Do what they say, not what they do…
August 16, 2009
Vint Cerf, Google’s Internet Evangelist, urged the FCC at a broadband workshop last week to regulate broadband networks as a utility like the electrical grid.
- I wonder if others spotted the irony in Google’s “utility” regulation prescription for broadband.
Google’s Mr. Cerf looks at the most competitive broadband market in the world, declares it inherently anti-competitive, and summarily prescribes… monopoly utility regulation for the entire broadband industry.
Meanwhile back at the Google Book Settlement ranch… Google has negotiated a de facto book search monopoly for itself in the Book Registry “utility” of the Google Book Settlement, without any regulation or Government oversight.
- Google advocate and former FTC official, David Balto, praised the Google Book registry utility saying:
- “Antitrust appropriately recognizes the need to reward such risk taking endeavors. For decades the courts and antitrust enforcers have recognized the need not to intervene against innovations and new products developed based on superior skill, foresight and ingenuity. The creation of this new online library is precisely that, a risky endeavor that benefits society and consumers.”
Hmmmm. When Google artificially sets up a monopoly book utility for itself, it warrants no regulation. However, when Google’s competitors take risk, introduce new products, invest and innovate in the risky endeavor of broadband deployment and competition, Google’s policy prescription is the exact opposite — monopoly utility regulation… I wonder why that could be…
Why proposed net neutrality bill is the most extreme yet
August 13, 2009
While the latest net neutrality bill introduced in Congress has no chance of passage as drafted, it is a bay window view into how extreme the net neutrality movement has become and into what they are seeking from the FCC via backdoor regulation.
- The proposed Markey-Eshoo bill, HR 3458, which was drafted in close coordination with FreePress and the Open Internet Coalition, is much more extreme than previous bills in 2008 and 2006.
Why is this bill the most extreme version of net neutrality yet?
- It imposes a beyond-all-reason, effective absolute ban on prioritization of data traffic, essentially eliminating current essential network management flexibility to: protect networks from attack or malware; ensure quality of service; manage congestion, latency, and jitter; and handle unforeseen or emergency situations. Sections: 12(b)(5), 12(b)(6)
- For all practical purposes, it destroys most any private sector incentive or benefit from competing or investing in broadband by outlawing any pricing/business model differentiation/innovation beyond commodity end user pricing. Section 12(b)(2)
- In effect, it creates near unlimited liability for ISPs (legal, regulatory & financial), because all current broadband networks and business models are not designed to be operated without prioritization and historical reasonable network management. Few if any investors or bondholders would agree to be subject to this all risk — no reward regime. Sections: 12(b)(2), (4), (5), (6); 12(c)(3); 12(g)(1) & (2)
- It mandates ISPs provide an open-ended, un-funded “ever-increasing level of Internet access service to end users” with no consideration of need or cost recovery. Sections: 12(c)(3); 12(g)(1) & (2)
- It torpedoes successful competition policy by ensuring it becomes unworkable; it mandates simultaneous pursuit of practically opposing goals — maximizing facilities-based competition and resale competition at the same time. In the late 1990′s, the FCC proved that maximizing resale competition destroyed incentives for facilities-based competition and investment. Section 12(g)(3)
- It essentially forces all “private transmission capacity services” to be operated largely as public Internet services. Sections 12(g)(4), (5), (6), & (7)
Second, it is much more regulatory than even the most strict monopoly regulation of the last 75 years. Section 12(b)(1)
- Even the most strict monopoly regulation (section 202 p.36) did not prohibit common carriers from discrimination, preferences or advantaging in rates and practices, only from “unjust or unreasonable discrimination” or “undue or unreasonable preferences… prejudice or disadvantage.” [bold added]
- This bill is based on absolute unrealistic strictures which totally ignore that communications law has always allowed the practical flexibility for just, reasonable and due discrimination and preferences.
Third, it would torpedo private-sector efforts to invest in universal broadband deployment and access, and thus ultimately thrust the entire burden of ongoing broadband investment onto the American taxpayer and add to the U.S. Federal budget deficit.
- The underlying intent of this bill is to ultimately transform broadband into a government-run utility service like roads or electricity. Section 2(2)
Fourth, it would spawn incapacitating sector-wide uncertainty (business, investment, legal, and regulatory.)
- The cumulative effect of the whole bill is to effectively replace the longstanding consumer protection and competition purposes of the FCC with net neutrality.
