Disqus - Latest Comments for ryanradia

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

ryanradia — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:02:44 -0000

Regulation that enforces voluntary arrangements is pro-freedom, pro-market. Regulation that bans arrangements that would otherwise occur absent coercive intervention is anti-freedom, anti-market, and worst of all, anti-human welfare.

Re: Privacy Coalition: Scrap the DHS Privacy Officer

ryanradia — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:46:56 -0000

The Competitive Enterprise Institute signed on to this letter, although for some reason we do not appear in the version of the letter posted here.

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

ryanradia — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:07:22 -0000

It's an overstatement to say that broadband competition in the U.S. is robust, but it's also an overstatement to say that broadband here "sucks."

The reality seems to be somewhere in between -- if you live in or near a major metropolitan area, you probably have at least one decent broadband provider. If you live in a city that has FiOS, you probably have two decent broadband providers. If Sprint's Xohm, RCN, or any one of several "overbuilders" are available in your area, you may even have 3 decent providers. Clearwire, Sprint, and soon Verizon and AT&T are building 4G (LTE/WiMax) networks that offer multiple-megabit speeds without stringent usage caps.

You're absolutely right that we'll never win the battle against net neutrality if we cling to shoddy statistics on broadband deployment. Lots and lots of very vocal consumers feel like the market isn't serving their needs, and in some cases their concerns are not illegitimate. If you live in Rochester, NY, and your two choices are Frontier DSL and Time Warner Cable, it's hard to take seriously oft-repeated claims that broadband in America is 'vibrant." But entrenching the status-quo isn't the answer, either, and that's exactly what net neutrality would do.

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

ryanradia — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:46:43 -0000

Government allows markets to thrive by defining property rights and enforcing voluntary arrangements. There simply is no evidence that "device" or "application" neutrality are universally superior to device or application non-neutrality from an innovation standpoint. The iPhone is a prime example of this, as we've discussed here in great detail. If non-neutral ISP business models -- i.e. charging, say, Google for access to customers -- made sense, we'd have seen such models emerge by now. They haven't, at least not in any systematic way. They probably won't, either, unless they serve a purpose.

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

ryanradia — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:42:16 -0000

Net neutrality regulation isn't a bad idea because open networks, open protocols, or open access are bad principles. Rather, they're not always best, nor is there any compelling reason why government should force networks to be open (or closed for that matter).

See Tim Lee's paper -- http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9775 -- he argues that the scenarios that neutrality advocates warn of are unlikely to happen. Mistakes will be made, and some ISPs will make dumb moves, but the Internet is not going back to AOL anytime soon.

Of course, some degree of non-neutrality may well make economic sense in certain cases -- wireless is one excellent example of this -- and emerging networks may not offer exactly the same characteristics that today's open networks do. But that doesn't mean that, absent neutrality rules, providers will succeed in leveraging their supposed "market power" to harm consumers in any systematic way.

Disclosure occurs whether providers like it or not. Comcast didn't tell anybody about Sandvine, but people figured it out anyway. Disclosure may not always be a good idea, either -- the "bad guys" may take advantage of disclosure to circumvent network management rules that serve a valid purpose.

The solution to poor network management tactics is more competition. Regulating otherwise-voluntary arrangements between private parties, however, depresses competition. An entrepreneur considering entering two markets will, ceteris paribus, generally choose that which is more "open" to business models. As Brett Glass has pointed out, small ISPs actually have more to lose from stringent neutrality rules than large ISPs do. Look no further than AT&T's support of neutrality rules (on wired broadband at least) for evidence of this.

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

ryanradia — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 23:39:56 -0000

It's worth noting that Apple has on a number of occasions rejected iPhone apps on the grounds that they "duplicate existing iPhone functionality." Google Voice, for instance, was blocked not because AT&T objected to it but because Apple believed it duplicated the built-in iPhone voice feature. Zittrain et al have been very vocal in opposing Apple's policy of refusing to allow duplicative iPhone apps, and I think the Lessigites are far more concerned about Apple refusing to allow Google Voice on the Iphone than they are about Apple yanking the I Am Rich app.

