Archive for October, 2007

Judgment and automation

By On October 16, 2007 In google, trademark With No Comments Permanent Link to Judgment and automationPermalink

What would you do if you were Google?

You know that targeted keyword-driven ads will be useful to customers. In fact, your company’s survival depends on keywords working well. At the same time, you know that trademark holders seem to think that they own the string of letters that make up their mark – no matter in what context, or for what purpose, that string of letters is being used. You know this because you keep getting sued when companies get huffy that “their” string of letters is being used by their competitors to target ads. You’d like everyone to relax and compete on the merits (rather than on some pretended magic ownership of strings of letters in all contexts), but these matters get very tense very quickly. These companies don’t want to talk about the theoretical purpose of trademark law.

(By the way, if they’d listen you’d tell them that trademark law is really designed to protect against unfair competition, not uses of strings of letters in the abstract. But they’re not listening.)

So you, Google, have to figure out a way to get through the fire swamp of litigation without falling into the great hole of commercial irrelevance. What do you do? You’re feeling brave, so you convince a few courts that what trademark owners are entitled to worry about is uses of their marks in displayed ads. Not uses of their marks in keywords that trigger the display of ads. It would be nuts to eliminate uses of marks in keywords that trigger the display of ads (you argue elegantly) because the mark isn’t really being “used” in that context – and it certainly isn’t being used in a way that would be likely to confuse a consumer, because the consumer will just be seeing ads after typing in the keyword.

You can’t convince courts in Europe, unfortunately, so with a sigh you don’t allow the use of trademarked keywords there. But in North America you have a different policy:

When we receive a complaint from a trademark owner, we only investigate the use of the trademark in ad text. If the advertiser is using the trademark in ad text, we will require the advertiser to remove the trademark and prevent them from using it in ad text in the future. Please note that we will not disable keywords in response to a trademark complaint.

That’s pretty good, and pretty brave, but the policy has the problem that it might conceivably block perfectly fair uses of trademarks in ads. For example, comparative advertising might not be allowed – if Apple objected, an ad saying “Nokia Phones are Always Better Than the iPhone” wouldn’t fly because it uses the Apple trademark. Or parody advertising might be stymied. Google just can’t decide on a case-by-case basis whether a particular ad using a trademark is fine. Instead, it automates the process; if a trademark holder says “don’t allow use of my marks in ads,” that’s the end of the issue. Google blocks the use of the trademark in the text of ads triggered by particular keywords.

Recently, MoveOn got stuck in a whirlpool of inaccurate reporting about this automated process. Here’s Art Brodsky’s post on the issue. Someone at MoveOn had checked a box on the Google site saying “don’t use my trademark,” so as to avoid frauds and phishing scams. But that check-box-check meant that attack ads directed at MoveOn, or comparative advertising, or parodies would be blocked. When Rep. Susan Collins wanted to place an ad criticizing MoveOn for criticizing General Petraeus, the ad wasn’t allowed by Google. Big squabble and lots of finger-pointing ensued. MoveOn, alarmed, surprised, and chagrined, removed the barrier.

Who’s doing what to speech in this story? Google isn’t a state actor, so the First Amendment of the constitution doesn’t apply to it. It’s finding a way to make lots of fair uses of trademarks in keywords possible, and it’s avoiding the worst liability by blocking keyword use in ads when the trademark holder objects. It’s muddling through. And it has to automate the process – or so it claims – so that it’s not in the position of having to judge which keywords uses are okay and which aren’t.

But default settings, check-boxes, and automation of all kinds can lead to speech being restricted. What’s the right balance? On this one, I think Google is being pretty brave by allowing keyword use to trigger ads at all. They’re taking a position that keyword use – by itself – isn’t trademark infringement. This dispute shows that it’s very difficult to automate judgment.

What’s a fair use, in copyright or trademark? These are judge-run, fact-intensive disputes. Do you want to spend years litigating this question? Or would you rather make your best guess, strike a balance, and automate as much as you can?

What would you do?

