current privacy policies necessarily fail their test—if only because most users don’t care enough to make the “right” privacy choices.  Privacy policies, even if read by relatively few consumers, nonetheless allow privacy advocates, journalists and watchdog-bloggers to scrutinize what companies say they’re doing—promises to which the FTC should hold companies stringently.  That’s clearly not good enough for Leibowitz and Vladeck, who want to give up on “notice and choice” and move on to “opt-in” mandates.  But why not first try to make “notice” more effective?  The advertising industry is currently developing standardized interfaces that could communicate key information about privacy practices in a single icon, label or other easily-digested “consumer touch point.”

More radically, why focus on tinkering with consumer interfaces, when standardized data disclosure formats like the Protocol for Privacy Preferences (P3P) could distill legalistic privacy policies into “machine-readable” code?  Such disclosures could provide a powerful form of “notice” that the ordinary consumer could “use”: simply setting their own privacy preferences in a browser tool that automatically implements those preferences by blocking tracking that users object to.  Such a privacy disclosure format could also allow the FTC to automate enforcement of its existing authority to punish unfair or deceptive trade practices.

Conclusion

And so we return to the question the FTC asked in its recent workshop, “Can Journalism Survive the Internet Age?”  Answer: Not if the FTC kills the golden goose that lays the golden eggs through onerous advertising regulations and data controls in the name of “privacy.”  Chairman Leibowitz and Bureau Chief Vladeck shouldn’t foreclose the possibility that advertising can play a central role in the future of a free press in the Digital Age—just as it has done historically in the United States.  Indeed, they would be wise to remember that advertising has always been with us.  As the Supreme Court noted in its 1996 decision, 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island.

Advertising has been a part of our culture throughout our history. Even in colonial days, the public relied on “commercial speech” for vital information about the market. Early newspapers displayed advertisements for goods and services on their front pages, and town criers called out prices in public squares. Indeed, commercial messages played such a central role in public life prior to the founding that Benjamin Franklin authored his early defense of a free press in support of his decision to print, of all things, an advertisement for voyages to Barbados.[7]

Of course, for advertising to continue to play the role as sustainer of the press, it must be allowed to evolve.  Media operators—large and small alike—must be allowed to craft new strategies, some of which may require data collection and marketing practices that will make some privacy-sensitive users uncomfortable, but will also ensure that the goose keeps on laying golden eggs for them and everyone else.

While Chairman Leibowitz may decry the creative destruction at work in the news sector and information industries today, that shakeup will continue and, no doubt, be painful for incumbent players.  Advertising alone may not “save the day” for media as it has in the past, but it will likely remain essential to sustaining private media platforms and providers going forward— if federal policymakers allow it.  The alternative—massive government intervention into the news and media sectors—is too horrifying to think about.

[1] Washington Post, March 1, 1978.

[2] Congress terminated the FTC’s efforts to prohibit advertising to children, and barred the agency from issuing any advertising regulation predicated solely on unfairness for three years.  FTC Improvements Act, Pub. L. No. 96-252, § 11 (May 1980).  See generally J. Howard Beales, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, The FTC’s Use of Unfairness Authority: Its Rise, Fall, and Resurrection, www.ftc.gov/speeches/beales/unfair0603.shtm.

[3] Thomas Rosch, Some Reflections on the Future of the Internet: Net Neutrality, Online Behavioral Advertising, and Health Information Technology, Remarks at U.S. Chamber of Commerce Telecommunications & E-Commerce Committee Fall Meeting, October 26, 2009, 13, www.ftc.gov/speeches/rosch/091026chamber.pdf.

[4] Harold L. Vogel, Entertainment Industry Economics (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 7th Edition, 2007), at 46.

[5] William F. Arens, Contemporary Advertising (McGraw-Hill Irwin, 10^th Ed., 2006) at 50.

[6] See Berin Szoka & Mark Adams, The Benefits of Online Advertising & Costs of Privacy Regulation, PFF Working Paper, Nov. 8, 2009, www.scribd.com/doc/22445754/Benefits-of-Online-Advertising-Paper.

[7] 517 U.S. 484, 495 (1996), http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-1140.ZO.html

______________________________

Related PFF Publications

• Privacy Trade-Offs: How Further Regulation Could Diminish Consumer Choice, Raise Prices, Quash Digital Innovation & Curtail Free Speech, Berin Szoka, Comments to the Federal Trade Commission “Exploring Privacy” Roundtable, November 10, 2009.
• Online Advertising & User Privacy: Principles to Guide the Debate, Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer, Progress Snapshot 4.19, Sept. 2008.
• Targeted Online Advertising: What’s the Harm & Where Are We Heading?, Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer, Progress on Point 16.2, April 2009.
• Privacy Polls v. Real-World Trade-Offs, Berin Szoka, Progress Snapshot 5.10, Oct. 2009.
• The Benefits of Online Advertising & Costs of Privacy Regulation, Berin Szoka & Mark Adams, PFF Working Paper, Nov. 8, 2009.
• Benefits of Online Advertising, Berin Szoka, Mark Adams, Howard Beales, Thomas Lenard & Jules Polonetsky, PFF Capitol Briefing, July 2009.
• Public Option for Press Should Get the Red Pen, Adam Thierer, The Daily Caller, Jan. 12, 2010.

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

One of the more troubling aspects of the contentious debate over Net neutrality regulation is the way some proponents have sought to cast Net neutrality as “the Internet’s First Amendment.” As a die-hard free speech advocate, I find this truly outrageous and a complete contortion of the true purpose of the First Amendment.  As I have argued here before, it is incredibly dangerous thinking that puts our real First Amendment liberties at stake by empowering a regulatory agency with more means of controlling online speech and expression. Simply stated, the Internet’s First Amendment is the First Amendment, not some new, top-down, heavy-handed regulatory regime that puts the Federal Communications Commission in control of the Digital Economy.

On this point, I wanted to bring two things to your attention. The first is an outstanding address delivered today by Kyle McSlarrow, President & CEO of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, at a Media Institute event here in Washington, DC.  And the second is this new paper by my PFF colleague Barbara Esbin.

McSlarrow’s speech was entitled, “Net Neutrality: First Amendment Rhetoric in Search of the Constitution” and it squarely addressed the fundamental fallacy set forth by the Net neutralitistas when it comes to the First Amendment. “Whatever our present-day policy disagreements about net neutrality, or even differing politics, let’s not forget that the First Amendment is framed as a shield for citizens, not a sword for government,” he argued. “By its plain terms and history, the First Amendment is a limitation on government power, not an empowerment of government,” McSlarrow said. “And… if there’s one thing the Supreme Court has made clear, it’s that rules that directly restrict protected speech cannot be justified by a government interest that is merely hypothetical.”

