Proponents of Net neutrality regulation continue their full-court press to get the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and its chairman, Julius Genachowski, to unilaterally push through a new industrial policy regime for the Internet. The latest word, according to Politico, is that the agency is pushing back its scheduled December open meeting from Dec. 15 to Dec. 21 to give the agency more time to plot its next move. There’s no word yet what the agency’s regulatory blueprint will look like, so it’s impossible to critique the agency’s plan at this point. I’ve made the case against Net neutrality regulation here before, however, and I’m sure those same concerns and critiques will apply to whatever the agency ends up adopting.
What’s most concerning about the way this process is playing out currently is just how anti-democratic it is. I understand the zeal of the pro-regulatory forces on this issue, but there is simply no good excuse for advocating that 3 unelected officials at an independent regulatory agency rush through a vote to regulate a such a massive and important sector of the American economy.
It used to be the case that a broad and non-partisan coalition of academics and organizations supported the non-delegation principle, which, generally speaking, refers to the notion that only democratically elected officials should be in a position to pass laws and make the really important decisions about the future course of our polity and its economy. Of course, when it comes to the economy, I’d prefer most of those decisions be left to marketplace experimentation. However, to the extent regulation is deemed necessary and that regulation governs such a massively important portion of the American economy, that determination should
definitely be made by elected leaders in Congress and not delegated to bureaucrats who would ram through regulations with 3 votes and sketchy plan for reordering that sector. Continue reading →
Inspired by thoughtful pieces by Mike Masnick on Techdirt and L. Gordon Crovitz’s column yesterday in The Wall Street Journal, I wrote a perspective piece this morning for CNET regarding the European Commission’s recently proposed “right to be forgotten.”
A Nov. 4th report promises new legislation next year “clarifying” this right under EU law, suggesting not only that the Commission thinks it’s a good idea but, even more surprising, that it already exists under the landmark 1995 Privacy Directive.
What is the “right to be forgotten”? The report is cryptic and awkward on this important point, describing “the so-called ‘right to be forgotten’, i.e. the right of individuals to have their data no longer processed and deleted when they [that is, the data] are no longer needed for legitimate purposes.”
Continue reading →
This week, we’ve seen reports in both The New York Times (“Stage Set for Showdown on Online Privacy“) and The Wall Street Journal (“Watchdog Planned for Online Privacy“) that the Obama Administration is inching closer toward adopting a new Internet regulatory regime in the name of protecting privacy online. In this essay, I want to talk about information control regimes, not from a normative perspective, but from a practical one. In doing so, I will compare the relative complexities associated with controlling various types of information flows to protect against four theoretical information harms: objectionable content, defamation, copyright, and privacy.
From a normative perspective, there are many arguments for and against various forms of information control. Here, for example, are the reasons typically given for why society might want to impose regulations on the Internet (or other communications channels) to address each of the four issues identified above:
- Content control / Censorship: We must control information flows to protect children from objectionable content or all citizens against some other form of supposedly harmful speech (hate speech, terrorist recruitment, etc).
- Defamation control: We must control information flows to protect people’s reputations.
- Copyright control: We must control information flows to protect the property rights of creators against unauthorized use / distribution.
- Privacy control: We must control information flows to protect against information flows that include information about individuals.
Again, there are plenty of good normative arguments in the opposite direction, many of which are based on free speech considerations since, by definition, information control regimes limit the flow of forms of speech. For privacy, I discussed such speech-related considerations in my essay on “Two Paradoxes of Privacy Regulation.” But what about the administrative or enforcement burdens associated with each form of information control? I increasingly find that question as interesting as the normative considerations.
Continue reading →
I’m going to close out my series of essays about Tim Wu’s new book, The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires, by discussing his proposed solutions. In the first five essays in the series, [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] I’ve critiqued Wu’s look at information history as well as his use of terms like “market failure,” “laissez-faire” and “open” vs. “closed.” I argued there’s a great deal of over-simplification, even outright distortion, in his use of those terms throughout the book.
Anyway, let’s run through the basics of the book once more before getting to Wu’s proposed solutions. By my reading of
The Master Switch, Wu’s argument essentially goes something like this:
- Information industries go through cycles. After a period of “openness” and competition, they tend to drift toward “closed,” corporate-controlled, anti-consumer models and outcomes.
- The resulting “monopolists” then block much innovation, competition, and free speech.
