Disqus - Latest Comments for bszoka

Re: Obama Violates Constitution -- Let Us Count the Ways, 2015 Edition

Berin Szoka — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:27:01 -0000

While I'm always glad to see the FCC called out on its overreach, you didn't connect the dots: The FCC is, at least in theory, an independent agency. Now, you could have pointed out that the President, in an extraordinary move, called on the FCC to use Title II to issue new net neutrality rules — thus explaining what this had to do with Obama and, by the way, that the most outrageous thing about all this is not "net neutrality" as such, but the FCC's decision to regulate the Internet under Title II rules written for the Ma Bell monopoly of 1934.

You might also have connected this to the EPA's overreaches: In both cases, the agency claims vast power, acknowledges that it creates huge problems of over-regulation, and promises to fix the problem by "tailoring" the statute to fit modern circumstances. As TechFreedom argued in its intervenor briefs against the FCC, the need for such radical surgery indicates that Congress did not intend the statute to be used in such a manner—the very reason SCOTUS blocked the EPA's carbon rule in EPA v. UARG, refusing to defer to the agency's interpretation of the statute.

While you were at it, you might also have pointed out that the President's big public speech about this — clearly intended to reassert himself after the Dems' election shellacking — referenced Title II of the wrong law (the 1996 Telecommunications Act, not the 1934 Communications Act), making it plain as day that the President's involvement had nothing to do with substance and everything to do with politics — and that the people driving the decision were Valerie Jarrett's hacks, without having a single telecom lawyer even look at the speech.

Re: Op-ed | One Small Step for Space Resources

Berin Szoka — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 09:55:54 -0000

Rummel has no clue what he's talking about. The Treaty prohibits territorial appropriation, as the bill recognizes. But it most definitely does not prohibit appropriation of extracted resources—and that's what the bill does: create a specific right under US law to extracted resources.

Please, Space News, stop running pieces on space law from non-lawyers. They only embarrass themselves and your paper.

For an analysis of the bill's benefits, and its potential pitfall, informed by a combined four decades of experience in space law, read my comment with Jim Dunstan:
http://techfreedom.org/post...

Re: Mozilla Has a Plan to Save Net Neutrality

Berin Szoka — Tue, 06 May 2014 15:38:27 -0000

To clarify, the real weakness in any reclassification proposal is the idea that forbearance will work easily to allow the FCC to tailor Title II to a particular problem, deleting provisions that harm consumers by, say, reducing investment in broadband.

Re: Senate Should Confirm FCC Nominees So Agency Can Focus on Clearing Spectrum - alphatechfreedom

Berin Szoka — Mon, 05 Aug 2013 18:30:14 -0000

This is a test comment

Re: Who’s Really to Blame for Our Dismal Broadband Situation? Local Government

Berin Szoka — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:25:05 -0000

Think whatever you want about cable companies, but let's get rid of those artificial barriers to competition -- and we'll see more competition along the lines of Google Fiber. How much more, no one really knows. But let's see what happens when local governments get out of the way.

Re: Who’s Really to Blame for Our Dismal Broadband Situation? Local Government

Berin Szoka — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:23:30 -0000

Even if you're right, we're proposing a way to partial solution to the problem. We should all be able to agree that local governments ought not impede competition where would otherwise happen.

Re: Who’s Really to Blame for Our Dismal Broadband Situation? Local Government

Berin Szoka — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:22:15 -0000

If it were that simple, Eric, Google Fiber would not exist. Yet it does.

Re: Who’s Really to Blame for Our Dismal Broadband Situation? Local Government

Berin Szoka — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:21:19 -0000

If you're concerned that some people won't get service, let's craft explicit subsidies for which multiple providers can compete. That's far smarter than today's stupid, implicit subsidies, that just help to lock in the cable incumbents Wired users seem to hate so much.