Re: FCC Can’t Even Figure Out How To Stream Its Own Meetings Properly

ryanradia — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:48:11 -0000

Agreed. FCC should definitely offer its streaming video in an open format, though I think it'd be OK if the FCC were to also offer it in a proprietary format.

Re: 600 Billion Data Points Per Day? It’s Time to Restore the Fourth Amendment

ryanradia — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:39:34 -0000

Most GPS-based automobile navigation systems aren't bidirectional, as I understand them, unlike OnStar. So I think you'd be fine with most cars...

Re: Illinois Bans Sex Predators from Social Networking Sites

ryanradia — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:45:31 -0000

They're covered. The law applies to anybody who is a registered sex offender.

Re: A Bailout For The First Amendment?

ryanradia — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:52:15 -0000

I for one am fine with a privately endowed press -- but I disagree with your latter statement that it gets little attention from those who want to save professional journalists. See Cardin's Newspaper Revitalization Act, which (as I understand it) would essentially allow media companies to reorganize into non-profit entities operating under section 501(c)(3) that could accept tax deductible private donations. The trouble with this arrangement is that 501(c)(3) entities can't endorse political candidates or take explicit stances on legislation (with limited exceptions). I'm not sure how much it would hobble professional journalism were media outlets restricted in their ability to weigh in on political controversies.

Re: Want Recovery? Remember Antitrust is Anti-Economy

ryanradia — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 22:06:08 -0000

What captureable regulators should we be focused on? I mean this seriously -- if there are regulators that we ought to be delegitimizing, by all means let us know and we'll listen. Despite the fact that some of us TLFers are connected to business interests that have incoherent, occasionally anti-consumer agendas, I think we're generally pretty consistent about advocating the elimination of artificial entry barriers. Unlike many pundits, we don't change our positions when the political winds change. Since the beginning, TLF has been skeptical of antitrust -- even as the focus of antitrust regulators has shifted from software firms to Web giants. We've also long pushed for policies that reduce entry barriers for potential telecom last mile entrants. But again, we don't claim to be perfect, and any suggestions on how we can better advocate an open, unfettered market are welcome.

Re: iPhone-Google Voice Flap a Reminder of Why DMCA Needs Fixing

ryanradia — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:02:42 -0000

I think you make a good point. I'm generally skeptical of criminalizing copyright infringement. I suppose large-scale commercial piracy may merit some criminal penalties, but non-commercial person infringement certainly should not be a criminal matter.

You're also right that mass disregard for the DMCA amounts to civil disobedience. That's certainly a strike against the law. I'm not sure I'd say that laws that are widely disregarded should simply be taken off the books, but mass civil disobedience of a law does raise the question of whether the law in question is actually worthwhile in the first place.

Re: Newsflash to FCC: iPhone is a Closed Platform, and Consumers Love It

ryanradia — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:36:35 -0000

Second article from above, TechNewsWorld: "Reports indicate that Apple spent $100 million on the development of the original iPhone."

Third article is useless. I have no idea why I put it in there.

The fourth article isn't specifically addressing R&D expenditures but rather the financial risk that Apple has taken with the iPhone and its aggressive pricing strategy (which has worked out quite nicely for Apple).

There's no denying that lots of people want an open iPhone. Ten percent of iPhone/iPod touch users have installed Cydia according to its developer (via your slashdot article). Frankly, if I were an Apple exec, I'd probably try to cater to the openness-loving audience. But it seems that Apple just doesn't care about appealing to those folks, which is fine -- that's what all those other open phones are for. The idea that unless every product manages to be everything to everyone, then markets must be failing doesn't seem very convincing to me.

