Elizabeth Jacobson

Net Neutrality Not Needed: New BitTorrent Version Throttles Itself

by Elizabeth Jacobson on November 2, 2009

in Tech & Telecom

TorrentFreak reports that a new “network-aware” version of the BitTorrent protocol is being beta-tested. The new client, µTorrent 2.0 or µTP, will be able to regulate its own bandwidth usage (“throttle” itself) to avoid interference with other applications. According to a BitTorrent spokes person, the network-friendly redesign will slow uploads if congestion is detected on a network, but should leave download speeds unaffected in most cases.

The new client also has a feature that will enable users to stop all downloads if they approach a certain gigabyte limit (allowing users whose ISPs impose monthly bandwidth caps to avoid expensive overage charges). BitTorrent creator Bram Cohen made the following statement in a 2007 interview with TorrentFreak:

“ISPs have to invest in making their networks better and faster rather than stifling applications which consumers use and love. That’s just bad marketing and customer service, especially given the competition which exists in the broadband industry and consumer focus on network neutrality.”

Mr. Cohen’s statement, taken along with his actions, serves as a clarion voice of reason in a debate full of utter insanity. The Net Neutrality Debate of 2009 has thus far been rife with doublespeak, corporate giants taking potshots at each other, and über-elite technophiles and their sanctimonious ideas of what Americans ought to want, (as well as a few tangentially relevant arguments on behalf of women and minorities). BitTorrent has instead chosen to take the proactive path and work with the ISPs to solve the problem of congested networks and provide a better experience for its users. Net Neutrality advocates should note that no government bureaucrat forced them to make any changes. Instead, BitTorrent is leading by example, doing what the other content and network companies ought to be doing. A system that promotes voluntary cooperation between companies is vastly preferable to an inflexible government regulatory regime.

Government Incompetence Costs Woman Her Job

by Elizabeth Jacobson on November 2, 2009

in Privacy, Tech & Telecom

Wired reports that a Maryland woman recently lost her job due to an error in the FBI’s criminal database. Eschol Amelia “Amy” Studnitz, formerly a senior accountant for Corporate Mailing Service, was required to undergo a background check after CMS won a contract to handle mail for the Social Security Administration. She was fired from her job after the FBI’s criminal database deemed her “unsuitable” for level-1 security clearance. Studnitz was not given any details regarding her background check.

Two weeks later, the SSA sent a letter to CMS saying that Studnitz had in fact passed the background check, and that an “unspecified” computer error caused the false report. Unfortunately, CMS is under no legal obligation to re-hire her. In this tight labor market, she’s been having a rough time finding employment and has fallen behind on her mortgage payment.

A spokesperson for the FBI said that they have no idea how often such mistakes are made, because they don’t keep track of their error rate. Is it so unreasonable to expect that a government agency charged with collecting and maintaining data about its citizens keeps track of metrics like accuracy and error rate? Any responsible private company or nonprofit outfit would want to know these sort of performance statistics.

Government failure is nothing new; it’s been well-documented on OpenMarket before. Instances of public sector incompetence like this should have everyone worried as the government gets ready to take over the health care sector. If the government can’t accurately keep track of its own criminal data, why on earth would we want to trust them with private health data? When dealing with matters of life and death, or aggressive treatment vs. palliative care, this kind of “unspecified” error could have serious consequences. How will we hold governmental data-keepers accountable?

Another Bill to Block Net Neutrality

by Elizabeth Jacobson on October 28, 2009

in Tech & Telecom

Net Neutrality’s opponents are fighting back. Last week it was John McCain’s “Internet Freedom Act,” and yesterday, Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) introduced a house version of the bill that would prohibit the FCC from imposing any regulations whatsoever on the internet or internet service providers. From her press release:

“The internet is the last truly open public marketplace. Its openness is the key to its efficiency and success. Not all public spaces need to be regulated spaces. Indeed, federal regulation has a long history of making the market less efficient.”

Rep. Blackburn’s choice to use word “open” is a little confusing, given the meaning of the term in the net neut debate. In this context, “open” should probably be taken to mean “unregulated” or “free of government.” But other than that, I couldn’t have said it better myself. An open (non-discriminating) internet architecture may or may not be the best model. Either way, it should be consumers and the network providers making that decision, not unelected government officials. The FCC needs to back off and let the internet continue to evolve free of regulatory constraints.

New CEI Release: One Nation, Ungovernable?

by Elizabeth Jacobson on October 26, 2009

in Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Regulation, Stimulus to Nowhere

Question: What do you get when you combine a $700 billion “stimulus” package, $1.1 trillion in wealth-destroying regulatory compliance costs, a mountainous non-discretionary entitlement obligation, bailouts for large manufacturers, an small army of unelected czars, and a $1.4 federal budget deficit?

Answer: Way too much government!

In a new CEI paper, One Nation, Ungovernable?, Clyde Wayne Crews lays out an agenda for setting America on the path to economic recovery. From lifting burdensome regulations and restrictions on executive compensation to fostering competition and restraining federal spending, Crews calls for an end to the “bailout culture” that’s spread throughout the capitol, and a return to more responsible policies that promote growth and liberty.

As Crews notes, “If government intervention were stimulative, the nation should be overflowing with wealth and job creation already.” Obviously, the folks on Capitol Hill got it wrong. Wealth comes from policies that unleash the creativity and industriousness of private citizens and companies, not from massive regulation or wasteful government  “investment.”  Deregulation and markets encourage competition and growth and create jobs.

Calling all legislators: please take a few moments and read One Nation, Ungovernable? Fret not, at only six pages, it’s far shorter than most of the tax-and-spend bills you’ll see this year.

Competition in Wireless Communication: Android Edition

by Elizabeth Jacobson on October 26, 2009

in Tech & Telecom

The New York Times reports that several cell phone manufacturers are turning to Google’s free operating system, Android, to run on their upcoming smartphone models. The switch to Android is likely to hit Microsoft and its clunky Windows Mobile platform the hardest, as companies that previously used Windows for their high-end PDA-phones seek to cut costs and offer consumers a more customizable product.

With Google joining the ranks of Nokia, Research-in-Motion, Apple, and Microsoft developing in mobile phone operating systems, the big four wireless carriers signing on to offer Android phones within the coming year, the deployment of 4G networks slated to take place in 2010, mounting consumer anticipation for Motorola’s soon-to-be-released Droid, and reported rumors that Apple is about to end its exclusive distribution deal with AT&T, it’s difficult to take seriously critics’ claims that a lack of competition and carrier-device exclusivity contracts are restricting consumer choice and keeping prices prohibitively high.

Sen. McCain Introduces Anti-Net Neutrality Bill

by Elizabeth Jacobson on October 23, 2009

in Tech & Telecom

Senator John McCain introduced a bill yesterday to combat the FCC’s push for Net Neutrality.  The “Internet Freedom Act of 2009″ would limit the FCC’s legal authority to impose Net Neutrality rules on internet service providers. McCain’s statement says:

Today I’m pleased to introduce ‘The Internet Freedom Act of 2009’ that will keep the Internet free from government control and regulation. It will allow for continued innovation that will in turn create more high-paying jobs for the millions of Americans who are out of work or seeking new employment. Keeping businesses free from oppressive regulations is the best stimulus for the current economy.

Sen. McCain’s efforts to keep the government’s hands off the ‘net are a breath of fresh air in this period of massive government expansion. Yet I can’t help but wish that such a bill might carry more weight if the its sponsor this didn’t already have a reputation for being technologically illiterate.

For further reading, check out CEI’s take on the FCC’s proposed Net Neutrality rules.



More Hypocrisy Regarding FTC Blog Regulations

by Elizabeth Jacobson on October 21, 2009

in Health and Illness, Healthcare, Regulation

Michael Masnick at Techdirt offers up another incidence of government inconsistency in light of the FTC’s blog-watching rules, reminding us that “clinical research on drugs isn’t even remotely trustworthy, as it all-too-often seems to involve doctors who have serious conflicts.”

Doctors with conflicts-of-interest, who push and promote certain drugs while receiving all kinds of goodies from pharmaceutical companies, seems, at the very least, like a more justifiable place for regulators to stick their noses (although there’s definitely an argument to be made about the medical industry being over-regulated already). Forgive me if it’s difficult to digest the claim  that a mommy blogger with a free bottle of toilet bowl cleaner is somehow a bigger menace to the public than a doctor who pushes his patients into clinical trials without disclosing his “material relationship” with the drug maker.

American Society Now Responsible for Saving Journalism

by Elizabeth Jacobson on October 20, 2009

in Odds & Ends, Sanctimony

Creative destruction is never easy for an economy to digest, especially when the industry involved has an exceptionally loud megaphone to amplify its screaming. In a report released on Monday, former Washington Post editor Leonard Downie Jr. (with co-author Michael Schudson) insists that Americans take “collective responsibility” for fostering journalism and news reporting (saving unprofitable, poorly-managed news outfits). Of course, Downie doesn’t directly ask citizens for money – that would be uncouth. Instead, he suggests that universities and nonprofits, internet service providers and telecoms, and (of course) the government cough up the dough.

Downie’s idea of putting news in the hands of universities is destined to fail. Calling on universities to become news institutions is asking already-hard-up-for-cash colleges to take on a responsibility for which they have absolutely no obligation. Universities’ core function is to transform high school graduates into employable professionals or academic researchers (granted, some colleges and certain disciplines achieve this end better than others). Outside of that, many universities already support student journalism in the form of campus newspapers and radio stations. Some student journalists even go as far as to report on local and state issues. However, student reporters can only do so much, and in the wake of this year’s tuition hikes, taking on the responsibilities of failed newspapers is an expense that most public universities can’t afford.

Outrageously, Downie also wants to put telecoms on the hook for bailing out reporting, suggesting that the FCC collect fees from internet service providers to be used for a national “Fund for Local News.” He’s blind to the fact that telecoms and ISPs have done nothing but help disseminate news and information. There is more reporting, more information, more news available to us today than there ever has been in the history of civilization. It’s true that there’s a lot of garbage out there, but there’s a lot of very good online journalism as well. Nearly everything published online is subject to peer-review from a massive amount of people, and the success of sites like Wikipedia are proof that accountability, credibility, and accuracy matter just as much online as they do offline.