Absolutely correct. And these views are buttressed by the comments of Barbara Esbin in her new paper, in which she argues that “Net Neutrality is not the First Amendment for the Internet.”  She continues:

Today we live in a world with no FCC-imposed network neutrality rules. Can anyone seriously maintain that the Internet’s potential for commercial, political, artistic, and social expression has been hobbled in this country? Or that diversity is lacking? It is far more likely that the Internet has thrived, as Congress has stated, in the absence of federal or state regulation.

“Nor has the evidence, amassed after years of trying, painted a picture of persistent market failure or consumer harms,” she argues.

Turning the First Amendment on Its Head

Both she and McSlarrow note that twisted rationales for Net neutrality “turn First Amendment protections on their head” by making private platforms and actors in the enemies of speech instead of the government, which has traditionally acted to curtail speech liberties and freedom of expression. And it has succeeded at times because the government has the coercive ability to imprison, fine or otherwise punish speakers in ways that no private media or communications platform can.

There’s also the question of whether Net neutrality regulation might constitute a form of “compelled speech.” As Barbara notes, “Under traditional First Amendment jurisprudence, the government compelling a speaker to speak or transmit a message that it does not wish to transmit is just as much a free speech infringement as it is to prevent a speaker from transmitting or posting messages it wishes to transmit or post.” She cites remarks delivered at a 2007 Progress & Freedom Foundation event by noted First Amendment scholar Lawrence Tribe on this issue, in response to a question about broadband ISP control of content delivered over their networks:

The general question that raises is the extent to which the government can, in effect, force media to act as common carriers, to be transparent, to force them simply to convey whatever content comes along. To the extent that someone, or an entity, is a content provider engaging in discretion is not simply an empty pipeline. It has the fundamental right of editorial discretion. For the government to tell that entity that it cannot exercise that right in a certain way, that it must allow the projection of what it doesn’t want to include, is a violation of its First Amendment rights.

The Madness of “Media Access” Theory

All this should seem logical to anyone who has taken a look at the plain language of the First Amendment. It could not be more clear when it says, “Congress shall make no law…”  There aren’t any caveats or footnotes. And the First Amendment most certainly was not intended as a tool for government to control the editorial discretion of private individuals or institutions. It was about restricting the power of the government to curtail speech and expression.

So how did this twisted theory of the First Amendment gain currency in Net neutrality circles? To answer that you need to go back to the 1960’s when a handful of liberal legal scholars began concocting a new theory of the First Amendment that eventually came to be known as the “media access” school of thinking. George Washington University law professor Jerome A. Barron’s 1967 Harvard Law Review article, “Access to the Press — a New First Amendment Right,” as well as the work of Yale University law professor Owen Fiss, gave rise to this new intellectual movement. Its goal, in essence, was to convert the First Amendment into a club to beat demands out of private media providers. Basically, these theorists wanted to expand “Fairness Doctrine”-like right-of-reply notions to newspapers, and simultaneously grant the government more leeway to use the First Amendment to alter media structures and outputs. As Fiss argued in a 1986 law review article, under the “media access” approach, a proper reading of the First Amendment requires “a change in our attitude about the state” such that we learn “to recognize the state not only as an enemy, but also as a friend of speech… [that should act] to enhance the quality of public debate.” (Iowa Law Review, Vol. 71, 1986, p. 1416).

Other left-leaning intellectuals and activists groups would come to integrate that logic into their work and public policy proposals. Now you know, for example, where the Media Access Project gets their name!  But many other regulatory-minded groups — Free Press, Public Knowledge, the Center for Digital Democracy, MoveOn.org, New America Foundation, and others — trace much of their intellectual heritage back to Barron, Fiss, and the other media access theorists. [Read my lengthy debunking of media access theory here.]

And now we have books being written with titles like Virtual Freedom: Net Neutrality and Free Speech in the Internet Age, by Dawn Nunziato of George Washington University. I’ll have a review of Nunziato’s disturbing new book up shortly, but suffice it to say, she has taken media access theory, put it on steroids, and brought it into the Information Age.  At least the media access old-timers could more reasonably use “media scarcity” as an excuse for their regulatory machinations. But Nunziato just dispenses with all that and instead conditions all the new regulation on “democratic participation” and other amorphous theories.

Will the Real Big Brother Please Stand Up

Indeed, with Nunziato’s book, we see how the seeds of misguided intellectual thinking sometimes spring into wild gardens in which the weeds slowly take over everything in sight.  This twisted conception of the First Amendment is so thoroughly ingrained in leftist media policy thinking today that even an abundant medium like the Internet is not exempt from potential regulations based on it despite the death of media scarcity. And that’s how we got to the point we are at today in the net neutrality regulatory debate, with many policymakers and activists groups painting private broadband operators as the supposed real Big Brother problem that the First Amendment must address.

Consider, for example, the comments then-Sen. Hillary Clinton made in 2006 regarding why she supports net neutrality regulation: “Each day on the Internet views are discussed and debated in an open forum without fear of censorship or reprisal.” As I noted at the time, when I read her statement I practically fell off my chair. It’s not just that Mrs. Clinton was asking us to believe in some asinine conspiracy theory about how broadband companies are supposedly out to censor our thoughts or engage in reprisals. (”Reprisals”? For what?) No, what really blew my mind here was the fact that Sen. Clinton had the chutzpah to declare that the private sector was somehow the real threat to online speech. After all, as I inventoried in that old essay, Sen. Clinton has led several notable efforts over the past decade to expand government regulation of television, video games, and even the Internet.

Where’s the Evidence? And How Would They Even Do It?

And yet Clinton and many other Net neutrality advocates continue to insist that it is the private sector, not the government, that is the real threat to our free speech rights. Practically speaking, these advocates of Net neutrality regulation have little to fear in this regard. It is almost impossible to believe that any Internet operator could limit speech or expression in the ways these regulatory advocates fear.  Unlike the government, which possesses the coercive power to completely foreclose all speech under threat of fine or imprisonment, the private sector lacks the ability to use force to bottle up speech or speakers. And even if private operators tried it, there would be hell for them to pay with the press, industry watchdogs, and their even subscribers. More importantly, there’s just no good business angle to censorship; they make more money by delivering more bits, not fewer. Finally, any attempt by one actor to stifle something becomes a prime incentive for another to offer it.

