FCC Rulings

The media ownership proceeding of 2003 have returned to the table in 2007, the debate continues whether to relax or eliminate longstanding rules preventing media consolidation at both the local and national levels regarding TV, radio, newspapers and cable. The current rules prevent one broadcast network from ownin another broadcast network;limit the number of local broadcast stations that any one broadcaster can own to system serving 35 percent of the TV-viewing households in the U.S.; prohibit a company from ownong cable TV systems and TV stations in the same community, and prohibit ownership of newspapers and TV stationsin the same community. The original reasoning for these rules was to guarantee a multiplicity of voices anr prevent concentrations of power. Today's argument is many of these rule are out dated and need to be reexamined. Big media companies are complaining the rules are artificially constricting their ability to grow and serve their consumer base. Big media claims this damages their capacity to compete in the free marketplace. the Internet poses a threat, as a new source of competition claims the big media companies

The Evolving Technologies Of Internet Privacy

Two dynamic Internet software industries are emerging. One is the data-mining industry, producing software tools that firms use to analyze consumer behavior and preferences on the Internet. The other is the privacy software industry, whose products are designed to stop some or all of this individual information from being collected and analyzed.
Entrepreneurial firms are rushing to offer a variety of products to serve Internet advertising and data-gathering firms on the one hand and individuals and groups with privacy concerns on the other. Interested read more @ http://www.ncpa.org/bg/bg156/bg156.html extracted from the National Center of Policies Analysis 11/19/08.

What Scholars think about the internet governance

The surrounding debate has generated a good deal of learned study, one example being a 115-page paper by San Diego University legal scholar Lawrence Solum. Solum, following author Lawrence Lessig, cautions that any governance and law-making measures should respect the layered structure of the internet, and not impose rules at one layer that have an unintended broader effect at another layer. A crude example of bad law would be to propose cutting physical internet links (the bottom layer of at least six) to solve a problem with unacceptable content (the top layer). computerworld.co.zn.rss/compueterworld.xml

Democrats and Republicans alike seem to have an agenda to implement controls over the internet, from pornography to privacy. Telecommunication subdivisions of US economy are under being scrutinized on state, federal, and international levels. Some people are pushing for increased government control, whereas others, myself and my group included believe that the internet should remain deregulated and free of government control. In the recent past many policy makers were in favor of “hands off the internet!” If government does get involved there will be inadvertent consequences. “Lawmakers should exercise patience and humility in the face of ongoing change, and encourage industry to employ self-regulatory solutions instead of assuming Washington has the answers. Unfortunately, however, the impulse to intervene remains strong for many policymakers.”

It is a well known fact that Web sites collect information about who visits their sites, and then sell that information. Some lawmakers are pushing for regulations that would require online companies and even “main street firms” to disclose the information that they collect and then share, and also permit people to opt against collection and sale of personal information. Author, Michael Lewis, believes “when it comes to companies trafficking in personal information to better target what they try to sell, most people don’t care.” The free flow of information mean that people can get more stuff at a cheaper price. The idea of “privacy” is complicated and so is the relationship between privacy, consumers, and businesses. Federal regulation over personal information in order to more effectively move merchandise will hurt internet commerce and consumers. There will be more negative consequences for small businesses versus larger corporations, whom already have a assembled comprehensive databases (they have the same need to purchase information from websites to the same degree small businesses do.) In the post 9.11 world we live in even Washington seeks access of personal information. The USA Patriot Act allows government to monitor and access citizens emails, something that raises constitutional issues. Why should the whitehouse have regulation over the collection and sale of information to businesses when they themselves do not honor privacy? Businesses are responding to the consumers concerns surrounding privacy. Popular sites now feature privacy policies so that internet users can set their browser to reject the gathering of private information. There are also software tools that allow users to anonymously surf the web or warn then when their information is being collected. All of these privacy protection are further protecting the autonomy of consumers. This seems to be a more constitutional and democratic way of protecting and ensuring internet privacy than government regulations.

Government efforts to control content on the Internet can give people a false sense of security. Take for example the trade of mp3 music files via internet. This was stopped many years ago by a determined music industry that was irate and sick of piracy. However this did not put an end to illegal file sharing. “The trade of pirated music files continues through other, non-web avenues on the internet that are just as user friendly: peer-to-peer networks and email.” Keeping this example in mind let us return to the issue of child pornography. Government regulations cannot stop the sharing of child porn. Much of the pornography is traded through file-sharing that use websites which are not targeted by COPA. “In the name of protecting children, the law interferes with content that adults should have the right to see under the First Amendment. And laws like COPA can have unintended consequences: barriers to those who seek porn voluntarily will likely increase email solicitations for porn (spam), which COPA wouldn't regulate.” Parents, not government, can protect their children. If Parents choose to allow their children to access the internet, they must take on the responsibility to supervise. “Filtering-not just filtering software but filtered online services apart from the broader Internet that might be appropriate for the very young-is available” Tracking software is also available. This allows parents to monitor what their children do on the internet and where they go in cybersapce. Although some people would call such this spying it is less invasive than congress regulating the entire content of the internet for everyone.