- By setting a new national broadband policy of net neutrality in Title I that is radically different than current law and policy, the bill would severely whipsaw and force the telecom, cable, wireless, broadcast, and DBS industries to completely retrofit their networks/business models to net neutrality.
- Moreover, none of the central concepts of the bill are defined — “net neutrality,” “open,” “reasonable network management,” or “private transmission capacity services” — meaning it would take years for the FCC to define and for the courts to settle them.
Finally, it would cast competition and property ownership as the Internet’s problem (when they are, and have been, the wellspring of the Internet’s success). Section 2(10)
- Inexplicably, the bill totally ignores the real, most pressing, and obvious Internet problems endangering everyday Internet users: lack of cyber-security, online safety, and privacy.
In closing, this bill represents the most extreme iteration of net neutrality since the concept was first invented in 2002.
Click here for a one-page PDF version of this post.
Does new Government cookie policy favor publicacy over privacy? Part XIII — Privacy-Publicacy Series
August 11, 2009
The U.S. Government is relatively quietly proposing a major change in its online privacy policy from a Government ban on Government using “cookies” to track citizens’ use of U.S. Government websites to allowing the Government to track some citizen online behavior with some restrictions.
- A Washington Post article highlighted privacy groups concerns about the policy shift. Also see comments by EPIC, CDT/EFF, and ACLU.
This policy shift is a quintessential example of the shift away from a default expectation of online privacy, to the default “publicacy” approach increasingly taken by many web 2.0 entities.
- (“Publicacy” is the opposite of privacy. “Publicacy” also describes the Web 2.0 movement that seeks to have transparency largely supplant privacy online.)
I have written about the growing tension between privacy and publicacy thirteen times this year, because I believe it is one of the biggest changes that is occurring online that average users are not aware of, but should be.
- (See end of this post for links to the rest of the privacy-publicacy series.)
While I am no means anti-cookie or anti-ecommerce/e-advertising, and while I believe users have a personal responsibility to try and protect their privacy online, I also believe the core problem with privacy online is that there is woefully little fair representation going on by the entities that are collecting private information on users.
- Consumer ignorance may be bliss for publicacy interests, but it certainly is not bliss for those consumers who believe their privacy has been compromised.
When I testified for the second time on Internet privacy this June before the House Internet Subcommittee, I emphasized the troubling and growing disconnect between online privacy users’ perception that they enjoyed substantial privacy online and how little privacy they enjoy in reality. Consumer Reports had a great survey last September that proves this troubling disconnect between online privacy perception and reality.
- In other words, Internet users think their privacy is basically respected online, but they are largely unaware that there is rampant “unauthorized tracking” and “permission-less profiling” of them on the Internet.
My beef with the publicacy/Web 2.0 crowd is that consumers have not been meaningfully asked for their consent to use their private information. It has been very conveniently assumed.
- I describe this cavalier attitude as a “finders keepers, losers weepers” approach to privacy online.
My concern with the proposed change in the U.S. Government’s online cookie policy is that the Government may be aligning more with the publicacy agenda of selected third parties than the privacy interests of most U.S. citizens and taxpayers.
- Given the legitimate and longstanding concern of citizens, that the government should not collect unnecessary private information on them, and given that the U.S. Government has vastly different responsibilities and powers than private entities, the U.S. Government should be bending over backwards to ensure that their proposed policy changes are fairly represented to consumers so that consumers can choose to protect their privacy from the Government, if they wish to do so.
- It is very different if the U.S. Government adopts a default bias toward publicacy over privacy than if private entities do.
- It is also concerning that the U.S. Government’s proposed policy change was put out for comment with little proactive communication to the broad citizenry and that the proposal was available for comment for only the minimum of two weeks.
- That appears to be too quiet and too short a comment period for such a substantial change that has such far-reaching privacy implications for U.S. citizens.
In closing, as I recommended in my House Internet privacy testimony in June, the superior approach to privacy policy is for it to be a consumer-driven, technology/competition neutral privacy policy, not the current default “finders keepers, losers weepers” publicacy approach of many leading online entities.
- At core, the problem with the U.S. Government’s proposal to allow cookie tracking of citizens’ usage of Government websites is that it continues the problematic technology-driven approach to privacy, and does not adopt the better and more effective consumer-driven approach to privacy policy.
- Part I: The Growing Privacy-Publicacy Fault-line — The Tension Underneath World Data Privacy Day
- Part II: Implications of User Location Tracking
- Part III: Extreme Publicacy — Does Privacy Stand a Chance?