Downie’s most unbelievably bad idea is that the government should save journalism by fixing the tax code so that newspapers can operate as nonprofit entities. Whether the government directly bails out big newspapers or allows them nonprofit status, the result is the same: tax money doled out to one group has to be taken from another. But setting aside arguments against higher taxes, there’s an even more important question here: don’t these whining establishment journalists realize that government-supported journalism completely goes against the very idea of the 4th estate, the estate that Burke deemed “more important than them all?” The press are supposed to be the good guys, the ones keeping their eyes on the government, not the guys asking for government handouts. Only a fool would think that direct subsidies or preferential tax status won’t come with any political sanctions, explicit or implied.(And this administration isn’t above threatening legal action against companies that say things it doesn’t like).

It’s no secret that “Big Journo” can’t survive in the information age with its current business model. In his recent WaPo column, Downie proclaims that “preserving independent, original, credible reporting” is paramount to maintaining civil society. Yet his proposed methods for doing so are so far out of line with that goal that it calls his credibility into question, and instead makes him look like a shill for the big papers. CEI’s own Iain Murry explains the situation best: “American society can step in to preserve journalism by buying the papers. If they don’t, they have already said that they don’t want to preserve journalism as it stands. If a paper falls on the doorstep, and no one reads it, does it have a point?”

FTC Sets its Sights on Bloggers

by Elizabeth Jacobson on October 19, 2009

in Features, Tech & Telecom, Zeitgeist

The blogosphere has been up in arms over the last two weeks, ever since the Federal Trade Commission issued an update to its “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.” In the past, these guidelines have determined the kinds of research claims companies or celebrity endorsers can make about products in advertising. With the recent update, though, the FTC has chosen to extend its reach onto the Internet, applying its regulations to blogs, Facebook pages, even Twitter feeds. L. Gordon Crovitz explains in the WSJ:

The guidelines require people to disclose online if they have what the FTC vaguely defines as “material connections” with the sellers of a product or service. This could include getting free samples on which they base comments or reviews. Bloggerl objected to the double standard that exempts traditional media from the rules – many newspapers, magazines and broadcasters accept free books and other products for their reviewers.

The FTC’s aim is to go after advertisers, but its vague definitions don’t offer much clarity. Further complicating the issue is the FTC’s intention to handle violations on a selective, case-by-case basis. Laws ought to be clear and enforcable, not ambiguous and imposed at the whim of some unelected government regulator. Either all bloggers who break the rules are criminals, or none of them are.

Netizens should recognize how unnecessary these regulations are. Bloggers who care about their reputations already practice honesty and transparency. Bloggers who don’t disclose their commercial ties risk alienating their readers and losing traffic. This relationship between content creators and users is what makes social media self-regulating. Citizens don’t need the government to clean up the Internet’s garbage.

DOJ Investigates IBM’s Mainframe Business

by Elizabeth Jacobson on October 9, 2009

in Tech & Telecom

The lawyers at the US Department of Justice must be getting bored around the office. This week, antitrust regulators launched an investigation of IBM‘s business practices. The probe was launched after the Computer and Communications Industry Association (which represents several of IBM’s competitors) filed a complaint against IBM, claiming that it has abused its dominance in the computer mainframe market.

This marks the third time in the last sixty years that IBM has had the antitrust dogs on its trail. In 1956 the government forced the company to begin selling (rather than leasing) its tabulating machines, as well as separate its data processing services into a subsidiary company. Then, in the late 1960s, the company was investigated again for allegedly attempting to monopolize the market for business computing, a charge that was dropped in 1983. Today, IBM is accused of anticompetitive business practices within the mainframe market. T3, a rival company that until recently resold used mainframe computers, filed a civil suit against IBM for refusing to license its newest version of its software to customers using competitors’ hardware.

The problem with government antitrust action in the tech industry is that it’s difficult to forecast the future of computing in the next ten or twenty years. The DOJ’s prior efforts against IBM couldn’t foresee that by the 1990s, IBM would become a company struggling to stay afloat. When computing shifted to a more distributed client/server model, demand for desktop computers took off while demand for mainframes shriveled, and IBM suffered unprecedented financial losses. After some restructuring, the company moved in a new direction in the last decade, focusing on software and business IT consulting. Currently, mainframe computers and service still accounts for about a quarter of their revenue.

Today, parallel processing systems are being adopted by more businesses for their computing needs. While server farms aren’t yet a perfect substitute for the large reliable mainframe computers, they are increasingly becoming a popular alternative. Software designed to emulate mainframe functionality is another option that’s gaining support in the marketplace. Meanwhile, IBM has been the leader in innovation for mainframe technology, having invested a lot of its resources into next-generation chips and software. It seems that the DOJ is less interested in IBM’s competitive practices, and more interested in its market share.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →