Disqus - Friends of Adam_Thierer

Re: Odlyzko on Net Neutrality, Price Discrimination, PrivacyFail, Search & Cloud Neutrality

bszoka — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:24:14 -0000

Of course, it's true that if you define the market narrowly enough, it will seem less competitive. But, In all seriousness, what makes you think fiber is a unique market unto itself? You're certainly right that for power users, there's nothing like fiber. But for the vast majority of users, even the relatively slow and high-latency connections of 3G wireless is perfectly adequate for 95% (if not more) of what they do.

Re: Odlyzko on Net Neutrality, Price Discrimination, PrivacyFail, Search & Cloud Neutrality

bszoka — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:44:05 -0000

So, how competitive is "competitive enough?" And what makes you so sure that policymakers in the future will continue to draw the line, as you have, at what you would consider "natural monopolies?"

Re: Europeans Obstruct Oracle/Sun Deal

bszoka — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:20:46 -0000

Antitrust law should about protecting competition (as a means of enhancing consumer welfare) NOT competitors. But, sadly, I fear you may be correct in your supposition about the EC's motives.

Re: Assorted Links

jerrybrito — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:10:07 -0000

Hey Kevin- I'm so sorry about this. This is an automated post and there's something very wrong with it. I've turned off everything and it keeps posting. I'm working hard to get to the bottom of it. Cheers, JB

Re: Jerry Brito - Our iPhone wedding cake by the fine folks at Charm...

jerrybrito — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:29:56 -0000

Hey, she got a Charm City cake out of the deal! Seriously, though, it was her idea. I'm a very lucky man.

Re: Jerry Brito - Our iPhone wedding cake by the fine folks at Charm...

jerrybrito — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:29:07 -0000

How funny! Great to hear from you.

Re: Jerry Brito - Our iPhone wedding cake by the fine folks at Charm...

jerrybrito — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:55:23 -0000

Yeah, my wife Kathleen is an Aggie.

Re: “Internet Freedom”: How Statists Corrupt Our Language

bszoka — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:14:20 -0000

I appreciate your sensitivity to name-calling, but if asserting that "The Internet" is a basic right isn't cyber-socialism, what is? The implications of that assertion for policy-making are profound: once a new "human right" is asserted, that right will, of course, trump the mere "interests" of those who build the platforms involved—whether that infrastructure exist in the physical world (broadband "pipes & tubes") or in the cloud (services and applications).

A glittering generality is a bright, shiny happy, vague abstraction that commands positive emotional appeal because of its innocuous blandness. To be sure, one could unfairly throw out negative labels, like "cyber-socialism" (although, again, I don't think I'm being unfair), are not "glittering generalities."

Re: Surprises in the Open Internet NPRM

jerrybrito — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:07:57 -0000

mwendy (and anyone else): Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see in the NPRM where it specifies pre-approval. In fact, para. 134 seems to state the opposite, that the Commission will not require declaratory rulings before an ISP can deploy a network management practice. In the enforcement section of the NPRM (starting at para. 175) it foresees post-hoc adjudications, not pre-approvals. Am I missing anything? Thanks! -JB

Re: Event Oct. 29: Coase’s FCC at 50

jerrybrito — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:49:20 -0000

John- Thanks! If you plan on attending, please take a moment to RSVP using the form on this page above. Thanks! -JB

Re: Michael S. Sawyer on user-generated content, fair use, and the DMCA

jerrybrito — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:28:26 -0000

Hi Arhutch,

Yes, the intro and outro material--as well as the entire format and feel of the show--is consciously modeled on EconTalk. In the first epidode of SFC I explain that. The reason is simple: EconTalk is wildly successful and we want to emulate the best. Russ has been very kind to me sharing me everything he's learned making EconTalk and you can say he's my podcast mentor. So to answer your relationship, Russ is a Mercatus scholar, he's advised me on the new podcast, and I'm consciously modeling it on EconTalk. Thanks for listening! -JB

Re: Broadband as a Human Right (and a short list of other things I am entitled to on your dime)

bszoka — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:25:16 -0000

I was referring to our "communist imagery and symbolism."

Re: Broadband as a Human Right (and a short list of other things I am entitled to on your dime)

bszoka — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:01:53 -0000

Dude, it's IRONY!

Re: No, Seriously, U.S. Broadband Competition Sucks

bszoka — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:56:26 -0000

If broadband providers actually did vary their practices geographically in a way that wasn't firmly rooted in the congestion patterns unique to certain areas, I'd say you'd have strong grounds for an antitrust suit—where the standard would be consumer welfare rather than some abstract principle of Neutrality.

