I’m on Tech Policy Weekly discussing the latest activity on the net neutrality front, possible outcomes in the Microsoft-Yahoo merger proposal, and recent efforts to tax and regulate video games at the federal and state level. Take a listen here.

TPW 35: Network Management Redux

Thanks for visiting this blog for the first time. Check out the home page for the most recent posts, or the archives if you're looking for something in particular. Here are some of our favorite posts, which you might enjoy:

If you like what you see, we hope you'll consider subscribing to the RSS feed.

I’m on Tech Policy Weekly this week discussing net neutrality issues. Other guests are Adam Thierer of PFF, Tim Lee of Cato, tech blogger Matt Sherman, and George Ou of ZDNet. Take a listen!

Feb 8, 2008 | Comment | Tags: , ,

Comcast and BitTorrent

I’m on Tech Policy Weekly today discussing Comcast’s recent BitTorrent incident with Prof. Ed Felten and network engineer Richard Bennett. It’s a very good conversation. Listen here…

Oct 25, 2007 | Comment | Tags: , , ,

Jerry and Jerry on Net Neutrality

I’m on Tech Policy Weekly with my co-author Jerry Ellig discussing our new net neutrality paper. “In a wide-ranging discussion, we explore the economic arguments for network neutrality regulation, discuss how economic theory applies to the issue, and Jerry Brito fills us in on the legal status of the FCC and FTC’s various pronouncements.” Take a listen.

Oct 8, 2007 | Comment | Tags: ,

My new net neutrality paper

I have a new paper with Jerry Ellig out today about net neutrality and regulatory analysis. It will be published by CommLaw Conspectus, but you can check it out at the Mercatus site now.

Sep 18, 2007 | 2 Comments | Tags: ,

Werbach: Forget neutrality, regulate interconnection

Map of internet backbone ownershipWharton professor Kevin Werbach has posted an interesting new paper on net neutrality that’s not really about net neutrality. His thesis is that while he agrees with the proponents of regulation that broadband network operators will disadvantage content and application providers and thus stifle innovation, he doesn’t think anti-discrimination rules are the way to go. In fact, he does a great job of explaining why they’re not a good idea and how discrimination of all kinds–from content delivery networks (CDNs) like Akamai, to propriety video services like ESPN 360–serve the interests of both consumers and network operators. He also highlights how difficult it would be under neutrality rules to distinguish anti-competitive discrimination from benign discrimination like spam blocking or legitimate traffic management.

Instead he argues that the real issue missed by the neutrality debate is interconnection. “The defining characteristic of the Internet is not the absence of discrimination, but a relentless commitment to interconnection,” he writes. Networks withholding interconnection is the real threat to innovation. In particular, he is concerned about access tiering, “[broadband networks] charging content and application providers additional fees for preferential access to their broadband access customers.”

Continue reading this post »

Mar 1, 2007 | Comment | Tags: , ,

Media and neutrality regulation: contradictions?

Susan Crawford asks a good question: How does one reconcile being both “for” network neutrality regulation and rules against media concentration?

To be “for” network neutrality, it seems natural to have the view that the internet is displacing many prior forms of communications modalities — the press is in a free fall, people are watching much less broadcast television, etc. — and so it’s even more important to get internet access policy right and avoid gatekeepers. You’d want to talk about the empowering, emergent communications taking place online.

But to be “for” limits on media ownership, it may be necessary to argue that nothing much has changed. You have to claim that broadcast and newspapers control news and culture, and so it’s important to avoid more consolidation. The internet isn’t changing the local news picture, you’d have to say, and so its existence doesn’t change the media landscape. Blogs aren’t legitimate alternative news sources.

One logical response might be that big media does control information and culture despite the emerging competition of the net and precisely because of this should we have neutrality regulations to protect the fledgling voices. Media ownership rules would also be necessary until the emerging competition on the net actually serves as a check on concentrated media. That’s just me thinking out loud, but I’m sure it’s not too off the mark from the argument we’re likely to see. What I always want to know, and what is rarely made clear, is how much competition is enough to make regulation unnecessary in either context.

Feb 27, 2007 | Comment | Tags: , ,

Cartefone for wireless?

Tim Wu will be presenting his paper “Wireless Net Neutrality” at an FTC workshop on network access tomorrow. (BTW: The workshop is free and open to the public.) Basically he’s arguing for Carterfone to be applied to the cell phone industry. The Washington Post has a write-up of the ideas behind the paper and reaction from both sides of the debate.

Until federal regulators issued a landmark ruling in 1968, Americans could not own the telephones in their homes, nor attach answering machines or other devices to them. Now, a growing number of academics and consumer activists say it’s time to deliver a similar groundbreaking jolt to the cellphone industry, possibly triggering a new round of customer options and technical innovations to rival the one that produced faxes, modems and the Internet.

Wireless carriers, which limit what customers may do with their phones, say the move is unnecessary and potentially harmful. But in articles, blogs and speeches, a number of researchers are asking why the companies are allowed to force consumers to buy new handsets when they change carriers, pay a specified carrier to transfer photos from a camera phone, or download ring tones or music from one provider only.

Carterfone was a great decision when it applied to Ma Bell, the quintessential monopoly, and wouldn’t compute for today’s wireless carriers. True, cell phones are locked (except when they’re not, as he article points out, because carriers will often unlock them for you when your contract expires). The one thing the article doesn’t mentionis that cell phones are also subsidized. You can always buy an unlocked phone for a premium. I would love to see a greater market in unlocked phones, but if there’s no demand from consumers, I’ll just have to wait along with the proponents of regulation. Question: Unlocked phones are the norm in Asia and Europe. How are they priced there? How do service plan prices compare to U.S.?

Feb 12, 2007 | Comment | Tags: , ,

  •  
  •