Bill Introduced To Pressure Countries That Seek To Break The Internet

from the sounds-good-in-theory... dept

Rep. Zoe Lofgren along with a list of other Congressional reps (from both parties) is introducing a new bill called the One Global Internet Act of 2010 (pdf), which is basically targeted at countries -- like Afghanistan and Pakistan -- that are seeking to block large parts of the internet from access, as well as countries like China, which for many years has tried to introduce its own, incompatible, standards for things like WiFi, DVDs, 3G cellular connections and more. The argument in the document is that for there to be a truly functioning internet, it shouldn't fragment across countries due to blockades or differing standards: I definitely appreciate the sentiment, but I do wonder how useful or effective something like this really could be. If countries want to block themselves off from the internet, or want to set up incompatible standards that break them off from cheaper technologies and more powerful connections, then, why not let them do so? It creates a lot more damage for them than it does for the rest of the internet. Yes, it may make things a bit difficult for US companies looking to work in those regions, but I'm always a little nervous about any sort of law that suggests the US can or should waltz into some other country and tell them how they need to act.

And, honestly, a lot of what it sounds like is in this bill seems to mimic what's found in copyright legislation that has turned the US into the world's copyright bully. It asks for the USTR to put together a "list" of problematic countries -- which sounds like the highly flawed and damaging USTR Special 301 process for copyright. It also talks about changing foreign government behavior through trade policy. But, again, that sounds like the disastrous setup of the USTR on copyright, where it has forced through awful "free trade" agreements that actually set up restrictive and protectionist copyright laws, and more recently has brought us ACTA.

While I do agree that these countries mucking with local internet access and standards represents a challenge, I'm not convince that appointing the US to be a standards bully necessarily is such a good idea. It seems like it could have pretty bad unintended consequences.

Filed Under: freedom, internet, ustr, zoe lofgren

Rep. Lofgren: A Real Antitrust Issue That Needs Scrutiny Is Copyright

from the about-time... dept

We talk here quite frequently about the fact that copyright (and patents) are gov't granted monopolies, and should be watched carefully because of that. Historically, economically speaking, gov't granted monopolies are bad for innovation and the economy. However, over the last few decades, there's been a big push by those who benefit from monopoly rents to try to redefine them as "intellectual property" rather than the more accurate description as a gov't granted monopoly. For the most part, our elected officials have bought into that language shift. Could that finally be changing back to a recognition that copyrights are monopolies and deserve the same scrutiny as any other economic monopoly? Today we saw a small move in that direction with a Congressional Rep admitting that copyrights are a monopoly and deserve scrutiny from the Judicial Dept. for that very reason.

I'm at the always-excellent State of the Net West event today, and the second discussion is about Antitrust in the Internet Era, and the discussion was introduced and led by Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, who had a number of surprising (in a good way) remarks. On traditional antitrust issues, she's worried that antitrust actions aren't being used to stop anti-competitive behavior but for anti-competitive purposes. She notes that many in Congress don't really understand the purpose and reasoning behind antitrust and assume that dominance or marketshare automatically means there's an antitrust problem. And, of course, there is the problem of regulatory capture. So, she notes that you'll see elected officials basically read out talking points on antitrust issues from competitors -- rather than actually looking at whether or not there's real harm to the market. So, she suggests that the framework for antitrust issues should be looking at innovation and whether or not that's happening or is being hindered. Of course, the cynical out there (you know who you are) might suggest that these sound sorta like Google's talking points... Either way, she says she's trying to set up a seminar for the Judiciary Committee about antitrust, to get them better educated about the real issues related to antitrust, and that seems like a good thing.

However, much more interesting and unexpected were her brief comments at the end of her remarks, where she took on copyright, noting that it is a gov't granted monopoly that deserves antitrust scrutiny. She said, "Let's face it, copyright extension these days is 'limited' to the life of Mickey Mouse." And yes, there was sarcasm in her voice over the word "limited." The guy sitting next to me who works at Disney started shuffling uncomfortably.... Lofgren went on to say that copyright is being used to put up barriers to competition and innovation and is an issue that antitrust regulators really should be scrutinizing. This is really surprising, but really good to hear. Lofgren has been one of the (very) few elected officials who actually does "get" copyright issues, but this is the first time I've heard any elected official recognize that copyright is a monopoly/antitrust issue that deserves serious scrutiny for the way it's so frequently abused for anticompetitive purposes.

Filed Under: anticompetitive, antitrust, copyright, monopoly, zoe lofgren

Isn't It Better To Keep Smart Foreign Workers In The US Than Sending Them Home To Compete?

from the just-wondering dept

It's amazing how short-sighted some people can be on the immigration question. Rep. Zoe Lofgren has a wonderful idea, suggesting that we make it much easier for skilled foreign workers to establish residency if they get a job in the US. It's difficult to see why anyone would oppose this. Keeping those workers in the US, working for US companies, means that they're contributing to the American economy. Sending them home only lets them compete against us, potentially harming the American economy. The argument most often brought up against such proposals, that it hurts American jobs, is easily shown to be false. It's based on the incorrect assumption that jobs are a zero-sum game, and if a foreign-born worker takes a job, it means one fewer job for an American-born worker. Yet, if that foreign worker goes back to his home country and works for a company that takes down an American company, then we have a lot fewer jobs in the US, due to that worker going home. At the same time, if that foreign-born worker stays here, and while working for an American company, helps build up an industry, it will create many new jobs for both foreign and American-born workers.

Filed Under: competition, immigration, us, zoe lofgren