- Consequently, “the purely economic laissez-faire approach… is no longer feasible.”
- Moreover, information industries are more important than all others (“information industries… can never be properly understood as ‘normal’ industries”) and even traditional forms of regulation, including antitrust, “are clearly inadequate for the regulation of information industries.” (p. 303).
- Thus, special rules should apply to information-related sectors of our economy.
Again, I’ve challenged some of these assertions in my previous essays, specifically, Wu’s incomplete history of cycles and the fact that he greatly underplays the role of governments in “locking-in” sub-optimal market structures or, worse yet, creating those structures through misguided public policies or regulatory capture. Wu discusses some of those factors in his book, but he tends to regard them as secondary to the inquiry, whereas I believe they are crucial to understanding how most “closed” or anti-competitive scenarios develop or endure. Instead, Wu simplistically suggests that “the purely economic laissez-faire approach… is no longer feasible,” even though no such state of affairs has ever existed within communications or media industries. They have been subjected to varying levels of indirect influence or direct control almost since their inception.
Regardless, what does Tim Wu want done about the problems he has (mis-)diagnosed? Continue reading →
I’ve grown increasingly tired of the fight over not just retransmission consent, but almost all TV regulation in general. Seriously, why is our government still spending time fretting over a market that is more competitive, diverse and fragmented than most other economic sectors? It’s almost impossible to keep track of all the innovation happening on this front, although I’ve tried here before. Every metric — every single one — is not just improving but exploding. Just what’s happening on the kids’ TV front is amazing enough, but the same story is playing out across other programming genres and across multiple distribution platforms.
More proof of just how much more diverse and fragmented content and audiences are today comes in this excellent new guest editorial over at GigaOm, “The Golden Age of Choice and Cannibalization in TV,” by Mike Hudack, CEO of Blip.tv. Hudack notes that, compared to the Scarcity Era, when we had fewer choices and were all forced to watch pretty much the same thing, today’s media cornucopia is overflowing, and audiences are splintering as a result. “Media naturally trends towards fragmentation,” he notes. “As capacity increases so does choice. As choice increases audiences fragment. When given a choice people generally prefer media that speaks to them as individuals over media that speaks to the ‘masses.’”
Indeed, he cites Nielsen numbers I’ve used here before illustrating how the top shows of the 50’s (like Texaco Star Theater) netted an astonishing 60-80% of U.S. television households while more recent hits, like American Idol is lucky if it can manage over 15% audience share. He concludes, therefore, that: Continue reading →
When the only tool you have is a hammer, as the old cliché goes, everything looks like a nail.
Net neutrality, as I first wrote in 2006, is a complicated issue at the accident-prone intersection of technology and policy. But some of its most determined—one might say desperate—proponents are increasingly anxious to simplify the problem into political slogans with no melody and sound bites with no nutritional value. Even as—perhaps precisely because—a “win-win-win” compromise seems imminent, the rhetorical excess is being amplified. The feedback is deafening.
In one of the most bizarre efforts yet to make everything be about net neutrality, Public Knowledge issued several statements this week “condemning” Fox’s decision to prohibit access to its online programming from Cablevision internet users. In doing so, the organization claims, Fox has committed “the grossest violations of the open Internet committed by a U.S. company.”
This despite the fact that the open Internet rules (pick whatever version you like) apply only to Internet access providers. Indeed, the rules are understood principally as a protection for content providers. You know, like Fox. Continue reading →
In a post here last month on “Two Paradoxes of Privacy Regulation,” I discussed some of the interesting — and to me, troubling — similarities between rising calls for online privacy regulation and ongoing attempts to enact various types of controls on online speech or expression. In that essay, I argued that while most privacy advocates are First Amendment supporters as it pertains to content regulation, they abandon their free speech values and corresponding constitutional tests when it comes to privacy regulation. When the topic of debate shifts from concerns about potentially objectionable content to the free movement of personal information, personal responsibility and self-regulation become the last option, not the first. Privacy advocates typically ignore, downplay, or denigrate user-empowerment tools, even though many of those same advocates endorse “self-help” efforts as the superior method of dealing with objectionable speech or media content. In essence, therefore, they are claiming self-help is the right answer in one context, but not the other. Ironically, therefore, privacy advocates and moral conservatives actually share much in common in that they are using the same playbook to advance their goals: They are rejecting personal responsibility and user-empowerment tools and techniques in favor or government control for their respective issues.
