Now you should find it more than a little interesting that the demagogues who demand more government control over the media – Copps, Kucinich, and Moyers – are also demanding more government control over the Internet through the idiocy of “net neutrality”. They’ve concocted a fictitious history for the Internet to support this program, and a bizarre narrative of Telco conspiracy, erosion of first amendment rights, and fanciful theories of network operation.

The net neutrality program offends me for the same reasons the media control program offends you: I’m an engineer who understands how it’s actually put together and what it’s going to take to grow the infrastructure to the point that the Internet really can challenge traditional media.

Keep criticizing, and I’m sure you’ll ultimately make the connection.

1. At some point in the history of the UK the publicly elected representatives decided that the BBC would be established and funded via a tax. That is, it was a democratic decision. Now democratic decisions always leave a certain percentage of the population unhappy with the choices. This is just how democracies work. One doesn’t get to pick and chose which parts of society to participate in.

2. Even in the US you pay mandatory taxes, for example on your automobile. Just like in the UK you won’t pay the tax if you don’t own the item, so there is nothing special about the TV tax as a concept. I don’t know whether the auto use tax is dedicated to a specific fund or not but this is a minor issue. The gasoline tax is supposed to go for road maintenance.

Libertarians feel that taxation is a form of theft, that is their right, but it is such an unworkable model for a modern society that there has never been a state based upon libertarian ideas. That’s why it remains a form of Utopianism.

Over the air networks such as ABC, NBC and so forth, whether television or radio, do not force anyone to underwrite them.

You should at least listen to some of the sessions. Many are online already as mp3s and the rest will be posted soon

http://www.freepress.net/conference/=full_schedule07

Here are a few you might want to check out (perhaps you can listen to them on the plane to davos). I edited a few of the speakers out since this is too long already (and could have included many more – the complete list is at the link above)

Citizen Journalism: Making an Impact in a New Media Landscape

Moderator: Ellen Miller, Sunlight Foundation
Dan Gillmor, Center for Citizen Media
Chris Nolan, Spot-On.com
Jay Rosen, PressThink

From Computer Screens to the Streets: Activism in a Wired World

Moderator: Ben Byrne, Free Press
Becky Bond, Working Assets
Marty Kearns, Green Media Toolshed
Noah Winer, MoveOn.org Civic Action

Saving the Internet

Moderator: Frannie Wellings, Free Press
Matt Stoller, MyDD.com
Tim Wu, Columbia University
Adam Green, MoveOn.org Civic Action
Azlan White, SavetheInternet.com member

Payola: Radio, Records, and the FCC

Moderator: Jared Ball, FreeMix Radio
Paul Porter, Industry Ears
Michael Bracy, Future of Music Coalition
Jonathan Adelstein, FCC Commissioner

Quality Journalists = Quality Journalism

Moderator: Linda Foley, The Newspaper Guild
Linda Moore, Memphis Commercial Appeal
Debbie Goldman, The Newspaper Guild
Jeff Gordon, St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Faith Communities & Media Reform

Moderator: Rev. Robert Chase, United Church of Christ
Katherine Grincewhich, US Conference of Catholic Bishops
Rima Meroueh, Media Empowerment Project
Rev. L. LaSimba M. Gray Jr., New Sardis Baptist Church

We have a mixed model. The “public” space is the broadcast spectrum which is loosely control by the government. We have a private space in the pay sector (cable and satellite). As Howard Stern has shown one can do pretty much whatever one likes in this space.

We even have a “public” broadcast facility (NPR and PBS), but they suffer from a compromised setup. They are controlled by a quasi-government body (CPB), at least in part, and also beholding to corporate sponsors. As a consequence they are much less comprehensive than similar operations elsewhere. For example, the BBC is funded by a dedicated tax (on TV sets) and this insulates them better from direct government meddling.

We don’t have a news operation like the BBC which is insulated from political pressure and as a consequence the range of news covered and the variety of viewpoints aired are more restricted here. Making even more of the offering subject to the interests of big business doesn’t seem a good way to promote the kind of vigorous debate that should exist in a functioning democracy.

Eighty five percent of all media outlets in the US are controlled by a handful of firms (GE, News Corp, Time-Warner, Disney and Viacom). The situation in radio is much the same and in the music sector the number is now four.

That’s the very nature of PUBLIC assets. They’re use is controlled by the offical proxy of the public – the government.

If you don’t want government interference – you should argue to privitize spectrum.

But then you have to imagine Pat Robertson got together with Private Equity groups and bought it all.

The loss of reporting staff weakens this function and is not a “good thing”. The internet may be a new avenue for social change (or at least discussion) but it is far from being a player equal to the traditional media’s power.

Here’s a link to the article:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070129/nichols

One can affect the way citizens view their society and determine the future direction of public policy and the other is still just toothpaste. What the left objects to is the present limits on the range of ideas presented by the broadcast media. We are seeing the consequences at the present time. Before the Iraqi invasion those opposed to the idea and those who wished to present counter evidence to the popular ideas (like WMD’s and an Iraqi nuclear program) had almost no exposure.

This has continued until very recently when the reality of the progress of the occupation finally has caused some broadcasters to start taking a more critical look at the issues. A functioning democracy requires that citizens hear a range of opinions and as many facts as can be uncovered. This is why totalitarian regimes all have state-controlled media.

Allowing the broadcast media to also control print and cable outlets further restricts the range of material presented. At present only huge industrial concerns (like Fox, ABC and Murdoch) have the financial clout to play in this market. It will be a long time before the internet has enough reach to counter the effective media monopoly that now exists.

Jeff: as a libertarian you need to propose a realistic way for minority opinions to be heard when the present “free market” model is not working. Many mainstream economists like Joseph Stiglitz have modified their beliefs and come to realize that the “invisible hand” model is an unrealistic oversimplification. They now favor government control of markets. This means how markets operate, not what they sell (assuming its not fraudulent or dangerous).

The information market is no different, but at present is far from open. If you don’t like the suggestions made at the conference what do you suggest instead?

Love that you dropped the f-bomb!! Grrr!! I agree with your assertion that regulation will neither shore up old media nor make it better. But I also think that without net neutrality, big media will merely shift their operations online and quash the blossoming voices there.

Media reform is happening as we speak. It’s just people like you and thousands of others who are making it happen.

Jeff,

First of all, I was actually looking for you at the conference. I thought you would be here. One of the main topics discussed this weekend was the importance of protecting net neutrality. You also probably would have enjoyed the panels on citizen journalism and social networking. Hell, you should have been on them.

Your analysis is usually astute and and poignant but that is not the case here. The main point that you seem to be mistaken on here is the nature of the regulation in question. The only regulation that was advocated at the conference was in terms of ownership. No one here is suggesting that the FCC regulate the content of protected speech. What we have an issue with was the attempt by the FCC to deregulate media ownership to the point where one company could own three television stations, eight radio stations and the only newspaper in any given market. That kind of monopoly on the means of content distribution is unprecedented and not conducive to promoting a well-informed public.

Aside from this misunderstanding your distaste for this conference seems to be due to the fact that you view media reform in a different context than those in attendance. You, as someone who is primarily interested in the business of media, see media reform as a means to making the industry more profitable. Most of the people attending the conference, as people who are activists or are interested in politics, see media reform as a means to that end. Getting into the specific politics of it here is fruitless but I think you see my point.

I anticipate your response.

But I suspect that Copps and Kucinich are so out of touch with reality that they constitute less of a threat than they appear to be.

And you are right about consolidation. We need more, not less in the traditional media sectors. But with Fox/MySpace, Google/YouTube, Verizon Fios, ATT/BellSouth, the consolidation that matters seems to be pretty uninhibited.

Not that we don’t have something to fear from an utterly stupid government. And not that allowing consolidation in the older medias wouldn’t save a lot of jobs.

But faith in the market to beat back dumb regulation still seems like a good bet (the 1996 Telecom Bill and its decedents being a notable exception).

Anyway, I’ll look forward to reading more about the boneheads that were invited to speak.