Re: No, Seriously, U.S. Broadband Competition Sucks

bszoka — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:09:33 -0000

Bingo, Jerry!

In fact, if what we're most concerned about is network management practices (NMP), the dynamic Jerry describes would likely operate on a much larger level: If Comcast's NMP are the same across its entire system, then Comcast has to take into account competition in those areas where there are four (or more) competitors, and competitive pressure is likely to deter Comcast from engagement in the kind of NMP that most concern advocates of net neutrality mandates: "censorship" of speech and blocking services that compete with its own offerings or those of its affiliates (e.g., VOIP or online video).

Even if it were technologically possible to vary NMP significantly even with a single zip code (or at least from one to another), Comcast would pretty silly if its NMP in areas where no broadband competition existed were markedly different from those where competition was fierce.

Re: Nanny State Says: “Shhhhh! That Commercial is Too Loud!”

bszoka — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:56:54 -0000

Robb, you are correct that: "The ad industry sometimes is a race to the bottom where the most obtrusive and annoying." That's precisely what I meant when I said that "“Noisy or strident” advertising is just another example of the 'tragedy of the commons' at work."

So, yes, the answer is regulation, if by "regulation" we mean setting rules for use of the commons so that there won't be this race to the bottom of each advertiser trying to go louder than the others, each of them bearing only a fraction of the cost of increased ad-skipping or ad-deafness on the part of consumers.

The question is whether we think the FCC will really do a better job than self-regulation by industry and, if so, whether this advantage is worth the costs I outline above. I'm skeptical. Again, the television industry has a strong incentive to fix this problem on their own, so if they're finally on the verge of adopting self-regulation, why not wait and see how that develops?

Re: My Net Neutrality Debate with Public Knowledge

bszoka — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:02:39 -0000

Brett, thanks but I'm not in the business of dismissing those I disagree with on the basis of motive. I have no reason to question Art's sincerity any more than he should have to question mine. We have a genuine conflict of visions here and, while I think he's profoundly wrong, I respect him on an intellectual level.

This is a bit like the debate over the role that campaign finance plays in politics. While I'm sure there are politicians whose views follow donations, the causality works in the opposite direction in probably the vast majority of cases: Donors give to a candidate whose views they like. In the case of non-profit advocacy organizations, I'm even more inclined to assume that views are genuinely held and not merely intended to advance the interests of a particular company or sector (although I'm sure that does happen). We get grief at PFF all the time for drawing support from a broad range of companies (including Google), as if all our talk of cyber-libertarian principle were just a smokescreen for prostitution to whatever corporate interest paid us the most. It just doesn't work that way—not at PFF and, I assume, not at PK.

As far as Google is concerned, I think their current support for net neutrality mandates will backfire in a major way for them as the principle of neutrality mandates for gatekeepers who control "access" to a "critical" bottleneck is extended from ISPs to search, etc.

Re: Humor: “Social Media Guru” Video

bszoka — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 09:40:51 -0000

Brilliant, Markham! I especially like the self-help message at the end.

Re: Humbling the Mighty: How the Internet’s Media Abundance Killed the News Embargo

bszoka — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 14:36:17 -0000

You tell 'em, Satan!

Re: Do Americans Really Want “Net Neutrality” Regulation?

bszoka — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:12:57 -0000

But Steve, the whole point here is that Net Neutrality isn't always and everywhere a good thing. Sometimes non-neutral network management really does benefit consumers!

Re: The Day Real Internet Freedom Died: Our Forbes Op-Ed on Net Neutrality Regulation

bszoka — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:53:23 -0000

Steve, you are you conflating two very different kinds of "regulation."
1) Setting common standards and units
2) Prohibiting certain legitimate business practices

The former is simply a way of preventing businesses from deceiving consumers, or standardizing trade. It is "regulation" in the most literal sense: "making regular." But it is a FAR cry from dictating to someone what they can and can't do with their property (including communications networks) subject to appropriate disclosure.

If the complaint were simply that network owners weren't adequately disclosing to consumers that there certain traffic management techniques would be used that might result in faster or slower data transfers for them depending on the circumstances or application at issue, we could have a serious debate about just what those disclosures should be. In general, I'm all in favor of open disclosure but we certainly couldn't expect network operators to tell the 5% of their users who would consume 80% of their bandwidth how to circumvent legitimate traffic management practices intended to protect the remaining 95% of consumers.