- Part VI: Why FTC’s Behavioral-Ad Principles Are a Big Deal
- Part V: Privacy prevailed in Facebook’s privacy-publicacy earthquake
- Part VI: Do People Own Their Private Information Online?
- Part VII: Where is the line between privacy and publicacy?
- Part VIII: “Privacy is Over”
- Part IX: “Interventional Targeting? “Get into people’s heads”
- Part X: “Latest publicacy arguments against privacy”
- Part XI: “The Web 2.0 movement is opposed to the privacy movement.”
- Part XII: “No consumer control over the commercialization of their privacy?”
The Open Internet’s Growing Security Problem — Part XV
August 10, 2009
Evidence of the Open Internet’s growing security problem only continues to mount. There also appears to be a growing and troubling disconnect between the seriousness of the actual problem and the seriousness of attention paid to the growing Internet security problem.
- For example, despite President Obama making cybersecurity a national security priority in his cybersecurity address 5-29-09, none of the FCC’s 18 currently planned public workshops designed to help develop a National Broadband Plan are on cybersecurity.
- “Multiple Internet sites, including popular hangouts Twitter and Facebook, were temporarily disrupted Thursday after they were struck by apparently coordinated computer attacks…”
- “The companies traced the problem to what the computer industry calls “denial-of-service” attacks, which are designed to make sites inaccessible by overwhelming them with a flood of traffic. Though such attacks are fairly routine, simultaneous action against multiple consumer Internet companies is rare.”
“Most users clueless about cybersecurity, FBI says” PC World
- “According to two U.S. government officials, Internet crime rates will continue to increase because end-users and enterprises lack awareness and education about the current online threat landscape.” …
- “You don’t have to be that technically sophisticated to commit a cybercrime now,” he said. “You don’t have to be a computer genius to partner with other criminals, or to purchase what you need to commit these crimes.“
“One out of six responded to spam” WSJ
- “You might assume that the more technically savvy you are, the less likely you are to be hit
by a virus, but that is not true,” research firm Ferris Research said in comments included with the MAAWG report. “Our previous research indicates that the more you use computers, the more likely you are to get hit by a virus.”
“Cisco: Internet criminals imitate and operate like successful businesses” International Business Times
- “Online Criminals are increasingly operating like successful businesses, borrowing some of the best strategies from legitimate companies and forming partnerships with one another to help make their illegal activities more lucrative.”
- “They are collaborating with each other, preying on individuals’ greatest fears and interests, and increasingly making use of legitimate Internet tools like search engines and the software-as-a-service model.”
“Lawmakers: Electric Utilities Ignore Cyber Warnings” PC World
- “…several lawmakers said they’re concerned that the electrical grid will become more vulnerable as its controls move onto Internet Protocol networks. “There is a massive computer espionage campaign being launched against the United States by our adversaries,” said Representative Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat and chairman of the full Homeland Security Committee. “Intelligence suggests that countries seek or have developed weapons capable of destroying our grid.”
See previous parts of this series on “The Open Internet’s Growing Security Problem” here: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, & XIV.
Taking one’s business elsewhere — what a concept! TechCrunch’s Arrington proves competition works
August 10, 2009
Sometimes the simplest solution can somehow elude people for a period of time.
- After long pushing hard for net neutrality legislation and wireless net neutrality regulation, TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington, finally had an epiphany and figured out that he could become a fully satisfied consumer by simply choosing to take his business elsewhere — from the AT&T Apple iPhone to the T-Mobile Google Android mytouch 3G phone.
Competitive differentiated choice — what a concept — why didn’t anyone think of this before?
- Consumers that value and want different things… can shop around and find what they want from different providers.
- Amazing. People don’t have to lobby Congress, petition the FCC, or instigate an antitrust review — they can simply vote with their feet and take their business to a provider that sells what they want.
- And even better with this competitive choice thingy going on, if a consumer decides they want something new or different in the future they can get it without having to wait for the government to figure out whether or not they should force all providers to provide it.
Mr. Arrington’s epiphany — that robust wireless and broadband competition not only exists, but actually works very well — is a powerful reminder that the first and best solution for consumers is not regulation, but to simply to choose to take their business elsewhere.
- Thank you Mr. Arrington for providing such a powerful advertisement that wireless and broadband markets are both fully competitive and fully capable of fully satisfying even the most demanding tech consumers like yourself.