Interfaces

By On October 15, 2007 In communications policy, fcc With No Comments Permanent Link to InterfacesPermalink

You may remember that in March 2006, when the FCC had only four commissioners, a Verizon petition to have all common-carriage-type requirements lifted from its relationships with businesses was “deemed granted” by the Commission’s silence — split 2-2, the Commission said nothing by the deadline for action on that petition. This non-action was part of a steady, incremental removal of rules from highspeed access in the U.S. that is still going on.

There were a couple of news items recently that relate to this subject. First, the D.C. Circuit today heard argument on a challenge to the notion that “deemed granted” could be the end of the story. According to Blair Levin and his team (sorry, no link), the panel seemed skeptical that silence meant denial of the petition. But the judges also weren’t sure how to review a record of silence, and may send the thing back to the Commission for something a little noisier.

Also, AT&T’s petition for “forbearance” from common carriage obligations for many of its business relationships (excusing AT&T from having to state what its fees will be for internet access services provided to businesses, and avoiding rate of return regulation generally for these relationships), was largely granted by the Commission last week. This forbearance applies to most of the services AT&T offers to businesses, including its very-high-capacity “OCn” (optical carrier lines, involving thousands of voice grade equivalents) fiber-optic interoffice transport connections, packetized broadband, Frame Relay services, ATM services, LAN services, Ethernet-based services, video transmission services, and wave-based services, but not traditional DS1 and DS3 special-access circuits.

AT&T argued that the market for these connections is highly competitive. Would-be ISPs (who would like to pay standardized fees for these services) argued that AT&T hadn’t provided the Commission with enough evidence supporting their claims, particularly in connection with the definition of “the market” (is it a collection of regional markets, or a national market?). The Commission didn’t seem to mind the lack of evidence. Here’s a good indication of how things are going over there at the FCC:

We recognize that the record in this proceeding does not include detailed market share information for particular enterprise broadband services. However, we note that other available data suggest that there are a number of competing providers for these types of services nationwide and the marketplace generally appears highly competitive.

The AT&T decision isn’t great for competitive local phone companies, which won’t get this interface of predictable tariffed services. AT&T can now offer all of these services on a private basis, free of government requirements (save the obligation to contribute to universal service funds).

The Commission takes the view that it MUST forbear in this context. It says the Commission is required to forbear from any regulation if it determines that (1) enforcement of the provision or regulation is not necessary to ensure the telecommunications carrier’s charges, practices, classifications, or regulations are just, reasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory; (2) enforcement of the provision or regulation is not necessary to protect consumers; and (3) forbearance is consistent with the public interest. Here, the Commission felt that requiring standard fee-interfaces for businesses of AT&T would “directly limit the ability of customers to secure the most flexible service arrangements” and was therefore “unnecessary to prevent unjust, unreasonable, or unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory rates, terms, and conditions for these services.”

The story isn’t over, although the next part is a little murky. There is a “special access” proceeding going on that some people believe will be decided in ways the Bells won’t like. It overlaps in some ways with these forbearance requests by Verizon and AT&T. Here’s the FCC again:

[T]o the extent that commenters argue for changes in the existing regulation of special access services other than those for which we grant relief, as in prior proceedings, we find that such concerns are more appropriately addressed on an industry-wide basis in pending rulemaking proceedings.

Translation (I think): “We’re not finished with the enterprise marketplace and we may ensure that real regulation applies there.”

In Europe things are so much simpler – when Deutsche Telekom refuses to open its fiber to competitors, and the German government goes along, the European Commission simply sues Germany. The argument here is that our marketplace is wildly more competitive. At any rate, we’re slimming the number of ISPs….

Bazelon, Abrams, Brill, and Liptak

By On October 12, 2007 In communications policy, newspapers, Uncategorized With 5 Comments Permanent Link to Bazelon, Abrams, Brill, and LiptakPermalink

This afternoon at the Yale Law School reunion the “Next Generation of Law and Media” panel was noteworthy. So I did my best to take some notes.

All the alums on the panel expressed concern about the effect of the internet on mainstream media, but two (Emily Bazelon and Adam Liptak) see a helpful relationship between the online world and journalism. All of the speakers were worried about the economic model for newspapers. Brill, in particular, was pushing for new legal protection of mainstream media companies (MSM, in shorthand below), including economic support that would guarantee jobs.