Re: Who’s Really to Blame for Our Dismal Broadband Situation? Local Government

Berin Szoka — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:19:29 -0000

If arguing that Google Fiber, telcos and anyone else who wants to should have an easier time competing with cable makes me a "telco propagandist," sure, whatever.

Maybe if you weren't so busy ranting about how evil companies are, you'd see that having more companies in the mix would serve consumers. It's called capitalism. It may not always work perfectly and we can disagree about a lot, but we should all be able to agree that it works better if we let more companies compete.

Re: Who’s Really to Blame for Our Dismal Broadband Situation? Local Government

Berin Szoka — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:43:09 -0000

I'm glad to see someone actually took the time to read our piece -- and think about the simple logic that barriers to entry = less competition = higher prices.

#Duh

Re: Who’s Really to Blame for Our Dismal Broadband Situation? Local Government

Berin Szoka — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:41:42 -0000

Dude, we're on your side! I realize you hate your cable company, so... why not make it as easy as possible for Google Fiber, Verizon and other companies to compete with cable?

Re: Who’s Really to Blame for Our Dismal Broadband Situation? Local Government

Berin Szoka — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:40:00 -0000

James, we're not asking you to feel sorry for any company -- just to remove the hurdles that, ironically, end up protecting incumbent cable companies by discouraging new entry into the market.

Build-out requirements are well intentioned but end up protecting incumbents from competition rather than promoting social justice. Google Fiber would simply never have happened if they hadn't been been able to start their build-out only in neighborhoods that actually voiced clear demand. Build-out requirements, in other words, are a particularly stupid, anti-competitive cross-subsidy (some users get service that's subsidized by other users). We proposed a smarter system of subsidies in a piece consistent with this one in Forbes in March: "Instead of requiring that franchisees build out to an entire franchise area—which often makes both new entry and service upgrades unprofitable—remove build-out requirements and craft smart subsidies to encourage competition to deliver high-quality universal service, and to deliver superfast broadband to the customers who want it. Rather than controlling prices, offer broadband vouchers to those that can’t afford it."

Re: Who’s Really to Blame for Our Dismal Broadband Situation? Local Government

Berin Szoka — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:31:02 -0000

Sammy did you actually read the piece? Did you notice the part where we argue for removing barriers to competition? Oh, wait, that was the entire piece.

Seriously: this should be something everyone can agree on: let companies compete on the merits, not in terms of local bureaucratic red tape..

Re: Rand Paul, the Confederacy, and Liberty

Berin Szoka — Wed, 10 Jul 2013 10:42:56 -0000

Um, Lord Acton might disagree. But what did he know? He was only the great historian of Liberty and the man who warned us that "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (something that applies as much to Lincoln as anyone).

Acton wrote to Robert E. Lee in 1866: "I grieve more for what was lost at Appomattox than I rejoice at what was gained at Waterloo." Lord Acton, 1866

Lee wrote Acton: "The consolidation of the States into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it."

Re: RealClearWorld - Hagel Critics' Disingenuous Anti-Gay Charge

Berin Szoka — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 18:12:53 -0000

Wow, so I'm a "reliable lib?" That's pretty funny, given that (a) I've never voted for a Democrat in my life and am generally thought of as a reactionary and (b) my initial draft of this article was built around Edmund Burke's sage caution for a conservative foreign policy of realism, recognizing the dangers of blowback: "Among precautions against ambition, it may not be amiss to take one precaution against our own. I must fairly say, I dread our own power and our own ambition; I dread our being too much dreaded…. It is ridiculous to say we are not men, and that, as men, we shall never wish to aggrandize ourselves in some way or other … we may say that we shall not abuse this astonishing and hitherto unheard of power. But every other nation will think we shall abuse it. It is impossible but that, sooner or later, this state of things must produce a combination against us which may end in our ruin."

