Category: Government

Once a regulator, always a regulator.

I’ve been mostly away from my computer and the Internets over the last few days as I take advantage of some of the better freedoms from being unemployed between contracts. I expect to post regularly in the coming weeks, but finding a new contract is obviously my first priority. Just so you know.

In the meantime, I have a two related items clogging my aggregator, so now is a good time to clean them out. First, the call for regulation is never too far from any success.

But now, precisely because of its success, it’s fair to ask if Google should be barred from furthering its dominance through acquisitions or collaborations. At issue are the recent purchases of YouTube, the leader in online video sharing, and DoubleClick, the leading broker of online advertising; in both instances Google used its gusher of profits to outbid rivals. There are also new joint ventures with Clear Channel, the giant radio broadcaster, and EchoStar, the satellite television operator.

Consider this: There may never have been a Google without the government’s antitrust suit that prevented Microsoft from crushing upstart rivals. By the same principle, isn’t it time to begin restraining Google to increase the odds another Google will come along?

It’s easy enough to look at the first paragraph and point out that YouTube doesn’t make any money. No one is certain how, or if, Google will make money from YouTube. There are theories, but theories don’t equal revenue without creativity, work, and luck. It’s a little premature to assume that this acquisition will result in further revenue growth. We could also simply look at the reality that Google is buying Internet successes rather than creating them.

The second paragraph, though, is more instructive. The phrase “may never have been” is hardly persuasive. Maybe the government’s antitrust suit helped, but we can’t know. That’s hardly a principle, unless we’re looking to some system outside of capitalism.

Nor do we have any proof that Microsoft’s dominance in its earlier markets translates into future dominance. Microsoft dominated the web browser market by the late ’90s, but its dominance in even that is waning as Mozilla builds Firefox as a product and a brand. More instructive, the web browser market is not the Internet.

Microsoft’s largest foray into the actual market Google now leads was MSN. Microsoft tried creating a closed system so that it could act as a gatekeeper to the Internets. Like AOL, this strategy was brilliant in the early days of the Internet’s public growth. As customers became better accustomed to technology, and technology got easier, the flaws in this strategy became clear. That left searching, which Google is simply better at. When Google stops being the best, customers will go elsewhere. This is the only principle at work.

Next, to demonstrate why we shouldn’t give government regulators more power than absolutely necessary, the FCC wants Congress to further violate the Constitution by giving it the power to censor violence on television.

The Federal Communications Commission has concluded that regulating TV violence is in the public interest, particularly during times when children are likely to be viewers — typically between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., FCC sources say.
…

“Parents are always the first and last line of defense in protecting their children, but legislation could give parents more tools,” FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said yesterday regarding the report. “I think it would be better if the industry addressed this on its own, but we can also give parents” help through regulation.

Beyond the obvious arguments that “Congress shall make no law…”, legislation to allow the FCC to regulate violence – including basic television, if the FCC gets its wish – would do nothing to give parents more tools. This is little more than a disguised version of the “for the children” argument used to excuse away most new intrusions on the rights of American adults. I expect the Congress to act on the FCC’s request because Democrats don’t love rights any more than Republicans have the last 200 6+ years. Unfortunately, I don’t have much faith in the courts, although if this finally pushes big television networks to finally fight back, I trust that we could finally see a change. Here’s hoping.

Rent-seeking protectionism is ugly when you confront it.

More on the proposed Sirius-XM merger, this time recapping recent research studies:

One of the main arguments against the merger, according to the Carmel Group, is that consumers’ audio options, particularly in the car, are limited. While some technology firms promise great advances that could bring more choice — such as in-car, high-definition radio and built-in MP3 technology — regulators should consider only what’s available now, the group says.

“The FCC and DOJ aren’t in the business of looking into some crystal ball and predicting some technology in the future,” said Jimmy Shaeffler, Carmel Group senior analyst and author of the group’s report released last week. “Somewhere down the line, maybe 5 years, 7 years or more, XM and Sirius can come back to this argument and possibly prevail.”

I wrote about this study last week when it first appeared. I must say, it’s mighty gracious of Mr. Shaeffler to permit Sirius and XM to come back to regulators and the National Association of Broadcasters, presumably with hat in hand, and ask for permission. Assuming they’re both still around, of course. But it’s not competition they have to worry about. Nope, that’s not evolved, and it would certainly be irresponsible to predict changes that will no doubt be glacial in speed. Look at where we were 5 or 7 years ago. So little has happened, it would be irresponsible to assume anything.