Here’s a brief report, paraphrasing what the speakers said.

Steve Brill: (1) Suggests we need government regulation to ensure that we have diverse media voices – and sufficient economic opportunity so that people can make a living. (2) Suggests we think about a new corporate structure for media companies – perhaps a cross between a public corporation and a 501(c)(3). It’s problematic for media companies to be focused so much on the bottom line. (3) Suggests there is more need than ever for good journalists, fair-minded people, and that they need to be protected and paid.

In general, Brill’s take is that it has been a mistake for media companies (like the Times) to make their product available for free online. He’d also like to see some legal protection for these companies (like a Corporation for Public Broadcasting function? this was unclear). He believes that people will continue to pay for the authoritative voice/good information provided by MSM.

Emily Bazelon: Ad revenue for print media offline and online is shrinking, although online ads generally are growing. She’s worried that craigslist is making money. Classified ads, which used to be such a cash cow for MSM, are going away, and that’s troubling.

On the other hand, Bazelon is not dissing bloggers. She suggests they’re adding a great deal of value, particularly in the legal arena (mentions Balkinization and others as good sources) – they’re thoughtful, link to key materials, and help reporters be smart. In her view, this is a good development. Bloggers are making MSM less important, and we’re just at the beginning of this process.

Answering an assertion from the audience about the good reporting that can come from blogs (e.g., TPM), Bazelon points out that although TPM is terrific there aren’t many other examples like it. Usually you have to pay people well to do this work.

Floyd Abrams: (1) People who care about government censorship, and worry about it for the internet, should pay attention to current censorship being applied to broadcast (radio and television). Because the internet is the home of pornography, rascist speech, pedophiles etc. powerful forces will seek to censor it the same way broadcast has successfully been censored in the U.S. (2) Bloggers are not the same as journalists. Abrams went through the front page of today’s Times, noting that [paraphrasing] “the only story here that a blogger could have produced was the tribute to Doris Lessing.”

Abrams later noted that Fox has created a home for people who feel disenfranchised by other news organizations. And we should also remember that there was never a golden age for journalism, when journalists were perfect. People are entitled to have choices about what they watch.

Adam Liptak: It’s astounding that the Times comes out every day – it’s an enormous, expensive effort. The economic underpinnings of this model are at risk. Classified ads are gone, the paper is free online, and the Times has undercut its own credibility at times (Jayson Blair, leadup to Iraq war).

There are positive things to say about the relationships between the online world and journalists. It’s a lot easier for journalists to correct their work. They can “show” their work more easily – and verification can be more scientific. Now law professors can be found online who are real experts in their areas – they’ve “shown” their work too.

There is a caustic, sniping tone in criticism of MSM that can be unpleasant, but that’s fine. The real problem is ascribing partisan motives to news organizations, which happens very quickly these days.

In answer to a question about network neutrality: Understands this issue to be about having only one printing press – issue is whether carriers should be treated as common carriers rather than speakers with First Amenmdent rights of their own.

In answer to a question asking, essentially, “where are the heroic journalists these days?” Liptak said there were plenty of heroes in print media – journalism at the highest level. But only one evening news program followed up on the Times story last week reporting that the torture memo had (effectively) been reinstated.

From the audience: “The Colbert Report followed up.”

Transformative technology

By On October 11, 2007 In radio With 3 Comments Permanent Link to Transformative technologyPermalink

Another technology was said to overcome key barriers between the voter and the candidate: the barriers of distance, of time, of inertia, and of crowd psychology. It brought to the physically remote voter a type of first-hand information he had never had before.

There was great excitement. Would this new technology prick into quicker, more coherent action our unwieldy democratic giant? Or with its shining novelty would its seeming power too be gone? What were the inherent political potentialities of this new technology? Aside from the immense publicity value which its newness gave it, what could it actually effect in a presidential election?