Tim Lee nailed all these points in an excellent paper from last year, “The Durable Internet: Preserving Network Neutrality without Regulation.” Tim noted:

Concerns that network owners will undermine free speech online are particularly misguided. Network owners have neither the technology nor the manpower to effectively filter online content based on the viewpoints being expressed, nor do profit-making businesses have any real incentive to do so. Should a network owner be foolish enough to attempt large-scale censorship of its customers, it would not only fail to suppress the disfavored speech, but the network would actually increase the visibility of the content as the effort at censorship attracted additional coverage of the material being censored.

I think that’s exactly right and, later in his paper (between pgs 22-3), Tim nicely elaborates about the “Herculean task” associated with any attempt by a broadband provider to “manipulate human communication.” Not only is it true, as Tim argues, that “no widescale manipulation would go unnoticed for very long,” but he is also correct in noting that the public and press backlash would be enormous.

Shield from Government or Sword for the Government?

But let’s get back to the principle of the matter at stake here because, for those of us who cherish the real First Amendment and seek to protect it, it is essential we not let regulatory advocates get away with their effort to convert it into something it isn’t and was never meant to be.  Jonathan Emord, author of the brilliant 1991 book, Freedom, Technology and the First Amendment, put his thumb on the real threat here: “In short, the [media] access advocates have transformed the marketplace of ideas from a laissez-faire model to a state-control model.” The ultimate danger of this twisted conception of the First Amendment, he noted, is that, “It fundamentally shifts the marketplace of ideas from its private, unregulated, and interactive context to one within the compass of state control, making the marketplace ultimately responsible to government for determinations as to the choice of content expressed.”  Or as Kyle McSlarrow noted in his speech today, these regulatory advocates are essentially saying that the First Amendment “a sword for government” instead of “a shield for citizens” from coercive government actions that would infringe our legitimate rights of free speech and expression.

In sum, “media access” philosophy and the regulatory approach its adherents counsel  is completely at odds with a proper understanding of the First Amendment.  Government — not the private sector — remains the true threat to our liberties.  And, most horrifyingly of all, empowering the state to use the First Amendment to regulate private actors will almost certainly backfire and result in more, not less, regulation of speech online.

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

PFF Adjunct Fellow Mike Palage led this extraordinary discussion of ICANN’s origins, evolution and future with four of ICANN’s “Founding Fathers”: Milton Mueller (author of Ruling the Root), law professor David Johnson, ICANN’s first CEO Mike Roberts and then ICANN CEO Paul Twomey. In particular, the group discussed ICANN’s mission, governance structure, and accountability; the difficult issue of new generic Top Level Domain names (gTLDs) and trademark concerns; and ICANN’s future relationship with the U.S. government. Be sure to check out the handy ICANN Glossary on page 33. The audio can be downloaded here.

Here’s the transcript (PDF):

Today I was invited to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to testify at one of the agency’s Broadband Working Group workshops. This particular workshop was on “Broadband Consumer Context,” which focused on “a range of challenges and opportunities as the internet becomes a focal point for commercial transactions, social networking, and a host of activities pertaining to information gathering and exchange.”

I was asked to address the issue of whether there is a relationship between online safety concerns and broadband uptake. In my testimony, I noted that, in my 15 years of research in this area, I have never unearthed any substantive empirical evidence suggesting a correlation between parental concerns about online activity and overall household broadband uptake. I have seen occasional anecdotal news stories discussing the concerns some parents have had about their kids online that led them to reject online connectivity, but these stories have been exceedingly rare (and I haven’t seen any in recent memory).

I also argued that I did not think it at all surprising that such anecdotes are harder to find, or that empirical evidence on this front seems non-existent. I argued that there were four logical explanations for why parental concerns about online safety haven’t “moved the broadband needle” much in the negative direction:

1. Not every home has children present
2. Parents use a variety of household media rules to control media & Internet usage
3. A vibrant marketplace of parental control technologies exists
4. Likely that most parents believe that the benefits of broadband outweigh the potential downsides

For all the details on each of those, read my entire testimony or check out the presentation embedded below that I made to the FCC today.

Is There a Relationship Between Online Safety Concerns and Broadband Uptake? (Adam Thierer – PFF) http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=19575851&access_key=key-1igiha619z8f15dm6hg5&page=1&version=1&viewMode=

The D.C. Circuit has struck down as arbitrary and capricious the FCC’s “cable cap.”  The cap prevented a single cable operator from serving more than 30% of U.S. homes—precisely the same percentage limit struck down by the court in 2001.  The court ruled that the FCC had failed to demonstrate that “allowing a cable operator to serve more than 30% of all cable subscribers would threaten to reduce either competition or diversity in programming.”

The court’s decision rested on the two critical charts (both generated by my PFF colleague Adam Thierer in his excellent Media Metrics special report) at the heart of the PFF amicus brief I wrote with our president, Ken Ferree:

First, the record is replete with evidence of ever increasing competition among video providers: Satellite and fiber optic video providers have entered the market and grown in market share since the Congress passed the 1992 Act, and particularly in recent years. Cable operators, therefore, no longer have the bottleneck power over programming that concerned the Congress in 1992.

Second, over the same period there has been a dramatic increase both in the number of cable networks and in the programming available to subscribers.

Our chart shows the explosion in the number of programmers (though not the total amount of programming), as well as the falling rate of affiliation between cable operators and programmers, which was among the prime factors motivating Congress when it authorized a cable cap in the 1992 Cable Act:

These two charts show how much less defensible the FCC’s 30% cap is now than it was back in 2001. If the Court had needed still more evidence, it could have cited the broader trend towards “Cutting the Video Cord.” As we explained in our amicus brief, viewers are shifting away from cable, satellite and fiber (“Multichannel Video Programming Distributors,” in FCC-speak) towards sites like Hulu and Netflix (which we dubbed “Internet Video Programming Distributors” in the hopes that a familiar-sounding acronym might resonate inside a regulatory agency that can’t even figure out how to stream its own meetings properly). Nothing better demonstrates how the Internet is revolutionizing video distribution than the fact that Hulu.com has actually overtaken TimeWarner cable in viewership:

On July 27th, The Progress & Freedom Foundation hosted a Capitol Hill panel discussion entitled “Online Child Safety, Privacy, and Free Speech: An Overview of Challenges in Congress & the States.” The event featured remarks from:

• Parry Aftab, Executive Director, WiredSafety.org
• Todd Haiken, Senior Manager of Policy, Common Sense Media
• Jim Halpert, Partner, DLA Piper
• Berin Szoka, Senior Fellow, The Progress & Freedom Foundation

We’ve just released the transcript of the event, which I have also pasted down below the fold in a Scribd document reader. Also, the audio for this event can be heard by clicking below:

Download mp3

Here is the full event description:

Online child safety, privacy, and free speech remain hotly debated issues at both the federal and state level. Bills introduced in Congress to address cyberbullying concerns propose either educational initiatives or a criminalization approach. Access to objectionable content also remains a concern and a new, government-mandated task force is looking into those issues. Meanwhile, state officials, including many state attorneys general, continue to explore age verification mandates for social networking sites and some have considered building on the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) to expand “parental notification” mandates. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has recently announced an expedited review of COPPA to see if it is keeping up with new developments. The FTC is also exploring child safety in virtual worlds. New concerns about “sexting,” or the sending of sexual explicit images over mobile devices, has also raised new concerns led some lawmakers to ponder penalties.

How serious are these concerns? Is legislation or regulation needed to address them? What free speech issues are at stake? Should Congress take the lead or leave it to the States to experiment with different models? These and other issues were discussed by a panel of leading experts in the field of online safety and privacy policy.

Transcript PFF Online Child Safety Privacy Hill Event (7-27-2009) http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=18756666&access_key=key-1blb7az1ag406howibuk&page=1&version=1&viewMode=

I’ve just had a new article published by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in which I make the case against “techno-panics,” which refers to public and political crusades against the use of new media or technologies by the young. The article is entitled “Parents, Kids & Policymakers in the Digital Age: Safeguarding Against ‘Techno-Panics‘” and it appears in the July 2009 Inside ALEC newsletter.  This is something I have spent a lot of time writing about here in recent years (See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and I finally got around to putting it altogether in a concise essay here.  I have pasted the full text below. [And I just want to send a shout-out to my friend Anne Collier of Net Family News.org, whose work on this topic has been very influential on my thinking.]

“Parents, Kids & Policymakers in the Digital Age: Safeguarding Against ‘Techno-Panics‘” by Adam Thierer

A cursory review of the history of media and communications technologies reveals a reoccurring cycle of “techno-panics” — public and political crusades against the use of new media or technologies by the young.  From the waltz to rock-and-roll to rap music, from movies to comic books to video games, from radio and television to the Internet and social networking websites, every new media format or technology has spawned a fresh debate about the potential negative effects they might have on kids.

Inevitably, fueled by media sensationalism and various activist groups, these social and cultural debates quickly become political debates. Indeed, each of the media technologies or outlets mentioned above was either regulated or threatened with regulation at some point in its history. And the cycle continues today. During recent sessions of Congress, countless hearings were held and bills introduced on a wide variety of media and content-related issues. These proposals dealt with broadcast television and radio programming, cable and satellite television content, video games, the Internet, social networking sites, and much more.  State policymakers, especially state Attorneys General (AGs), have also joined in such crusades on occasion.  The recent push by AGs for mandatory age verification for all social networking sites is merely the latest example.

What is perhaps most ironic about these techno-panics is how quickly yesterday’s boogeyman becomes tomorrow’s accepted medium, even as the new villains replace old ones.  For example, the children of the 1950s and 60s were told that Elvis’s hip shakes and the rock-and-roll revolution would make them all the tools of the devil. They grew up fine and became parents themselves, but then promptly began demonizing rap music and video games in the ‘80s and ‘90s.  And now those aging Pac Man-era parents are worried sick about their kids being abducted by predators lurking on MySpace and Facebook. We shouldn’t be surprised if, a decade or two from now, today’s Internet generation will be decrying the dangers of virtual reality.

These techno-panics are almost always disproportionate to the real risk posed by new media and technology, which typically do not have the corrupting influence on youth that older generations fear.  Parents and public policymakers alike need to remember they were once kids, too, and managed to live through many of the same fears and concerns about media and popular culture. As the late University of North Carolina journalism professor Margaret A. Blanchard once noted: “[P]arents and grandparents who lead the efforts to cleanse today’s society seem to forget that they survived alleged attacks on their morals by different media when they were children. Each generation’s adults either lose faith in the ability of their young people to do the same or they become convinced that the dangers facing the new generation are much more substantial than the ones they faced as children.” And Thomas Hine, author of The Rise and Fall of the American Teenager, argues that: “We seem to have moved, without skipping a beat, from blaming our parents for the ills of society to blaming our children. We want them to embody virtues we only rarely practice. We want them to eschew habits we’ve never managed to break.”

The better response by both parents and policymakers is a measured and balanced approach to children’s exposure to media content and online interactions.  All-or-nothing extremes are never going to work.  In particular, techno-panics are hopelessly counter-productive. “Fear, in many cases, is leading to overreaction, which in turn could give rise to greater problems as young people take detours around the roadblocks we think we are erecting,” argue John Palfrey and Urs Gasser, authors of Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives. What parents, educators, and policymakers need to understand, they argue, “is that the traditional values and common sense that have served them well in the past will be relevant in this new world, too.”

Most simply, we need to be willing to talk to our kids about the new technologies and cultural developments that shape their generation. When we as parents (or policymakers) do not fully comprehend or appreciate the new-fangled gadget in our kids’ pocket—or whatever they are playing, watching, or listening to on it—instead of engaging in demagoguery and driving a wedge between us and them, we should instead invite them to have a conversation with us about it.  Ask three simple questions to get that conversation started: “What is this new thing all about?”  “Tell me how you use it.”  “Why is it important to you?”  Once you’ve got them talking to you, good ‘ol fashion common sense and timeless parenting principles should kick in. “Do you understand why too much of this might be bad for you?” “Will you please come talk to me if you don’t understand something you’ve seen or heard?” And so on.

In sum, it’s about parental responsibility and rational, measured responses. The “techno-panic” mentality, by contrast, creates distrust and distance between our kids and us. As Anne Collier of Net Family News notes, techno-panics “cause fear, which interferes with parent-child communication, which in turn puts kids at greater risk.”

Parents and policymakers need to engage kids in an ongoing conversation about the technologies du jour—even when we don’t fully understand or appreciate them.

————— [printable Scribd version follows] —————

“Against Techno-Panics” by Adam Thierer, PFF (July 2009 – Inside ALEC) http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=17392730&access_key=key-2gdkqylyeu5h376buyyi&page=1&version=1&viewMode=

My friend Larry Magid, the co-director of ConnectSafely.org (with Anne Collier) and founder of SafeKids.com, has a sharp new piece up at CBS News.com entitled, “Stop Cyberbullying with Education,” in which he rightly points out how “we need to be careful with legislation that would outlaw cyberbullying.”  He points out that although cyberbullying is “not an epidemic and it’s not killing our children”:

Bullying has always been a problem among adolescents and, sadly, so has suicide. In the few known cases of suicide after cyberbullying, there are other contributing factors. That’s not to diminish the tragedy or suggest that the cyberbullying didn’t play a role but–as with all online youth risk, we need to look at what else was going on in the child’s life. Even when a suicide or other tragic event doesn’t occur, cyberbullying is often accompanied by a pattern of offline bullying and sometimes there are other issues including long-term depression, problems at home, and self-esteem issues.