Re: Newsflash to FCC: iPhone is a Closed Platform, and Consumers Love It

ryanradia — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:24:23 -0000

We'll likely never know for sure how much Apple spent on iPhone R&D -- but estimates I've seen range from $100 to $150 million (see below). Also, Apple's entire R&D budget has been climbing steadily for the past few years and recently topped $1 billion. One can reasonably assume that at least some non-trivial portion of that was related to the iPhone.

http://www.applematters.com/article/apple-to-sp...
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/development/...
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42986/97/
http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/6/with-a-19...

I won't disagree with you that some people would like their iPhone more if it were more open. But if so many customers are dying for more openness, then how do you explain the fact that the iPhone -- very much a closed device -- has been so darn successful at besting competing devices that are far more open? Windows Mobile phones are arguably more open, and they are widely available on every major carrier, yet they are vastly underperforming the iPhone in sales growth. And while Android is still nascent, when it begins to be widespread later this year, I suspect it won't make a big dent in Apple's sales.

Of course, I may well be wrong to assume that open phones won't take off any time soon. In fact, as a lover of open devices, I certainly hope I am. But I cannot deny that closed devices seem to be perfectly capable of pushing innovation forward. The natural evolution of the market isn't always easy to understand, but it just works -- after all, it is merely the aggregation of the rational self-interested voluntary choices made by millions of consumers and firms.

Re: Newsflash to FCC: iPhone is a Closed Platform, and Consumers Love It

ryanradia — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:17:02 -0000

I'm not saying innovation will come to a complete standstill because of the FCC's crackdown on the wireless industry. Rather, the threat of regulatory intervention against successful firms like Apple and AT&T will distort investment in wireless innovation, causing firms to allocate scarce dollars toward more lightly regulated pursuits. Innovation happens when firms take risks in search of profit; thus, industries with artificially diminished profit potential will be industries that see less innovation.

Re: Net Neutrality Rules = Price Controls

ryanradia — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 21:55:45 -0000

Undergraduate economics? Fair enough -- none of my undergrad econ classes taught the contestable markets hypothesis or the Bertrand model of duopoly competition, both of which are important to understanding the nature of the ISP market.

You say in regards to Internet regulation, "too much is at stake; it is not worth the risk." This is precisely how I feel. The Internet hasn't been around for all that long and imposing short-sighted rules runs a very real risk of curbing innovation. Nobody knows what sort of prioritization pricing systems will emerge, if at all, and in 2009 even the smartest people on the planet cannot predict how the next few years of ISP competition will shake out, let alone the rest of the decade.

You point out that the ISP market is concentrated. Sure, but ISPs really aren't all that powerful in most markets despite their concentration. While ISPs often have enough leverage to operate profitably, that doesn't mean they have a monopoly. Why is it that "net neutrality" has only been abrogated on a handful of occasions? It's surely not because of government mandates -- the only official neutrality proclamation that exists is non-binding. Maybe it's because firms generally avoid angering their customers -- even in markets where choices are somewhat constrained.

It'd be great if we had more ISP choices, but there is such thing as too many competing firms in a given market. Entry barriers rooted in government regulation are to blame for the lack of ISP competition in many markets. In other markets, though, the economics simply aren't conducive to having 10 competitors. That's okay, though, because firms must compete not only among existing competitors but also among potential entrants. Go too far, and a new guy will come in and destroy you. That's the risk that ISPs run when they start messing with Internet destinations.

Re: A Response to Jonathan Zittrain in The New York Times

ryanradia — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:24:54 -0000

Perhaps I'm making the problem of purging data seem harder than it really is, but a "fair practices law" likely wouldn't leave room for error. And while archival backups should age out, guaranteeing with certainty that no remnant of a particular user's data exists anywhere on a massive network (like Facebook's) would probably necessitate some non-trivial compliance burden. suppose Zittrain may have been merely calling for a rule requiring online services to make a reasonable effort to delete user data upon request. Data privacy laws, however, have a tendency to be pretty heavy-handed.