Keeping that insight in mind, I want to take this comparison a step further and suggest that what really unites these two movements is a general conservatism about how our online lives and online business should be governed. For the moral conservatives, that instinct is well-understood. They want hold the line against what they believe is a decaying moral order by restricting access to potentially objectionable speech or content — dirty words, violent video games, online porn, or whatever else. The conservatism of the modern privacy movement is less obvious at first blush. I suspect that many privacy conservatives would not consider themselves “conservative” at all, and they might even be highly offended at being grouped in with moral conservatives who seek to wield government power to control online speech and expression. Nonetheless, the two groups share a common trait —
an innate hostility to the impact of technological / social change within the realm of “rights” or values they care about. In their respective arenas, they both rejected the evolutionary dynamism of the free marketplace and they long for a return to a simpler and supposedly better time. Continue reading →
Distracted driving is a serious problem. When you’re flying down the road at speed maneuvering a 2-ton piece of machinery, you need to be paying attention to the road to keep yourself, and others around you, safe. Distractions of any sort can be dangerous and undercut the driver’s ability to stay focused. And it’s certainly true that digital devices can be among the biggest distractions. But I think we have to ask some practical questions about just how far law can and should go to minimize that distraction.
I raise this issue because, according to this Bloomberg article yesterday, “U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says he believes motorists are distracted by any use of mobile phones while driving, including hands-free calls, as his department begins research that may lead him to push for a ban.” Sec. LaHood believes that even hands-free phone conversations are a “cognitive distraction” and should be prohibited. Also, “his concerns extend to vehicle information and entertainment systems such as Ford Motor Co.’s Sync and General Motors Co.’s OnStar,” which means that almost every conceivable in-vehicle technology could be regulated under LaHood’s scheme.
To be clear, I’m not necessarily opposed to laws addressing talking on phones or texting while driving since those actions can have dangerous consequences. But I’ve always preferred a more generic enforcement strategy when it comes to distracted driving laws. As I noted in my old 2007 essay, “Banning In-Car Technologies Won’t Work,” to the extent law enforcement needs to be brought into the picture it should be done in a technology-agnostic or activity-agnostic fashion. I went on to argue: Continue reading →
My article for CNET News.com this morning analyzes the “leaked” net neutrality bill from Rep. Henry Waxman, chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. I put leaked in quotes because so many sources came up with this document yesterday that its escape from the secrecy of the legislative process hardly seems dramatic. Reporters with sources inside Waxman’s office, including The Hill and The Washington Post, expect Waxman to introduce the bill sometime this week.
The CNET article goes through the bill in some detail, and I won’t duplicate the analysis here. It is a relatively short piece of legislation that makes limited changes to Title I of the Communications Act, giving the FCC only the authority it needs to implement “core” regulations that would allow the agency to enforce violations of the open Internet principles. Continue reading →
As the Internet evolves and new data collection technologies emerge, privacy concerns are increasingly in the spotlight. Few doubt that these concerns are, in many cases, legitimate. The major point of contention is which institutions in society are best equipped to address the privacy challenges of the information age. While a number of privacy scholars point to stricter federal regulation as the answer, others are very skeptical of granting government a more expansive role in safeguarding sensitive information on the Internet.
In this week’s issue of
Advertising Age, Carolyn Homer and I have a guest column in which we discuss 
the role of market institutions in addressing privacy concerns:
A series of recent high-profile privacy gaffes involving internet firms such as Google, Microsoft and Facebook has spurred a public outcry for stronger privacy protections. Politicians in Congress have responded with a slew of blustering letters, hearings, and legislative threats. On July 19, Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., introduced a sweeping privacy bill in the House of Representatives, and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., has pledged to introduce a similar bill in the Senate. This legislation would stifle the dynamic internet economy and targeted advertising while doing little to improve consumer privacy.
Mr. Rush’s bill, titled the Best Practices Act, would give the Federal Trade Commission broad new powers to regulate nearly any organization that routinely collects even basic data about individuals, including phone numbers and email addresses. The bill would empower the FTC to dictate businesses’ data security practices, perform extensive compliance audits, and even restrict which kinds of information firms can collect and how long they can store it.
This approach may sound sensible, but it ignores the crucial role of responsible data collection in the information age. Limiting such practices will impede e-commerce and endanger free internet content backed by advertising. The internet’s ubiquitous information sharing is a feature, not a bug.
Continue reading →
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.