He goes on to provide some solid advice:

identifying the reasons kids are acting as bullies can go a long way toward preventing it as can educational programs that stress ethics and cyber citizenship (“netiquette”). It also helps kids to know what to do if they are victims of bullying. At ConnectSafely.org (a site I help operate) we came up with a number of tips including: don’t respond, don’t retaliate; talk to a trusted adult; and save the evidence. We also advise young people to be civil toward others and not to be bullies themselves. Finally, “be a friend, not a bystander.” Don’t forward mean messages and let bullies know that their actions are not cool. If your child is a victim of cyberbullying, don’t start by taking away his or her Internet privileges. That’s one reason kids often don’t talk about Net-related problems with parents. Instead, try to get your child to calmly explain what has happened. If possible, talk with the parents of the other kids involved and, if necessary, involve school authorities. If the impact of the bullying spills over to school (as it usually does), the school has a right to intervene.

And Larry cautions against rushing into legislative solutions that would criminalize the problem and throw the book at kids instead of adopting a more sensible education and counseling approach to the problem.  This is very much in line with the approach Berin Szoka and I set forth in our recent PFF white paper, “Cyberbullying Legislation: Why Education is Preferable to Regulation.”  While some truly troubled teens who instigate truly awful cyber-bullying attacks might deserve some time in the juvenile justice system, that shouldn’t be our first option for all kids involved in incidents. Anyway, read Larry’s essay.

Full disclosure:  Larry and I are currently serving together on the new, congressionally-mandated Online Safety Technology Working Group. (OSTWG)

Just a heads up for those of you in the DC-area… On Monday, July 27th, PFF will be hosting a Hill event on “Online Child Safety, Privacy, and Free Speech: An Overview of Challenges in Congress & the States.” I will be moderating the discussion and we will be joined by Parry Aftab, Executive Director of WiredSafety.org, Jim Halpert a Partner with the law firm of DLA Piper, Todd Haiken, Senior Manager of Policy for Common Sense Media, and my colleague Berin Szoka also of PFF.

The event will focus on the intersection of online child safety, privacy, and free speech issues at both the federal and state level. Bills introduced in Congress to address cyberbullying concerns propose either educational initiatives or a criminalization approach. Access to objectionable content also remains a concern and a new, government-mandated task force is looking into those issues. Meanwhile, state officials, including many state attorneys general, continue to explore age verification mandates for social networking sites and some have considered building on the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) to expand “parental notification” mandates. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has recently announced an expedited review of COPPA to see if it is keeping up with new developments. The FTC is also exploring child safety in virtual worlds. New concerns about “sexting,” or the sending of sexual explicit images over mobile devices, has also raised new concerns led some lawmakers to ponder penalties.

How serious are these concerns? Is legislation or regulation needed to address them? What free speech issues are at stake? Should Congress take the lead or leave it to the States to experiment with different models? These and other issues will be discussed by the panelists at our July 27th event.

The logistical details are below and you RSVP here.

“Online Child Safety, Privacy, and Free Speech: An Overview of Challenges in Congress & the States” July 27, 2009 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Room SVC-208 Capitol Visitor Center 1st Street and East Capitol Street, NE (entrance across from Supreme Court)

In an earlier post, I mentioned an important new online child safety task force report that has just been released from the “Point Smart. Click Safe.” Blue Ribbon Working Group. It’s a great report and I encourage you to read the whole thing. It was my great pleasure to serve on this task force, and as we started finalizing our conclusions and recommendations, I started thinking about how much of what we were finding and recommending was consistent with what past online safety task forces had also concluded.

By way of background, over the past decade, five major online safety task forces or blue ribbon commissions have been convened to study online safety issues. Two of these task forces were convened in the United States and issued reports in 2000 (“COPA Commission”) and 2002 (“Thornburgh Commission“). Another was commissioned by the British government in 2007 and issued in a major report in March 2008 (“Byron Review“). Finally, two additional online safety task forces were formed in the U.S. in 2008 and concluded their work, respectively, in January (“Internet Safety Technical Task Force“) and July (“Point Smart. Click Safe.“) of 2009. [And yet another task force — the Online Safety Technology Working Group — was recently formed and has now gotten underway.]

In a new PFF white paper, ” Five Online Safety Task Forces Agree: Education, Empowerment & Self-Regulation Are the Answer,” I walk through a chronological summary of each of these past task forces [click on covers of each report below to read them in their entirety] and highlight some of the similar themes and recommendations from them.

Altogether, these five task forces heard from hundreds of experts and produced thousands of pages of testimony and reports on a wide variety of issues related to online child safety. While each of these task forces had different origins and unique membership, what is striking about them is the general unanimity of their conclusions. Among the common themes or recommendations of these five task forces:

• Education is the primary solution to most online child safety concerns. These task forces consistently stressed the importance of media literacy, awareness-building efforts, public service announcements, targeted intervention techniques, and better mentoring and parenting strategies.
• There is no single “silver-bullet” solution or technological “quick-fix” to child safety concerns. That is especially the case in light of the rapid pace of change in the digital world.
• Empowering parents and guardians with a diverse array of tools, however, can help families, caretakers, and schools to exercise more control over online content and communications.
• Technological tools and parental controls are most effective as part of a “layered” approach to child safety that views them as one of many strategies or solutions.
• The best technical control measures are those that work in tandem with educational strategies and approaches to better guide and mentor children to make wise choices. Thus, technical solutions can supplement, but can never supplant, the educational and mentoring role.
• Industry should formulate best practices and self-regulatory systems to empower users with more information and tools so they can make appropriate decisions for themselves and their families. And those best practices, which often take the form of an industry code of conduct or default control settings, should constantly be refined to take into account new social concerns, cultural norms, and technological developments.
• Government should avoid inflexible, top-down technological mandates. Instead, policymakers should focus on encouraging collaborative, multifaceted, multi-stakeholder initiatives and approaches to enhance online safety. Additional resources for education and awareness-building efforts are also crucial. Finally, governments should ensure appropriate penalties are in place to punish serious crimes against children and also make sure law enforcement agencies have adequate resources to police crimes and punish wrong-doers.