The new technology was remarkable. It had found a way to dispense with political middlemen. In a fashion it had restored the demos upon which republican government is founded. No candidate would be able to stand up to it who was unprepared to enlighten the electorate. It potentially gave to every member of the electorate the possibility of a direct reaction to the candidates themselvs. It reproduced to some degree, for the first time in the United States, the conditions of the Athenian democracy where every voter, for himself, could hear and judge the candidates.

The year was 1924: “…America finds herself this year in the act of virtually choosing her chief executive by an instrument that was up to a brief two years ago generally considered a freakish fad.”

“Politics,” the newspapers said, was “radio’s next big job.” “Is the radio, heavy with its destiny, leading us to a day when all men will join in to actively work for the righteous government of the land they live in?”

The days of the old-time campaign were numbered if not entirely gone. All the notables of the party whizzed their persuasive words via wireless.

And all the people would benefit: “Let a legislator now commit himself to some policy that is obviously senseless, and the editorial writers must first proclaim his imbecility to the community. But let the radiophone in the legislative halls of the future flash his absurdities into space and a whole state hears them at once.”

Thus informed, the citizenry would not be able to plead ignorance. “[R]adio can and should bring to practically every citizen full knowledge of the issues which affect the lives of the American people. Through its aid the candidates can speak directly to the people. No longer can any man or woman entitled to a vote conscientiously plead ignorance of the issues involved as an excuse for remaining home on election day.”

And the citizenry would march to the polls. “Broadcasting the proceedings of the great National Conventions has aroused such national interest that the greatest poll of votes ever cast at a Presidential election will result.” (Actually, the 1924 election had the lowest voter turnout of any election to that time — 48.9%.)

In 1924, we were absolutely confident that the voters were going to be in the driver’s seat.

“Because of the far-reaching radio these hundred-per cent. American institutions – fixed political methods, bosses and oratory – are going to have to be done over into a twentieth cenentury mold, to meet the exacting taste of Brooklyn newsboys, of college professors and of home-keeping females. Whether conditions will be improved orwrecked by the revolution is beside the point. The thing is going to happen. It is happening.”

A revolution was underway. “Here is the entirely new political public that the radio has tapped. It is not necessarily a more intelligent public. But at any rate it is a new one and it has never been broken to the seasoned old claptrap. It is a large public, usually in political prognostication assigned to the contingent of General Apathy. It can no longer be trusted to stay there. And that is one reason why the politicians are up against a revolution.”

Internet censorship in China

By On October 10, 2007 In internet policy With No Comments Permanent Link to Internet censorship in ChinaPermalink

This report from Reporters Without Borders/Chinese Human Rights Defenders may be incomplete – and there’s no information from 2007 in it – but it’s worth reading. The report says:

China is the only country in the world to have tens of thousands of cyber-censors and cyber-police. . . Although their activities are a well-kept state secret, this report reveals their impressive ability to purge the Internet of news and information that embarrass[es] the government.

Unlicensed news sites, and licensed news sites publishing independently-gathered information, aren’t allowed.

News is centrally gathered by the government.

Text messages are sent by the government to instruct sites not to cover particular events or to delete articles or comments.

There is a great deal of self-censorship.

The Beijing government bureau that deals with the internet (where control of the internet is at its strictest) divides its orders into three categories — orders (to delete or edit) that have to be implemented within five minutes, orders that have to be implemented within ten minutes, and orders that have to be implemented within thirty minutes.

It goes on and on. Here’s a sample order:

Dear colleagues, regarding the death of a radio presenter while she was at the deputy mayor’s home, do not disseminate any reports, do not send any new articles, withdraw those that have already been posted on the site, and ensure that forums, blogs and messages no longer refer to this case.

Keyword censorship abounds – sites do it themselves. Any words having to do with the Tiananmen Square massacre have been banned. About 400-500 words are banned by sites.

The government has begun blocking RSS feeds, according to this ArsTechnica article.

The Beijing Olympics are less than a year away. Here’s a blog post from China, thanks to Global Voices Online:

As I’ve come to understand …., things not beneficial to the Olympic Games’ radiant image are all being filtered out. So much in regards to this radiant image that, for example, even restoration to the sports stadiums has been forbidden to report on.
I really, really don’t know what it is the authorities are afraid of, or to what extent they’re afraid. Even our Party and government consistently express willingness to be subject to public scrutiny, so why do the Beijing Olympics have all-encompassing authority?
A modern human society ought to constitute a sophisticated and heterogeneous society, a pluralistic society which accepts various sorts of values.

