Stanford Center for Internet and Society Speaker Series: Information Policy in the Next Administration
October 23, 2008
On Monday I went to my very first lunchtime speaker series presentation at Stanford’s Law School. I’ve been on their mailing list for at least a year and was always so sad when I heard about all these fascinating talks going on up at Stanford while I was down in LA! (This is not to say UCLA didn’t have awesome talks as well [in fact, the Center for Society and Genetics hosted some great ones]… I just want to go to everything!)
This talk was about what Tim Wu (the presenter) thought were going to be the big info policy players during the next four years.
The four categories were
1. Broadband
2. Wireless
3. Copyright
4. Media Consolidation
And, though not really a part of the main vein of discussion, we spent quite a bit of time talking about digital v. cable television stuff, too.
Here are the main things to think about for each of these topics
1. Broadband
- Basically he felt like not much was going on here. (long story short)
2. Wireless
- This is an area where we can expect to see quite a bit of action – especially around two main areas
First, around spectrum generally and white spaces specifically. If you don’t know what “white spaces” are, the time has come to brush up. But, to save you the wiki search, I shall explain a bit (caveat: I’m a bit fuzzy on some of this): so basically there seem to be two sorts of white spaces.
- The first sort comes as follows: say I’ve got channel 10 which occupies a certain Hz spectrum. Then say you have channel 11 – and 10 and 11 are “right next to each other” in the spectrum. Well we wouldn’t want them to be exactly next to each other (as in I end at 679 Hz and you start at 680 Hz) because then there’s a high probability that we’ll drift into each other. This would be like when you start to hear two radio stations simultaneously on the radio when you’re driving in the middle of nowhere. So the idea was you need a buffer area between stations to prevent that from happening. That buffer area is considered a “white space”.
- The second sort is different. Say I have channel 10 like before and I’m actually hosting a kick ass radio show where I’m enlightening the world with my insights when I’m awake and playing awesome tunes while I sleep. Then say you own channel 11 but you aren’t doing anything with it. Say you don’t have the money to actually produce a show. So it’s basically dead air. This unused channel is also considered “white space”. It’s somewhat similar (though as Tim also points out, this analogy isn’t so good for those with his position) to me owning land and having a house on it and you owning a plot of land and it never being used. It just sits there. [insert tumbleweed rolling across it].
Now, the “white spaces” that people are talking about when they say things like “free the airwaves” are the white spaces of the second sort. These people (like this guy and Google in fact) think that if the spectrum isn’t actually being used (so not just owned but actually used), then those who have the technology to detect that it’s not being used should be able to use it. So if you can develop a radio that can detect channel 11, then go crazy! You should be able to start using that spectrum to launch your cool, but generally inferior to my own, radio show. As of now this isn’t the case – if someone owns the spectrum then you can’t use it – even if they aren’t.
As of now the future of unused spectrum is unclear – there’s definitely a push (at least in Silicon Valley) to open it up – in large part because they want to use it as a way to deliver wireless Internet to everyone. This is of course great for the world in the sense that that means more people will have access to what is no doubt the number one place we tend to go for information (the Internet) and it’s good for companies like Google – who make their money from people clicking on ads… on the Internet.
I don’t know what my position is yet on this topic – mainly because I just haven’t done nearly enough reading on it to feel well informed. But, now is the time to develop one! It’s the people who can think critically, clearly, and (perhaps sadly) most loudly about these sorts of topics that shape the policy surrounding it.
The second area has something to do with the equivalent of the net neutrality debate but on cell phones and wireless platforms. It’s easiest to explain through hypothetical: If you’re Apple and AT&T can you just ban napster off the iphone? Can you choose Yahoo! or Google as the search engine for a certain phone? Where users will have no choice (except the choice to buy the device to begin with)? Do the net neutrality principles apply to wireless communications? If wireless phone-like platforms become the dominant way we come to the Internet, will that change our opinions on these questions?
On this I do tend to think that people carry over (or at least want to carry over) the norms of the computer to the phone. And I think that’s because people still, when they think “Internet”, also think “computer”. So whatever is Internet accessible, is going to be framed by those principles we think worked best on computers.