Re: A Response to Jonathan Zittrain in The New York Times

ryanradia — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:21:52 -0000

A lot of cloud services backup data offsite (on magnetic tapes, for instance) which makes it somewhat challenging to purge specific data. Yes, it can be done, but it entails a cost, and it's hardly reasonable to mandate that all cloud services bear that cost when many of them are barely scraping by.

I'm skeptical of disclosure mandates because they presume that data security should be the default state of affairs. I tend to think otherwise; as I state above, the Internet is a very public network and anything you transmit is only as secure as the party at the other end of the line promises it will be. In other words, users should simply assume that any personal data handed over online will forever be gone -- unless otherwise stated. A disclosure mandate would lull users into a false sense of security, making it seem as if data is secure by default when the opposite is true.

You're absolute right that Zittrain made many other objectionable arguments in his op-ed. Adam hit on many of them last week. But the issue that I'm especially interested in is the privacy angle; thus my letter.

Re: Shop TechDirt

ryanradia — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:47:18 -0000

only $100 million to silence TechDirt for a whole year? the RIAA should be all over that.

Re: Privacy Solutions (Part 5): CCleaner

ryanradia — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:23:35 -0000

Great article. It's worth noting that while overwriting data 7 or even 35 times may make you feel safer, a significant body of computer security research indicates that a single overwrite is plenty. (see http://www.springerlink.com/content/408263ql114...)

Eraser by Heidi is a good alternative to CCleaner for those looking for a more robust, albeit less user-friendly, free data erasure program. http://eraser.heidi.ie/

Re: Cringely’s Contradictory Thinking on Microsoft-Google Wars

ryanradia — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:23:11 -0000

Cringely's suggestion that MS might attempt to block Windows users from accessing Google is particularly absurd. Seems like he is just making noise for controversy's sake without making any real policy or technical arguments.

Re: Antitrust Enforcement in the Age of Free

ryanradia — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:05:01 -0000

Google may not provide monetary consideration to those who create the content that helps enable Google to generate revenue, but so what? The search engine-web publisher transaction is a purely voluntary exchange. And it's mutually beneficial; otherwise, it wouldn't take place. If summarizing news articles reduces their value, why do so few news organizations disallow Google News from excerpting their articles?

Re: Antitrust Enforcement in the Age of Free

ryanradia — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:57:48 -0000

As I understand Masnick's 'theory,' you got it right: giving away music in the form of downloadable files, which has practically zero unit cost, is an effective means of gaining a following (that is, if your music is actually good). Rather than exclude those who aren't willing to pay for your music, you give it away, exposing your work to a far greater audience. The more people hear your music, the more people will attend your concerts, and the more money you can make in the long run.

Of course, this is just one business strategy, albeit one that works pretty well in many cases. To me, the advent of 'free' doesn't mean that charging a fee for access to intellectual works will go away. Rather, the traditional business tactic of selling access to music, videos, and writings will increasingly be augmented with giveaways.

You are right that Google's real customers are advertisers, not people who do web searches. Competition policy, however, is designed to benefit consumers. Even if Google's practices are harming advertisers (which I would dispute) where is the consumer harm?

Re: Free Press Hypocrisy over Metering & Internet Price Controls

ryanradia — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:27:44 -0000

Fair according to whom? If consumers are willing to pay for a service, then isn't it fair by definition, given the (reasonable) assumption that rational actors do not voluntarily engage in transactions that make themselves worse off? Of course, if I were a Time Warner subscriber I'd be pissed. I'm mad whenever a good or service I want is priced higher than I think it should be. But this is just a fact of life. In a marketplace, prices are set through a decentralized discovery process. Things can get a bit rough at times, but price discovery is the best way to ensure that resources are allocated as efficiently as possible. No lawmaker or regulatory body can determine what is and isn't a "fair" price.

Re: European Regulators Think Consumers Too Stupid to Know How to Download a Different Browser

ryanradia — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:59:31 -0000

FTP or a USB stick, I suppose