Context

By On October 9, 2007 In music With 1 Comment Permanent Link to ContextPermalink

Thanks to Fred von Lohmann for pointing to this post from Ian Rogers of Yahoo!.

Cheap and great music is better than free and lousy, context is everything, and the recording industry has missed all possible online boats for the last eight years. That’s Rogers’s message.

First the labels sued Napster instead of selling their content to their users in the format the users wanted: MP3 files that any device can use. In 1999, Rogers thought that was dumb. “Make it easy, I wrote, and convenience will beat free.” Then the labels DRM’d everything and tried every form of control they could engineer. Now, with Amazon’s MP3 download service, users finally have what they want: MP3 files that any device can use.

“8 years. How much opportunity have we [the music industry] lost in those 8 years?” Rogers’s point is that “convenience wins, hubris loses.” And he’s not going to play along any more:

I’m here to tell you today that I for one am no longer going to fall into this trap. If the licensing labels offer their content to Yahoo! [on the condition that Yahoo!] put more barriers in front of the users, I’m not interested. . . I won’t let Yahoo! invest any more money in consumer inconvenience.

Rogers wants his whole industry to get into building context. The web has context – incredible information about the music – but iTunes is context-free. There’s a huge opportunity here to make it really easy to access the music and provide a rich context for it and people will pay for that. People will pay many many small amounts for this context:

Context is where the opportunity is and therefore where the innovation will be. The next five years [are] gonna be fun. I think we’re finally going to see some innovation in digital media.

It’s good to see progress here with the new Amazon service. Maybe the marketplace is working; maybe there’s a bright musical future out ahead. The price for music may go to (close to) zero, but the services that accompany that music will be worth paying (a little bit) for. Plus I loved hearing Rogers’s voice, experienced and frustrated.

Rulemaking: Timing is Everything

By On October 8, 2007 In communications, fcc, Uncategorized With No Comments Permanent Link to Rulemaking: Timing is EverythingPermalink

Last week’s GAO report, “FCC Should Take Steps to Ensure Equal Access to Rulemaking Information,” didn’t have too much impact. All the telecommunications “stakeholders” with offices in Washington, D.C. know how things work.

Rulemakings go on indefinitely. They start at some point, these proceedings, and then they just keep going. There may be interim rules, notices of further proposed rules, requests for additional information, any number of other filings. There are deadlines for comments on particular pieces of paper, but the process keeps rolling and doesn’t have to be completed by any particular date.

But timing is everything. When the Chairman is ready to put an order on the public agenda, he circulates a draft to the other commissioners. This usually happens about three weeks before the public meeting – and about two weeks before the agenda for the meeting is released to the public. Once the agenda is public, a “Sunshine Period” begins during which no one can lobby the commissioners. Here’s the GAO:

FCC officials told us that, for stakeholders to successfully make their case before FCC, “timing is everything.” Specifically, if a stakeholder knows that a proposed rule has been scheduled for a vote and may be voted on in 3 weeks, that stakeholder can schedule a meeting with FCC officials before the rule is voted on. In contrast, a stakeholder who does not know that the rule is scheduled for a vote may not learn that the rule will be voted on until the agenda is announced 1 week before the public meeting.

At that point, a week before the meeting, no one is allowed to lobby.

Stakeholders other than those representing consumer and public-interest groups hear about scheduled votes in advance. Remember the first part above – these rulemakings go on without tight deadlines. Advance knowledge that a vote is coming up is supposed to be nonpublic FCC information. No one is supposed to know outside the FCC. But that’s not how things have worked at the FCC. Here’s the GAO again:

[S]takeholders who generally represent consumer and public-interest groups, told us that they do not know when FCC is about to vote on a rulemaking or when it would be best to meet with FCC staff to make their arguments.