Further, people are starting to more and more see access to “all of” the Internet as some sort of right. The idea of censorship is so repugnant (at least in the US) that I think the idea of someone like Apple having the ability to dictate which browser and websites one can view will, starting relatively soon, be seen as an interference with freedom. The main reason we haven’t seen a cry against these bundling behaviors in the past comes from the fact that when a technology is new, people just have less demands as to what that technology ought to be like. Not that long ago the idea of searching the web on a phone was unheard of – so when it first started to develop, we didn’t feel deprived of something when, say, we had to use a certain browser on our phones. It may not even have occurred to us to demand otherwise. But again, once a technology and way of life develops, we start to expect more and more freedom around its use.
This is my guess anyway.
3. Copyright
- Doesn’t think much will happen here in the administration and/or Congress. However, he predicts there will be some Google decisions that are important — but that’s going to be in judiciary. (I’m thinking Viacom and the like.) Perhaps we might make it more criminal to infringe.
- He doesn’t see anyone pushing that hard for copyright reform – mainly because he thinks both sides are afraid of Hollywood – so they try and stay away from any sort of policy changes that Hollywood would perceive as not in their favor. (comforting, isn’t it?)
- The only exception to the not-much-will-happen occurs if people talk about creating structures that can better detect copyright. So it’s not really about copyright itself so much as a question of how platforms should be structured.
4. Media Consolidation
- The anti-trust division was in a “coma under Bush,” which allowed for some major media consolidations that he thinks should have definitely at least raised anti-trust red flags. Thinks no matter who wins, there will be a significant increase in the level of scrutiny (not 60s-70s activist justice department, but certainly heightened.)
The last two questions I found interesting have to do with the future jurisdiction of the FCC.
1. Apparently in the DC circuit right now is a case that will decide if the FCC, and to a lesser extent the FTC, will have jurisdiction over the Internet domain. Even among “tech-left” (i.e. libertarian-y where the Internet is concerned) there’s disagreement about what the answer should be.
2. If we open up all the spectrum, it seems the scarcity that gave credence to the FCC’s being able to, in a sense, limit free speech by not allowing anyone access to spectrum, may disappear. So once scarcity is eliminated, is there a first amendment argument for the FCC not having authority?
Interesting!
I plan to attend all of the speakers I find interesting and relevant – so stay tuned for more!
Comments
4 Responses to “Stanford Center for Internet and Society Speaker Series: Information Policy in the Next Administration”
Got something to say?
Darn land lords hogging all the worlds space!
I say (without putting in much thought prior to this outburst) we free up white space! (but then again that does seem to violate property rights for those who currently own that space) (and again, how would I feel about walmart purchasing all open land in a town in order to squeeze out competition potential…) hmmm… I guess I’ll need to think about this too.
Also, in my mind, mobile devices are pretty much exactly the same as computers, only small and with a different interface. Sure, I’ll still go use these products even if they only allow me to view 4 websites, but ideally I would want a product that gave me unrestricted access. Net nuetrality for all ports of access seems to be important on a very basic level for allowing fair competition on the internet. (there is a reason why we don’t like monopolies right?)
What if Apple banned HeatherWhitney.com!!!?!??!!
pretty interesting stuff…
I like the idea of opening up the spectrum a lot. I think we gave huge chunks away in the 90’s under clinton, and this time we’re just adding them to the typical FCC auction…which would raise money but also raise the cost to get into the market and lower innovation…not sure which I prefer…taking baby steps towards paying off national debt or boosting innovation in the tech sector…
with regard to the guy’s last questions…
1. I hope the FCC doesn’t get handed control of the internet because then they might try to apply the Fairness doctrine if it gets reinstated…leaving aside the notion that privately owned, paid-for servers are somehow a public resource…although it would be kinda funny to watch neckbeard web forum posters get like hauled out of their mothers’ basements for too much political bias in a post, like people actually care.
2. I don’t think a lack of implied authority would stop or slow down the feds as much as the sheer cost of trying to police double or triple what is already way too much bandwidth for them to cover…
dude imagine like the CIA sending Jason Bourne after you because you facebooked your friend that McCain was senile or that Obama was a Muslim…
The CIA sent Jason Bourne after me last week for looking up “ACORN” on wikipedia.
hah