Re: A Cyber-Libertarian’s Declaration

Berin Szoka — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 23:01:45 -0000

Well said, Patrick! Of course, at 715 words, your extra principles are nearly 50% longer than our 500 words statement--which, in turn, was 5x longer than that *other* Declaration of Internet Freedom! So we're not exactly brief, are we? ;)

Re: Internet Freedom for the few?

Berin Szoka — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 18:16:08 -0000

Did you actually read our Declaration? Far from being "completely pro-industry" or "ignoring that a lot of threats to Internet Freedom come from enterprises and private parties," we recognize that corporate power can be a problem. As a general matter, we think that's best tamed by competition, disruptive technological change and healthy criticism. We leave open a role for government but suggest, as our #2 principle:

When you must intervene, start small. Regulation and legislation are broad, inflexible, and prone to capture by incumbent firms and entrenched interests. The best kind of “law” evolves one case at a time, based on simple, economic principles of consumer welfare — alongside the codes of conduct and practices developed by companies under pressure from competitors and criticism. Worst of all, when regulators act without legal authority, or regulate by intimidation, they undermine the rule of law, no matter how noble their intentions.

We illustrate, in two areas, the kind of role we'd prefer government to play if it's gong to intervene:

Competition. Antitrust is regulation. It’s generally preferable to other forms of regulation when grounded in rigorous economic analysis, but even then, it usually fails to foresee what ultimately serves consumer welfare. The monopoly explanation for innovation in business models, corporate structure, and pricing is usually wrong.
Privacy. Don’t coerce private companies to disclose consumers’ data. If law enforcement needs private data, they should follow the procedures required by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — which generally means convincing a court to issue a warrant. Prevent private companies from abusing data about consumers: Punish deception and enforce corporate promises. Develop common law against “unfair” data practices — those that cause real harms without countervailing benefits, and where user empowerment is inadequate.

I went into much greater detail on the privacy point in my Senate testimony last week, explaining how the FTC could do more to protect consumers if it better explained its analysis:

The FTC’s effectiveness should be measured not by counting settled cases, but in the development of a quasi-common law of privacy. Yet today, companies have only FTC complaints and consent decrees to guide them. I suggest the agency take four steps:
1. Explain its analysis in consent decrees;
2. Issue “no action” letters when deciding not to sue; 3. Issue advisory opinions upon request to guide industry on how the agency might evaluate new privacy practices; and 4. Issue guidelines explaining how it has applied Unfairness and Deception in past privacy cases and plans to do so in the future—clarifying especially the boundaries of privacy harm.Congress should ensure the FTC has the resources necessary to do all these things, and to keep pace with ongoing technological change.

So, if you (re-)read our Declaration, I think you'll see it's not about knee-jerk anti-government libertarianism but, to use Virginia Postrel's word, dynamism.

And, PS. we have a number of non-US groups on board, and are gathering more such groups.

Re: Nearing July 4th, U.S. Advocates Launch Movement To Protect Net Freedoms

Berin Szoka — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 16:11:55 -0000

Thanks for the update! I highly recommend
F. A. Hayek's essay "Why I Am Not a Conservative" from The Constitution of Liberty—the book Margaret Thatcher once thumped down on the table, declaring, "This is what we believe!"

Re: The Internet needs its own ‘declaration of independence’

Berin Szoka — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 15:24:04 -0000

Also see the alternative Declaration at DeclarationOfInternetFreedo... by TechFreedom, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, the National Taxpayers Union and a number of other market-oriented groups on both sides of the Atlantic. We focus on two foundational principles for guiding regulators: (i) "First Do No Harm": humility in the face of constant, unpredictable technological change and (ii) "If you must regulate, start small": a respect for the rule of law and the tradition of common law, where basic principles are adapted on a case by case basis.

Unlike Free Press and the other groups that spearheaded this Declaration, we don't presume to know what the Internet of the future should look like. They've crusaded for regulation of the Internet in the name of "openness" and "Net Neutrality." We take a much more skeptical view. As John Perry Barlow famously put it in his 1996 Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace:

Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather....You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these problems don't exist. Where there are real conflicts, where there are wrongs, we will identify them and address them by our means. We are forming our own Social Contract . This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different.