By contrast, it’s likely that large organizations will know about the scheduled vote:

Several stakeholders told us that they learn which items FCC is about to vote on even though that information is not supposed to be released outside of FCC. . . . [N]ine stakeholders. . told us that they hear this information from both FCC bureau staff and commissioner staff. One stakeholder — representing a large organization that is involved in numerous rulemakings — told us that FCC staff call them and tell them what items are scheduled for a vote.

FCC isn’t playing fair — but we knew that. If you don’t know about a vote, you’ll lose your chance to lobby when it matters. The GAO report sharply criticizes the FCC:

Situations where some, but not all, stakeholders know what FCC is considering for an upcoming vote undermine the fairness and transparency of the process and constitute a violation of FCC’s rules. Since the success of lobbying for a particular issue can be highly dependent on whether an issue is being actively considered, FCC staff . . could be providing an advantage to some stakeholders, allowing them to time their lobbying efforts to maximize their impact.

The GAO gave FCC a draft of their report, but FCC had nothing to say about it.

This week in the white spaces

By On October 5, 2007 In communications, communications policy, fcc With No Comments Permanent Link to This week in the white spacesPermalink

The FCC says today that it’s continuing “the process of investigating the potential performance capabilities of TV white space devices in an open and transparent manner. To that end, the Laboratory will be conducting additional laboratory and field testing of prototype devices.” This probably means that the FCC will be re-testing the (apparently broken) Microsoft prototype device. (Background here: Even If It’s Broken..)

1. The Maximum Service Television group (against portable unlicensed devices) asks questions about this future testing. A sample: “In the event that devices in the new tests are found to meet manufacturers’ suggested performance levels, will further testing be done to determine the proper sensing threshold necessary for protection of TV viewers?”

2. The Open Mobile Video Coalition (who want Americans to carry around new versions of television sets), is anxious too. Their filing urges the Commission “not to permit unlicensed devices to operate in the DTV spectrum unless there is fully effective protection against interference to the mobile broadcast service from mobile devices.”

3. Cox Communications weighs in, claiming that no one is bothering to test the effects on cable headends that might be caused by unlicensed portable devices in the white spaces. They’re also pointing out that there are no generally-accepted standards for sensing detection thresholds, so how can the Commission claim to be meeting them? Most importantly, they argue, the DTV transition is complicated enough – and “[p]ermitting personal and portable devices could effectively undermine these [transition] efforts – introducing considerable confusion, as well as degrading existing services, to the detriment of American consumers.”

4. Both Cox and the Rural Telecommunications Group argue that limiting use of the white spaces to fixed, licensed devices will bring highspeed internet access to rural areas. Not to mention, says the Rural Telecommunications Group, that “[b]y limiting new services in the TV bands to those that are both fixed and icensed, the Commission would avoid having to rely upon ineffective and unproven technologies to avoid degrading incumbent operations.”

5. The New America Foundation visited the FCC, with actual engineers in tow, to say that they’re ready to help the FCC with measurements. They’re pointing out that the sensitivity standards used by the White Spaces Coalition may themselves be too sensitive, particularly in light of “the huge opportunity costs for wireless service and innovation associated with allowing spectrum to lie fallow because in a few places a high-gain antenna could view a signal that most of the shrinking share of over-the-air viewers would find to be below the threshold of visibility.” Translation: The FCC’s (and Congress’s) political obsession with protecting the small (and getting smaller) percentage of Americans who use rabbit ear antennas to receive over-the-air broadcast limits innovation – to protect those viewers, we’re giving up wireless uses that could be very valuable. Yes, there could be a well-focused antenna that would pick up some portable devices’s transmission by accident, but just about everyone else using rabbit ears will never be bothered.

6. The Hispanic Technology and Telecommunications Partnership writes in, pointing out that “Hispanic households use over-the-air broadcast television at significantly higher rates than the non-minority national average. For example, in Houston nearly 459,852 homes (23.2%) receive signals over the air. Of these over-the-air homes, 290,000 (58.9%) are Hispanic homes. This is typical in many cities with large Hispanic audiences. Their argument is that the DTV transition is meaningful and shouldn’t be interfered with by portable, unlicensed devices. This is powerful: “With the DTV transition less than 18 months away, now is not the time to experiment with a new policy that could disrupt the transition and cause permanent damage to consumers. Unchecked interference from new unfixed and unlicensed devices in the TV spectrum could effectively disenfranchise over-the-air digital viewers across America. The “free” information safety net for many
Hispanic homes will be lost and they will be left behind in the new digital era.”