Nothing to see here, folks. The Carmel Group’s study is independent and unbiased, despite being paid for by the National Association of Broadcasters.

Convenience isn’t worth forsaking innovation (and liberty).

I normally enjoy John Dvorak’s curmudgeonly writing, but I’m afraid he might be serious with this article.

In this week’s complaint session, I’d like to complain about the little things. And I mean that literally. Little bitty things like proprietary PC connectors. I honestly believe that Congress should pass a law on PC connectors, keeping the number of designs to an absolute minimum. By law, product makers should have to choose between, say, two types of connectors, ensuring that devices work only with those two designs. I’m not kidding.

I agree with the complaint. I know Danielle would agree, given that she’s going through a re-organization of our junk, and we have boxes of orphan cables and connectors. But a law? No, thanks, even though here his call for legislation appears in the same type of context where people incorrectly use literally.

But he continues:

Why, for example, do we have so many variations of USB cables? One side is always the same—the side that attaches to the PC. It’s always a standard rectangular USB connector, and it plugs into any computer you like. But on the other end, the connector is always different. There are large, square connectors. Small, rectangular connectors. Trapezoidal connectors. I-have-no-idea-what-that-is connectors. And God knows how many others. Needless to say, you can never find the right cable when you need it. You end up accumulating so many of them, they’re inevitably scattered around the house. And when that Apple iPod connector goes missing, you can’t update your iPod.

What is the point of all this? I’ve complained about it before, pointing out that camera companies don’t even use the same connectors from camera to camera. Why not? Are they saving 2 cents per connector? Or what? It doesn’t have to be this way. This is USB we’re talking about, a ubiquitous 4-pin standard—not the wiring harness on a 1958 Studebaker. Seriously, we need legislation. This is costing us money for no good reason.

Again, I agree with the complaint, but now I think he might be serious. He gives Toshiba and Nokia as examples of companies that approach this well by putting the company name on the connector/power cord. Dell also does this, although it’s harder to confuse a laptop power supply than it is a router power supply. Still, not every company is dumb. We should applaud and encourage that.

But he continues:

Look, if there’s a law that forces a company to tell you what’s in a can of peaches (“Contains: Peaches, sugar, water”), then there can be a law that forces companies to label their power supplies. Can’t there? The construction industry abides by a book full of rules and regulations when they build out of wood. Can’t we consider mandating some aspects of technology design? Can’t we make a connector that everyone is required by law to adopt and use? Folks, the USB connector has only four pins! How many variations do we really need? Four pins! Now don’t get me started on the subject of batteries.

We do not need legislation. The next time someone needs to use an electronic device and the necessary cord or connector has gone missing, contact the maker of that electronic device and tell them you will no longer buy their products until they start labeling their cords and use standard connectors. Then follow through. It’ll change.

We don’t want to get into a situation where Congress legislates the use of Firewire cables, thus negating the development of the better USB 2.0 standard.

The Logical Conclusion of Majoritarianism

Normally, I’d present the facts and comment on them. Thanks to YouTube, I don’t have to do that. See for yourself what democracy mob rule really is.

That’s why, in the wisdom of America’s Founders, we are a republic, not a democracy. It’s why nonsense like the National Popular Vote Plan are ill-conceived. The will of the people is instructive, but it should not be exclusive. We have principles enshrined in our Constitution to protect the minority viewpoint from unjust harassment and an outright ban on their liberty.

Original story here, via Fark.

There is smoke without fire.

I haven’t commented on this recent item floating around the blogosphere. An excerpt, for facts:

“On 1 March 07, I was scheduled to fly on American Airlines to Newark, NJ, to attend an academic conference at Princeton University, designed to focus on my latest scholarly book, Constitutional Democracy, published by Johns Hopkins University Press this past Thanksgiving.”

“When I tried to use the curb-side check in at the Sunport, I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list. I was instructed to go inside and talk to a clerk. At this point, I should note that I am not only the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence (emeritus) but also a retired Marine colonel. I fought in the Korean War as a young lieutenant, was wounded, and decorated for heroism. I remained a professional soldier for more than five years and then accepted a commission as a reserve office, serving for an additional 19 years.”

“I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines. One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: “Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that.” I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. “That’ll do it,” the man said.”

That’s from Walter F. Murphy, professor emeritus of jurisprudence at Princeton. I didn’t give it much thought as anything more than another data point. To be frank, I believed it and filed it with all the other clear transgressions of our government under the Bush Administration. I shouldn’t have.

After reading today’s Best of the Web column in Opinion Journal, I’m convinced that this is the most plausible explanation:

According to [TSA Administrator Kip] Hawley, the only list a passenger might be on that would prevent him from boarding a plane is the “no fly” list. Since Murphy did ultimately get on the plane, he self-evidently was not on that list. Hawley says it is possible that someone with the same name was on the list; such an error befell Ted Kennedy in 2004.

More likely, though, Murphy was a “selectee”–chosen for heightened security by a process that is part random, part based on a variety of factors, most of which are not publicly disclosed, but which are known to include holding a one-way ticket and purchasing a ticket in cash.

On our recent flight to Tampa for Spring Training, Danielle couldn’t check-in online. When we got to the ticket counter, the representative informed us Danielle had been randomly selected for further screening, requiring her to check in with an airline rep. Annoying and worthy of its own post about its validity and effectiveness in fighting terrorism, but our experience conforms to what Mr. Hawley told the Wall Street Journal’s editors. Never forget Occam’s Razor, I guess.

Continue reading “There is smoke without fire.”

Voting to Bolster Political Egos

Residents of one New Mexico county voted to impose a tax on themselves to fund a commercial spaceport. (Two other counties will vote soon.) The usual bromides about economic development seem abundant, but I like this one:

Rick Homans, chairman of the New Mexico Spaceport Authority and the state’s secretary of economic development, said the referendum is sufficiently far ahead in the counting of provisional ballots to declare victory, although an official count has not yet been announced.

“This positive vote ignites the final design, engineering and construction of Spaceport America,” Homans said. “New Mexico is prepared to launch a whole new era of discovery, exploration and commercial activity in space, on the moon and beyond. We have nothing but beautiful black sky ahead of us.”

Any guesses who will be taking credit for such visionary brilliance? Does it matter that a commercial spaceport is not even distantly related to a legitimate government task? I don’t for a second believe that the commercial spaceport will be used for discovery and exploration beyond what space tourists seek. But still. Discovery! Exploration! Besides, there’s (allegedly) a market, so build it!

The $200 million spaceport is to be built in scrubland near the White Sands Missile Base and is expected to be open for business by early 2010.

British entrepreneur Richard Branson and his company Virgin Galactic have signed a long-term lease with the state to make New Mexico its international headquarters and the hub of a space-tourism business.

Those lease terms are favorable to Virgin Galactic, costing it $27.5 million total over the 20 years of the lease. Clearly that doesn’t recoup the $200 million “investment” approved by a majority of voters. I can’t help thinking that the same standard that applies to every other “private” business should apply here, vote or no vote. If it’s a viable commercial business, the business itself will fund the spaceport. If it can’t fund the spaceport, it’s not a viable business. That should be the end of the analysis from the state’s viewpoint.

Yes, I think about this more than most people.

This story is from last week, but I ignored missed it while I was away. I think it’s interesting and insightful, while not needing much commentary.

The Marines are banning any new, extra-large tattoos below the elbow or the knee, saying such body art is harmful to the Corps’ spit-and-polish image.
…

“Some Marines have taken the liberty of tattooing themselves to a point that is contrary to our professional demeanor and the high standards America has come to expect from us,” he said. “I believe tattoos of an excessive nature do not represent our traditional values.”

Any time traditional values pops up, I’m likely to shake my head and dismiss the logic. However, when dealing with the military, there is some leeway since members of our military offer up some of their freedoms when they join. Such a policy could have implications in recruiting and retaining soldiers (and sailors and …), but that’s a different debate than whether that policy is reasonable. I’m not inclined to get worked up over the issue.

However, this quote fascinates me:

“This is something I love to do,” said Cpl. David Nadrchal, 20, of Pomona, who made an appointment to get an Iraqi flag and his deployment dates etched onto his lower leg. “The fact I can’t put something on my body that I want — it’s a big thing to tell me I can’t do that.”

Change a few words (while the overall meaning remains) and you arrive at a perfect summation of the argument against routine infant circumcision. It’s a big thing to tell me I can’t… To forbid a tattoo or keeping a foreskin, there must be an excellent justification. Perhaps there is a reason with tattoos, although I find that difficult to believe given the mission of the Marines. There is no reason with routine infant circumcision. The burden of proof rests with he who wishes to remove the body part from the male, not with the male to later protest that irreversible action.

Avoiding Capitalism Because Winners Aren’t Pre-determined

Is this the type of “research” our government listens to?

The influential research firm Carmel Group, whose analysis helped kill the 2003 merger of EchoStar Communications Corp. (ECHO) and DirecTV Group Inc. (DTV), will release a new report Tuesday that outlines arguments against merging satellite radio companies Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. and XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc., The New York Post reported in its Tuesday editions.

Sponsored by the National Association of Broadcasters, which has already come out against the deal, the 11-page independent white paper includes a point-by-point rebuttal to the six main arguments put forth by Sirius and XM in favor of a merger.

I like having research back up my opinions as much as anyone, but this is shameless. I shouldn’t worry, though, because I’m sure the National Association of Broadcasters is looking out for customers and only customers, whether those customers choose to purchase the free broadcasts of its members or the non-free broadcasts of its competitors non-members. The FCC will probably fall for it, which is why Sirius’ stock price is down so much.

Good Intentions and Taxpayer Money

As long as government is doing something, that action is “good”. Or not:

New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene is planning a campaign to encourage men at high risk of AIDS to get circumcised in light of the World Health Organization’s endorsement of the procedure as an effective way to prevent the disease.

The taxpayers of New York should not pay for cosmetic surgery. Yes, it has some supposed health benefits regarding HIV, but condoms are more effective. In that context, the surgery is unnecessary because any benefits it might achieve can be achieved without surgery and the corresponding risks. (Malpractice insurance, anyone?) If the government pays for anything, condoms are the way to go.

However, this is government, so when it takes action, it must find extra-special creative ways to be stupid.

In the United States, “New York City remains the epicenter of the AIDS epidemic,” Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner, said in an interview. Referring to H.I.V., he said, “In some subpopulations, you have 10 to 20 percent prevalence rates, just as they do in parts of Africa.”

His department has started asking some community groups and gay rights organizations to discuss circumcision with their members, and has asked the Health and Hospitals Corporation, which runs city hospitals and clinics, to perform the procedure at no charge for men without health insurance.

If you have no insurance, you still get to have sex with fewer consequences! Aren’t New York’s taxpayers city officials generous? But ignore that. The three released studies (which all ended early, remember, despite HIV’s 3-6 month latency period before detection) have not shown any link between circumcision and reduced HIV-infection among men having sex with other men. The research simply isn’t there. To theorize any such link is irresponsible and potentially dangerous.

Continue reading “Good Intentions and Taxpayer Money”

I hate the tiny screen of MLB.tv.

I’m beating Major League Baseball’s anti-fan deal with DirecTV repeatedly, but it keeps providing fodder.

In Demand president Rob Jacobson, whose company is owned by affiliates of the companies that own Time Warner, Comcast and Cox cable systems, offered to carry the package on the same terms that DirecTV is for the next two seasons while putting off the issue of The Baseball Channel until it launches.

“This would ensure that for the next two years at least, all baseball fans would have access to the `Extra Innings’ package,” he said. “If we’re unable to reach an agreement when the channel launches, we’d give baseball the right to cancel the `Extra Innings’ deal. We think this is a fair compromise.”

[Sen. John] Kerry, trying to play the role of mediator, got behind the effort.

“What’s the matter with that?” he asked Bob DuPuy, baseball’s chief operating officer.

That’s a valid question, but only coming from a fan. [And I’m asking it: what’s the matter with that? – ed.] Congress, in its official duties, should not be determining the specifics of business deals in the private market. I know baseball and television aren’t fully private markets the way a corner store and a candy producer would be, but they should be.

“When fans react, Congress reacts,” [Sen. Arlen] Specter said. “You may be well advised to act before we do.”

Sen. Specter’s first statement is wrong because it amounts to nothing more than mob rule. He’s parading it as democracy, but we’re talking about the same beast. I’m angry about the deal. Still, it’s not something I expect my congressman to address. Sen. Specter’s concern may be correct. His actions are not.

Which gets to his second sentence. Stop threatening. Act or shut up. I’ve already stated that Major League Baseball should not have antitrust exemption. As long as it exists, though, dictate. That way everyone understands the true nature of the deal. Instead, we get blabber about the interests of consumers until someone inevitably steps up with cash or politicians back down without dignity. It’s tiresome.

I still hold out hope that a deal will get done. I can’t fight the fear that Major League Baseball only offered the Extra Innings deal to cable and Dish Network as a front to later pass blame on an outside party for not meeting the terms. I despise Bud Selig.

Informed, educational thoughts on antitrust absurdity at A Stitch in Haste.