We don't go quite as far as Barlow: we recognize there may be a role for government. But unlike Free Press and other groups who signed onto this Declaration, we believe protecting Internet Freedom means that regulators must exercise great restraint whenever they attempt to regulate the Internet. The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Mike Godwin put it best in 1998 when he said: “It’s easier to learn from history than it is to learn from the future. Almost always, the time-tested laws and legal principles we already have in place are more than adequate to address the new medium.”

Yet today, groups like EFF all too easily fall into alliance with groups like Free Press (on Net Neutrality). The problem with their Declaration is that it is so short and so ambiguous that is is subject to many radically different interpretations—from those who share our skepticism of central planning by regulators to those who cheer such planning on in certain areas (Net Neutrality, "media reform," privacy regulation, etc), while joining with us in others (SOPA, government privacy intrusions, etc).

Re: This Declaration of Internet Freedom Is Vague

Berin Szoka — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 14:30:44 -0000

Thanks for mentioning our declaration! For more specifics on privacy, see the testimony I gave to the Senate Commerce Committee last week, explaining how the kind of common law approach we prefer would work—in the specific area of privacy:
http://techfreedom.org/blog...

Re: This Declaration of Internet Freedom Is Vague

Berin Szoka — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 14:28:52 -0000

If you want even more specifics on privacy, t

Re: Stop the Stop Online Piracy Act!

Berin Szoka — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:49:15 -0000

It really pains me to say it, Steve, after you've spent so much time relentlessly heckling us here at the TLF and giving us so little credit for our shared skepticism about regulation, but... well said.

Re: TechFreedom: Search my electronic communications? Not without a warrant

Berin Szoka — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:52:57 -0000

CEI's Ryan Radia made the limited-government case for the ECPA reform principles laid out by the Digital Due Process coalition in this March 2010 piece: Digital Due Process: Protecting Americans’ Privacy by Restoring Constitutional Limits to Government in ECPA

Re: The Alternative to the Speier-Womack Internet Tax Proposal

Berin Szoka — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:40:32 -0000

Somehow, I seem to remember reading this post (or posts almost exactly like it) four or five times before!

Re: Leave Google alone

Berin Szoka — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:21:35 -0000

Well said! Adam Thierer and I also cited Friedman on the business community's suicidal impulse in cautioning against aggressive government intervention through net neutrality regulation. We noted that antitrust provides a better standard for deciding when to intervene, but even there, we do better to trust in the relentless pace of technological change to limit the power of "incumbent gatekeepers," be they ISPs or Google or Facebook or whoever the next big kid around the blog might be.

Government would still have a role to play, of course, in enforcing antitrust laws where anticompetitive harm to consumers can be proven, and in enforcing the promises companies make to consumers. Ultimately, however, certain business models and technologies require non-neutral treatment, and the best remedy for concerns about non-neutrality is competition itself: In the high-tech sector more than any other, disruptive innovation makes it difficult for even the most successful companies to stay on top forever. Competitive entry—or even the threat of new entry—provides a powerful check on the power of so-called “gatekeepers,” but even more important is the prospect that today’s leaders will be tomorrow’s laggards: There’s little reason to think Google (search and advertising), Apple (smart phones and music) and Facebook (social networking) won’t someday find themselves playing catch-up, just as IBM (computers), Microsoft (desktop software and search), Friendster and MySpace (social networking), and Yahoo! and AOL (web portals) have had to do.

That's why we at TechFreedom have been skeptical of antitrust intervention against not just Google, but Microsoft, AT&T, Facebook, Twitter and many other companies. The government bears a heavy burden of proof in showing that consumers are being harmed and that antitrust remedies would serve consumers better than market forces.