The consistency of these findings from those five previous task forces is important and it should guide future discussions among policymakers, the press, and the general public regarding online child safety.  As I note in the paper, the findings are particularly relevant today since Congress and the Obama Administration — including 3 federal agencies (NTIA, FCC, & FTC) are actively studying these issues. So, in light of all that, I hope this short paper can shed some light on the collective wisdom of the past task forces. While more study of online child safety issues is always welcome — including additional task forces or working groups if policymakers deem them necessary — thanks to the work of these five task forces, we now have better vision of what is needed to address online safety concerns.

Five Online Safety Task Forces Agree [PFF – Adam Thierer] http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=17181137&access_key=key-z6cxfgrjkqaqtxbix&page=1&version=1&viewMode=

As I noted recently, Berin Szoka and I just released a big PFF white paper (PDF) entitled, “Cyberbullying Legislation: Why Education is Preferable to Regulation,” which examines two very different federal approaches to the issue. One approach is focused on the creation of a new federal crime to punish cyberbullying, which would include fines and jail time for violators. One approach, set forth by Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-CA) in H.R. 1966 (originally H.R. 6123), the “Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act,” would create a new federal felony: “Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

The other legislative approach is education-based and would create an Internet safety education grant program to address the issue in schools and communities. In mid-May, the “School and Family Education about the Internet (SAFE Internet) Act” (S. 1047) 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 will be administered by the Department of Justice, in concurrence with the Department of Education, and the Department of Health & Human Services.

On June 12, the Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI) hosted a discussion about these bill on Cap Hill, which was moderated by FOSI CEO Stephen Balkam. Representatives from both Rep. Sanchez’s and Sen. Menendez’s offices were on hand to discuss their bills, and I provided some feedback based upon what Berin and I concluded in our paper.  It was a good discussion and I encourage you to watch the whole thing because there were some good questions from the audience later in the show.

PFF Adjunct Fellow Mike Palage, who served on the ICANN board from 2003 to 2006, filed these comments (PDF) on the NTIA’s recent Notice of Inquiry regarding ICANN’s future.  Mike’s four key points were as follows:

1. ICANN’s Periodic Review of its internal operations and supporting organizations has failed, and has become nothing more than a “perpetual motion machine of public comments and documentation producing no meaningful results.” Only a second Evolution and Reform Process can solve ICANN’s current deficiencies;
2. ICANN must hardcode into its policies and its contracts the principle that its policies cannot supersede national laws;
3. ICANN must cease any operational role in technical infrastructure as required by its bylaws and focus instead on its mission as a technical coordinator; and
4. Congress must avoid “kicking the JPA can down the road” and instead provide much-needed leadership by creating a solid foundation for ICANN 3.0 in legislation after proper consultation with the Government Accountability Office.

As anyone who has spent time searching for comments on the FCC’s website can tell you, the agency doesn’t exactly have the most user-friendly website.  In the interest of making it easier for others to read the comments that came in last week in the agency’s “Child Safe Viewing Act” Notice of Inquiry, I have compiled all the major comments (those over 3 or 4 pages) and provided links to them below the fold.

Again, this proceeding was required under the “Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007,” which Congress passed last year and President Bush signed last December. The goal of the bill and the FCC’s proceeding (MB 09-26) is to study “advanced blocking technologies” that “may be appropriate across a wide variety of distribution platforms, including wired, wireless, and Internet platforms.”  I filed 150+ pages worth of comments in this matter last week, and here’s my analysis of why this bill and the FCC’s proceeding are worth monitoring closely.

• Association of National Advertisers (ANA)
• AT&T
• Center for Democracy & Technology (Individual Comments)
• CDT (Joint Comments with other Public Interest Groups)
• Children’s Media Policy Coalition
• Coalition for Independent Ratings
• Comcast
• Common Sense Media
• Consumer Electronic Association (CEA)
• CTIA – The Wireless Association
• Cox Communications
• CustomPlay
• Digimarc Corp
• Digital Watermarking Alliance
• Digital Media Association
• Dish Network
• DirecTV
• Entertainment Software Association (ESA)
• Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI)
• Google (+ attachments A, B, C)
• Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)
• Microsoft
• NAB + NCTA + MPAA (0n TV Guidelines)
• National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA)
• Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF)
• Sanyo
• Smart Television Alliance
• Sprint-Nextel
• TiVo
• TV Guardian
• TV Watch
• U.S. Telecom Association
• Verizon & Verizon Wireless
• Wi-LAN V-Chip Corp

Today I filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its proceeding examining the marketplace for “advanced blocking technologies.”  This proceeding was required under the “Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007,” which Congress passed last year and President Bush signed last December. The goal of the bill and the FCC’s proceeding (MB 09-26) is to study “advanced blocking technologies” that “may be appropriate across a wide variety of distribution platforms, including wired, wireless, and Internet platforms.”  My colleagues will no doubt laugh about the fact that I have dropped an absurd 150 pages worth of comments on the FCC in this matter, but I had a lot to say on this topic!  Parental controls, child safety, and free speech issues have been the focus of much of my research agenda over the past 10 years.

In my filing, I argue that the FCC should tread carefully in this matter since the agency has no authority over most of the media platforms and technologies described in the Commission’s recent Notice of Inquiry.  Moreover, any related mandates or regulatory actions in in this area could diminish future innovation in this field and would violate the First Amendment rights of media creators and consumers alike.  The other major conclusions of my filing are as follows:

• There exists an unprecedented abundance of parental control tools to help parents decide what constitutes acceptable media content in their homes and in the lives of their children.
• There is a trade-off between complexity and convenience for both tools and ratings, and no parental control tool is completely foolproof.
• Most homes have no need for parental control technologies because parents rely on other methods or there are no children in the home.
• The role of household media rules and methods is underappreciated and those rules have an important bearing on this debate.
• Parental control technologies work best in combination with educational efforts and parental involvement.
• The search for technological silver-bullets and “universal” solutions represent a quixotic, Holy Grail-like quest and it will destroy innovation in this marketplace.
• Enforcement of “household standards” made possible through use of parental controls and other methods negates the need for “community standards”-based content regulation.

My entire filing can be found here and down below in a Scribd reader.  All comments in the matter are due tomorrow and then reply comments are due on May 18th.

[FCC FILING] Adam Thierer-PFF Re Child Safe Viewing Act NOI (MB 09-26) http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=14264143&access_key=key-2nrvjm96q9cl5vep567l&page=1&version=1&viewMode=

By Mike Palage,  PFF Adjunct Fellow & former ICANN Board  Member

TPI’s Tom Lenard and Larry White released a study yesterday entitled ICANN at a Crossroads:  A Proposal for Better Governance and Performance (PDF).  ICANN is, indeed, at a crossroads:  A number of critical Internet governance issues will be decided over the next 6-12 months-such as:

• How to roll out new gTLDs like .BLOG, which I’ve discussed here and here (PDF).
• ICANN’s future as an increasingly independent organization, which I’ve discussed here. 

There is an acute need to better educate the public and policymakers about these complex issues and about how ICANN works-something that will be addressed by my upcoming primer on ICANN.  For that reason, I welcome TPI’s contribution to this important debate about the future of the Internet.  I share TPI’s concerns about the inadequacy of mechanisms currently in place to ensure ICANN’s accountability and the absence of any checks on ICANN’s ever-expanding budget. 

But I strongly disagree with TPI’s conclusion that:

ICANN should remain a nonprofit organization, but it should be governed by and accountable to its direct users: the registries and the registrars.  The seats on ICANN’s board could be rotated among the major operators in a manner that would reflect the diversity of viewpoints among the registries and registrars.

Having worn many hats in the ICANN eco-system-as a consultant for both registries and registrars and as a business user and IP attorney-I must say that adopting this model of direct-user control would be suicidal for ICANN.  Filling the ICANN Board with registries and registrars would create at least the appearance of a cartel, allowing those opposed to ICANN’s underlying model of public/private-partnership to capture the organization.  Neither capture by private interests opposed to the “public” part of the model nor a counter-attack by those who object to the “private” part of the model would be a good thing for Internet users or ICANN stakeholders.

Having invested over 10 years of my life in ICANN’s diverse and inclusive public/private partnership model, I speak from first-hand experience that ICANN is far from perfect as an organization.  I’ve often feared that ICANN is heading in the wrong direction and I’ve never hesitated to say so. But despite these shortcomings, the various stakeholders I work with in the seemingly byzantine “ICANN process” remain as committed as ever to the principles set forth in NTIA’s 1998 White Paper as the foundations of Internet governance.  The staying-power of this shared belief in a common set of principles among all stakeholders reaffirms my faith in the public/private partnership-whatever other changes need to be made.

Lenard and White are right about one thing:  We do need a new model for ensuring ICANN’s accountability after the expiration of ICANN’s current relationship with the U.S. Government.  But the model they suggest isn’t it—as Steve Delbianco has pointed out.

I’ve got a new PFF paper out today entitled, “Who Needs Parental Controls? Assessing the Relevant Market for Parental Control Technologies.” In this piece, I address the argument made by some media and Internet critics who say that government intervention (perhaps even censorship) may be necessary because parental control technologies are not widely utilized by most Americans. But, as I note in the paper, the question that these critics always fail to ask is: How many homes really need parental control technologies? The answer: Far fewer than you think. Indeed, the relevant universe of potential parental control users is actually quite limited.

I find that the percentage of homes that might need parental control technologies is certainly no greater than the 32% of U.S. households with children in them. Moreover, the relevant universe of potential parental control users is likely much less than that because households with very young children or older teens often have little need for parental control technologies. Finally, some households do not utilize parental control technologies because they rely on alternative methods of controlling media content and access in the home, such as household media rules. Consequently, policymakers should not premise regulatory proposals upon the limited overall “take-up” rate for parental control tools since only a small percentage of homes might actually need or want them.

If you don’t care to read the whole nerdy thing, I’ve created this short video summarizing the major findings of the paper.

And the document is embedded below the fold in a Scribd reader. Who Needs Parental Controls PFF http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=12864194&access_key=key-4p1wl0cam0e5z4oxyfm&page=1&version=1&viewMode=list

Sid Rosenzweig, who recently joined PFF to study patent issues, has a very thoughtful piece about Apple’s new patent on the multi-touch interface on the iPhone, which ends as follows:

It is striking how protection for user interfaces has changed over the years.  It is not clear that patent protection for user interfaces is a step in the right direction, even for iconic breakthroughs in interfaces such as for the iPhone and iPod Touch.  The 300 diagrams in this Apple patent call to mind the 189 graphical user-interface elements of the Apple v. Microsoft copyright infringement case from the early 1990s.  The Apple v. Microsoft case prevented Apple from obtaining the protection on the overall look-and-feel of its software, and instead treated as discrete each element of the user interface.  This patent, and others like it, purport to cover the combination of several elements — here the web scrolling with the photo-album browsing — and not the discrete elements themselves.  With the Apple v. Microsoft case largely having thrown copyright out the window, and with trade dress protection excluding functional elements, patents are really the only option for companies like Apple, until and unless another solution is found.

On this week’s show, we discuss government transparency—a topic a number of us here at the TLF have written about lately.  Among other things, we discuss:

• Why transparency is important
http://digg.com/tools/diggthis.js
• What data the government should provide and how
• Good and bad examples of transparency
• President Obama’s promise to have the most accountable administration in history
• Obama’s plans to appoint a Chief Technology Officer

My guests for this show are:

• TLFer Jerry Brito of the Mercatus Institute, who’s written extensively about transparency and has recently launched an e-Government project called StimulusWatch
• TLFer Jim Harper of the Cato Institute and WashingtonWatch.com, another very successful e-Government project, who’s asked some tough questions about the Administration’s implementation of e-Government thus far and led a great Cato policy forum on this issue (featuring Jerry, among others)
• John Wonderlich of the Sunlight Foundation, the leading e-Government non-profit whose “non-partisan mission [is to use] the revolutionary power of the Internet to make information about Congress and the federal government more meaningfully accessible to citizens”

You can subscribe to our podcast here or through iTunes here.  Or, you can play or download this podcast using the online player below.

[display_podcast]

Continuing the “Cutting the (Video) Cord” series started by my PFF colleague Adam Thierer:  The WSJ had two great pieces yesterday about the increasing competitive relevance of television distributed by Internet—a trend that was at the heart of an amicus brief PFF recently filed in support of C omcast’s challenge of the FCC’s 30% cap on cable ownership.  The first WSJ piece declares that:

After more than a decade of disappointment, the goal of marrying television and the Internet seems finally to be picking up steam. A key factor in the push are new TV sets that have networking connections built directly into them, requiring no additional set-top boxes for getting online. Meanwhile, many consumers are finding more attractive entertainment and information choices on the Internet — and have already set up data networks for their PCs and laptops that can also help move that content to their TV sets.

The easier it is for consumers to receive traditional television programming (in addition to other kinds of video content) distributed over the Internet on their television, the less “gatekeeper” or “bottleneck” power cable distributors have over programming.  So the Netflix-capable and Yahoo-widget-capable televisions described by the WSJ piece go a long way to increasing the substitutability of what we call Internet Video Programming Distributors (IVPDs) for Multichannel Video Programming Distributors (MVPDs), such as cable, satellite television and fiber services offered by telcos such as Verizon’s FiOS.  

While such televisions are only expected to reach 14% of all TV sales by 2012, one must remember that a growing number of set-top boxes ( e.g., the Roku Digitial Video Player, game consoles like the Microsoft XBox 360 and Sony PlayStation 3, and TiVo DVRs) allow users to users to receive IVPD programming on their existing televisions.  

As we argued in our amicus brief, the immense competitive importance of IVPDs lies not in the potential for some users to “cut the cord” to cable and other MVPDs (though that will surely happen), but in the immediate impact IVPDs have as an alternative distribution channel for programmers.  In the pending D.C. Circuit case, we argue that both the FCC’s 30% cap, issued in December 2007, and the underlying portions of the 1992 Cable Act authorizing such a cap should be struck down as unconstitutional because the ready availability of IVPDs as an alternative distribution channel means that cable no longer has the “special characteristic” of gatekeeper/bottleneck power that would justify imposing such a unique burden on the audience size of cable operators.  (Of course, Direct Broadcast Satellite and Telco Fiber are also eating away at cable’s share of the MVPD marketplace.)

The second WSJ piece, an op/ed, illustrates beautifully how cable operators are already losing “market power” (or at least negotiating leverage) in a very tangible way:  they’re having to pay more for programming.  Specifically, the Journal describes how Viacom plaid chicken with Time Warner—and won.  

 The Viacom network had threatened to pull its 19 channels, including Nickelodeon with its “Dora the Explorer” and “SpongeBob SquarePants” cartoons, from the 13 million subscribers to the Time Warner Cable system…. The game of chicken included Viacom advertisements that unless Time Warner Cable agreed to pay more, it would pull the channels, encouraging viewers to call to say they wanted their MTV and other Viacom channels. One ad asked, “Why is Dora crying?” Time Warner countered that consumers would pay more if its costs rose. Bernstein Research analyst Michael Nathanson noted that neither party could afford “mutually assured destruction.” Viacom needs to find more subscription revenue as advertising revenues soften, while Time Warner Cable has to worry about satellite and telecom competitors. New media was the new factor. Many popular Viacom shows are widely available on the Web, including on its own sites. When it looked as if Comedy Central would be pulled, Wired magazine helpfully posted a guide for accessing the shows on the Web, pointing out that Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show” can be accessed on Hulu and that “South Park” episodes are on Fancast. The best parts of “The Colbert Report” are often viewed as email attachments or as snippets on mobile phones.

So, in a nutshell, the fact that consumers could get Viacom programming available through IVPDs gave Viacom more leverage against MVPD Time Warner because it increased the credibility of Viacom’s threat to simply shut off programming to Time Warner if the cable giant didn’t cough up more cash.  While this fact seems to have carried the day for Viacom, the availability of Viacom’s content through IVPDs did have some secondary effects that also are worth noting:

During the negotiations, Time Warner Cable threatened to make it easier for its subscribers to connect laptop computers to their televisions so that Viacom shows could stream directly onto subscribers’ televisions.

This is essentially a reversal of the tactic often employed by local broadcasters in their battles with cable operators:  give your customers a set of rabbit ears so they can still get your signal if you actually take your programming off the local cable network.  While this tactic doesn’t seem to have helped Time Warner here, it does point to a long-term trend that could fundamentally change the programming marketplace:

The cable company also argued that it shouldn’t have to pay more to distribute shows that Viacom made available free in other media.

I suspect that, as IVPDs further erode the viewership of cable and other MVPDs, the MVPDs will become more desperate for content—and therefore willing to pay more for it.  But it seems likely that both of the key revenue sources for MVPDs—subscriptions and advertising—will, at some point, begin to decline as Americans spend more time watching IVPD content and become less willing to pay for expensive MVPD plans.  As this happens, cable may have less revenue to share with programmers per subscriber, even as their need for that programming grows.

So how will this all end?  I doubt anyone really knows.  But I feel reasonably comfortable making two predictions.  

First, the overall health of the video programming content market will become increasingly dependent on the profitability of advertising—for MVPDs, IVPDs as well as programmers.  This will require technological innovation to produce smarter advertising.  The better advertising is targeted to a specific consumer’s interests, the more revenue it will produce for all concerned.  But if the government short-circuits this process by hindering the evolution of targeted advertising in the name of protecting consumers’ privacy (or simply to protect them from the supposed inherent unfairness of advertising—an old Marxist shibboleth), the total amount of funding available for content could plummet.  The dynamics described so well by Chris Anderson in “Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business” could drive video programmers to make their content available online for “free” (i.e., at no charge to the user) even if that content ends up producing (via advertising, etc.) significantly less revenue than it currently does on MVPDs (primarily from subscription revenue).  Plenty of smart people have explored this question and have far more intelligent things to say about it than I do.  But since the long-term trend seems to be that consumers are increasingly unwilling to pay even small sums for content, I just don’t see any alternative to increasing advertising revenues—other than public financing, which will necessarily bring with it government control and censorship.

Second, the other part of the solution to this problem will be business model innovation:  If individual consumers won’t pay for online video content, and if future ad revenues for online video content  don’t replace existing revenue streams, programmers are going to look for other sources of funding.  This dynamic seems to be on a collision course with net neutrality mandates.  The WSJ reported:

At one point, it looked as if Viacom might have escalated by trying to block Time Warner Cable broadband subscribers from accessing its Web sites to see its shows.

Whatever actually happened here, one can easily imagine a programmer like Viacom at some point in the future trying to get ISPs to start paying money per broadband subscriber for video content just as MVPDs currently pay per subscriber.  This is really the inverse of the fear generally expressed by net neutrality advocates that ISPs would try to charge programmers for the bandwidth used to transmit their content to an ISP’s subscribers.  If it’s true that programmers (the Viacoms of the world) and not distributors (Time Warner Cable the MVPD or Time Warner Cable the ISP) really have the market power, as this story suggests, then such arrangements might well be the economic salvation of content creators.  As with regulation of advertising, I only hope that government mandates against such innovation in the name of abstract “neutrality” principles don’t end up dooming us to a future where, with free market solutions (better advertising, revenue sharing with ISPs) rendered ineffective by government, government itself seems to be the only option left.