As Richard Bennett has pointed out, if you ban such practices in the name of neutrality, networks will be forced to abandon all-you-can-eat pricing and move to some kind of tiered offering. There again some form of disclosure would be perfectly appropriate.

But we're talking about two very different kinds of regulation here.

Re: Do Americans Really Want “Net Neutrality” Regulation?

bszoka — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:52:59 -0000

Re: The Day Real Internet Freedom Died: Our Forbes Op-Ed on Net Neutrality Regulation

bszoka — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:34:34 -0000

You're absolutely right here, Bob, that government-created monopolies have limited broadband competition.

Government “franchise” licensing has proven lucrative for state and local governments (and sometimes officials) but has blocked new wireline entrants like fiber based on another fiction of scarcity—this time in publicly owned “rights of way.” Worse, not until December 2006 did the FCC finally act to allow telecom companies to begin offering video service. The local franchising roadblock had discouraged Verizon, AT&T and others from building fiber networks that could offer high-speed broadband (instead of just DSL). Finally, through central planning of spectrum use, the FCC has retarded the development of wireless broadband offerings that could serve fixed and mobile users, from high-speed cellular networks to satellite systems to ground-based technologies like Wi-Max.

But instead of seeking to break these chains on free enterprise, regulatory advocates blame markets for failing to provide “enough” competition—and propose more regulation as the solution.

So if the problem is insufficient competition between broadband networks, let's start getting the government out of the way!

Re: You’d Have to Be Smoking Dope to Believe the Zittrain-Lessig Thesis

bszoka — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:07:27 -0000

As I recall (someone correct me if I'm wrong), unlocking your own phone yourself is legal but the DMCA's anti-circumvention procedures prevent anyone from helping others to unlock their phones by writing software to do so or just doing it for them. This is why the T-Mobile store can't help iPhone users unlock their phone so they can use it on the T-Mobile network, even though individual T-Mobile employees may be able to figure out how to do this with their own phones. I assume the same is true for jailbreaking your phone so you can run whatever apps Apple might block but, again, someone please correct me if this analogy doesn't hold.

EFF has proposed a DMCA exemption for jailbreaking your phone:
Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone
handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when
circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a
wireless telephone communication network, regardless of commercial motive.

So here's my question: Let's suppose that EFF got what they wanted and it became legal for anyone to help others jailbreak and unlock their phones (to take them to another carrier)—either (a) for non-commercial purposes only (T-Mobile couldn't help you but free hacking software would be legal) or (b) for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. Would either form of user empowerment be enough to satisfy the concerns about openness expressed by the Zittrain-Lessig crowd? Would legalizing jailbreaking assistance be enough or would we have to legalize assistance with phone-unlocking?

In short, what is the bare minimum amount of regulatory change necessary to protect "Openness"?

Re: The News Frontier: Innovation in Journalism Is Hard but Necessary

bszoka — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:33:32 -0000

Woah, EF. I'm not sure what Adam said to you, but I for one don't have a problem with the idea that non-profits will play a larger role in journalism in the future. In fact, that's part of the kind of innovation I think will be necessary—not just in technologies but in business models as well. I happen to be a fan of the non-profit, since I work for one (PFF) and am on the Board of another (The Space Frontier Foundation, which I recently chaired).

So whatever Adam might or might have said to you, we're no monolith. In any event, "free market economics" isn't just about maximizing financial gain. Freedom is about allowing many different actors to pursue different values, which often means something very different from simple economic profit.

But let's be clear about one thing: the restraints imposed on non-profit corporations will pose a significant challenge to the journalistic independence of the media. I don't just mean the obvious fact that 501(c)(3)s are barred from endorsing candidates and strictly limited in their ability to "lobby" (i.e., endorse legislation) to under 20% of their budget (to simplify matters). The bigger concern is that non-profit organizations are essentially licensed by the State. If they lose their license (their tax-exempt status), they may simply go out of business. This gives the government enormous power over non-profits. The current system has worked tolerably well, with sufficiently clear guidelines that it's difficult for an administration to use the IRS to bully non-profits, but the Clinton Administration sure tried and I'm sure other administrations of both parties have, too, and will do so again in the future.

But I worry that attempts to shoe-horn the unique newsgathering and editorial role of newspapers into the non-profit status will ultimately end up only giving the government more leverage. Organizations that fear losing their license will shy away from criticizing incumbents and the government in general. Just look at Broadcast, especially under the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." Perversely, we could see the new media that rise out of the ashes of newspapers being treated a lot more like broadcasters and a lot less like newspapers for First Amendment purposes. That would mean a great reduction in freedom of speech.