Bottom line: some devices will be re-tested, we don’t know which, we don’t know what standards will apply, and the advent of the DTV transition is putting a lot of pressure on this process.

Sputnik and Arpanet

By On October 4, 2007 In newspapers With No Comments Permanent Link to Sputnik and ArpanetPermalink

Fifty years ago today, the USSR launched Sputnik, the first artificial earth satellite.

On February 7, 1958 (just a few months later, and arguably directly in response to the launch of Sputnik), the U.S. Department of Defense issued directive 5105.15 establishing the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA).

Four years later, J.C.R. Licklider was chosen to run ARPA computer research. Read The Dream Machine for the rest of the story.

Here’s Vermeer’s Navigator, on view here in Frankfurt at the Städel Museum – a Licklider from a different time:

The Navigator

Clinton Blasts Bush’s War on Science – blog entry from today’s NY Times. It would certainly be a good idea to bring back the Office of Technology Assessment. Here’s an entry from this blog from more than two years ago. OTA: You Are Missed.

How newspapers and broadcasters are different

By On October 3, 2007 In broadcasting, fcc, network neutrality, newspapers With 1 Comment Permanent Link to How newspapers and broadcasters are differentPermalink

The advent of the digital age has put both newspapers and television broadcasters — until not too long ago the arbiters of opinion and taste in America — under pressure. It’s hard for hardcopy newspapers to survive in a craigslist time, and they generally can’t force people to pay for their content online. It’s hard for broadcasters to differentiate their offerings, and so they are starting to release shows online.

But newspapers (unlike broadcasters) seem to get the idea that they’re better off with an open internet than a closed, cell-phone-like internet. I was happy to see the New York Times editorial today on the importance of the Verizon/NARAL issue:

We have long been concerned about the potential threat to free speech and a free press as communications migrate from old-fashioned telephone lines, TV broadcasts and printing presses to digital networks controlled by unregulated private companies. The threat stopped being theoretical recently when Verizon Wireless censored political speech on one of its mobile services. . . . Given this chilling experience, the Federal Communications Commission should quickly issue regulations that also bar interference with text messaging. Unfortunately, the F.C.C. is in the thrall of the carriers, and the Bush administration has an unblemished record of siding with corporations over the rights and safety of American citizens. That means Congress will have to take the lead, as it must on other issues affecting the mushrooming world of digital communications.

What’s great about this editorial is that it takes the long view. It recognizes that this fight isn’t just about “short codes,” but about the future of communications generally. The Times clearly takes the view that communications carriers – even wireless carriers – aren’t like “newspapers.” Newspapers get to choose what they print, and can’t be forced to “carry” any particular speech. Companies providing access to the internet don’t – shouldn’t – get to pick winners and losers in the marketplace of communications.

The editorial also picks up on the current political reality: the FCC simply is not going to do anything that disrupts the carriers’ business plans. Rather than ignore online communications, or say they don’t matter, the newspaper calls for Congressional action to bring our now-ancient communications law (1996!) up to date. This is brave stuff.

It’s something a broadcaster probably wouldn’t say. Sure, they’re under pressure from the internet. So they’d rather avoid it — by finding a way to hook up with cable systems that don’t have common carriage obligations (but can be forced to carry broadcast signals), and fighting any unlicensed uses of white spaces with innumerable lobbyists “red in tooth and claw.” They must want things both ways: special all-American status, so that must carry rules stay in place and we push the country through a digital transition optimized for broadcast, and affiliation with traditionally-proprietary, newspaper-like cable systems that can freely discriminate between transmissions.

Maybe we should put this to a vote. Who would we vote off the communications island? Who has to go? I’m hoping newspapers can stick around (albeit in different, online forms). Broadcasters, on the other hand…

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →