As long as there have been marketplaces, they have served as a channel for the trade of both legitimately acquired and illicit goods.  With changes in public’s buying habits along with the deepening recession cutting into brick and mortar profits, why not blame Ebay for playing the role of fence for stolen goods. While you’re at it, big retail, why not include Amazon, Overstock, Craigs List and any number of  other online marketplaces that allow anyone to sell goods to others. Even in the unlikely event you close down person to person sales on the Internet you’ll still have flea markets, garage sales and classified ad tabloids around to blame for your inability to cope with the bad economy and change.

“Thieves often tell the same disturbing story: they begin legitimately selling product on eBay and then become hooked by its addictive qualities, the anonymity it provides and the ease with which they gain exposure to millions of customers. When they run out of legitimate merchandise, they begin to steal intermittently, many times for the first time in their life, so they can continue selling online. The thefts then begin to spiral out of control and before they know it they quit their jobs, are recruiting accomplices and are crossing states lines to steal, all so they can support and perpetuate their online selling habit.”

Uh huh. Only problem? Actual stats show that such retail theft is on the decline. But, of course, that won’t stop the lobbyists from these stores from pushing — and that means we’ve now got the fourth such law introduced just this year to deal with. With the introduction of the new bill, the House Judiciary Committee held hearings with law enforcement officials who did claim that retail theft was a problem, but according to Thomas O’Toole, they also said no new laws were needed. (techdirt)

The biggest problem currently faced by retailers is an economic depression. The same folks who engineered the financial melt down are by in large the same lawmakers running the show in Washington today. Instead of new rules for the Internet that are bound to put a bigger chill on commerce, how about stepping back and doing a little less meddling. All of the ill informed intervention, spending and borrowing have only made things worse so far. More ham handed intervention by that same  poorly informed Parliament of whores is the last thing the Internet or the economy need right now.

When you have a government sanctioned oligarchy, which the cabal of Sprint, AT&T and VZ represents you will have these kind of shenanigans. –

Both were done in letters to Capitol Hill, to influential members of Congress. The first was done on Friday, July 17. It purported to set out a new policy for “allowing” really small cellular carriers to have access to some fancy mobile phones to sell to their customers six months after those phones are introduced by Verizon. In this case, the letter went to Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), chairman of the House Communications Subcommittee, House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), as well as senior subcommittee Republican Cliff Stearns (FL) and senior committee Republican Joe Barton (TX).

The second came late in the day on July 22. That one was yet another offer, responding to concerns from Congress that maybe the big players in the cellular industry should ease up. This letter went to Waxman.

When a major company makes such an announcement in letters to Congress, be aware. Be very aware. Those letters are intended as much for show as they are for anything substantive. They are part of a little game of “Let’s Make A Deal,” in which Congress and [insert special interest here] are the contestants and judges. The public’s involvement, or even welfare, can be minimal.

Of course they are not playing to the market. They are playing to those who have the oversight to destroy their tight little arrangement. That is why for years we have had closed access, closed CPE markets, crippled CPE, etc. So long as the cabal can play the Congressional oversight game they need not fear either the FCC or the market as a whole.

Nor do I expect the Obama administration to help in this regard. If anything guys like Axelrod will see it for what it is — a cozy arrangement they will let persist so long as they get contributions in kind. Another words its Chicago politics on the Potomac — again.

Linky.

They’re baaack! That nasty duopoly and its army of lobbyists are back trying to convince the feds that metered billing is a good thing. I would agree - if the marketplace were competitive. And that’s the rub, because  it’s not. Investors are pushing duopoly managements to grow profits, and the profit engine expected from pay TV isn’t there.  In fact pay TV has probably already hit its peak to be followed by a steady decline. The gravy train the telcos rode of POTS and even wireless voice is coming to an end as well.

The cost of  delivering a megabit of broadband has been in free fall for years. In fact, if all other costs had remained constant, duopoly margins should have doubled in the last couple of years. Unfortunately those costs have ballooned, almost entirely from bad decisions and/or heavy investment outside of the core business. In a competitive environment, bad decision’s bankrupt companies. In a duopoly, bad decisions mean price increases for rate payers.

So, let me explain what’s really going on. Metered billing, caps and more tiers are all about increasing prices for the same level of service. Period. When there’s going to be a pulbic outcry over price increases, you try to hide it in a “better deal”. Fortunately, only a corrupt government is eager to beleive that better deal story.  If we are forced to accept metered billing, it should only come accompanied to unbundling the local loop and forcing an open market.  In an open market, metered billing could be a good thing. Instead of paying rates that reflect a 1000-2000% margin, we’re more likely to pay based on a 100% margin.  That would dramatically decrease the amount most of us pay. But giving consumers a break is  not what the current metered billing debate is about.

This next push for metered billing will be a multi-million dollar effort, utilizing the full arsenal of incumbent public policy relations. That of course means heavy use of lobbyists, paid PR flaks, pseudo-scientific think tanks and even artificial consumer advocacy groups. Collectively, they’ll spend the next year or two trying to convince the public and daft lawmakers that metered billing is patriotic, good for children and puppies, and results in vast oceans of innovation pouring out wistfully upon a dreamy sea of competitive innovation.

As Phillip Dampier of Stop The Cap notes, the push began in earnest this week, with a flood of astroturfers and paid policy goofs flooding Internet message boards with the gospel of their handlers. PR departments fired up their engines as well, AT&T insisting to us that their metered billing trials in Reno and Beaumont, Texas are really about making sure that “grandma” gets a fair shake. (DSL Reports)

If you care about this (and you should). It’s time to phone your elected representatives. Let them know you’re not being fooled by the retoric, and that you are watching them.

A well lobbied Congress and FCC have allowed four companies to control the vast majority of America’s wireless frequency allocations. Our government actually helped those companies to grow operate closed networks without requiring fair peering/roaming agreements  with smaller carriers. The feds entrusted with maintaining an open market have allowed a cartel to enter into exclusive agreements with handset manufacturers.

The Senate, laugably, is listening to small carriers as if the majority of the body is not already ware of the problems they have created by allowing the wireless cartel to exist.

The smaller competitors argue that exclusivity agreements prevent other carriers from acquiring these devices, hurting competition for wireless customers.

Victor Meena, president of Mississippi-based Cellular South Inc, said that AT&T Wireless, Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile dominate 90 percent of the U.S. wireless market.

“The largest carriers use their market power to prevent competitors from having access to devices and roaming,” Meena said. “If this trend continues, and I believe it will without intervention from Congress, then there will once again be a duopoly in the wireless industry.”

John Rooney, president of Chicago-based U.S. Cellular Corp, which provides services in regional pockets throughout the United States, urged the committee to act to allow customers the ability to chose both the handset and the network.  (Yahoo)

Sadly, I think the small operators are wasting their time and energy. The big four are also speaking at the hearings, and they claim the market is robust and competitive. While it’s true that prices are falling for plain old voice service, using it as your benchmark is misguided.  Misguiding a willing parliament should be easy for the cartel. The current senate is always eager to partake of the benefits only the biggest players in the lobby can provide.  If you think there’s a chance of help fromthe White house. Let me remind you that the current occupant is a former Senator.

Left to their own devices, lawyers tend to be pretty deliberate predators. That means most of us with limited net worth are not likely to do battle with one of them operating on his or her own nickel.  The RIAA has made plenty of enemies with its shoot first, ask questions later tactics in prosecuting file sharers and may have broken a few laws in the process. Since RIAA does have deep pockets, it should come as no surprise that enterprising lawyers are filing a class action suit on behalf of the victims of RIAA’s legal adventures. I have little doubt that the victim’s won’t be getting much of the spoils, but watching the RIAA take a good beating may be a justice enough for many of those it harmed.

Not content simply to defend Jammie Thomas-Rasset in her high-profile retrial next week in Minnesota, lawyer Kiwi Camara is joining forces with Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson to file a class-action lawsuit against the recording industry later this summer. The goal is nothing less than to force the industry to pay back the alleged “$100+ million” it has collected over the last few years. (Ars Technica)

You can bet the MPAA is in the crosshairs.  While defending file sharers is a little dubious, there’s a larger issue with the DMCA. It criminalizes any of us who convert digital media from one format to another for our own use. If there’s a really benevolent attorney out there looking to self promote, it’s high time that this unconstitutional law gets a challenge inthe courts. Most of Congress has been too completely corrupted by big media to undo it. The courts may very well be the next best hope we have to restore fair use rights in America.

Like a meeting of the Chicago outfit, the telco Dons gather and divide a former competitors territory with the Godfather overseeing. What must be assured by the Mafia is that no new competitors get a foothold. Upstarts are bad for any Mafia. They often make it necessary to invest more in the product and / or lower prices.

AT&T will acquire wireless properties, including licenses, network assets and 1.5 million current subscribers in 79 service areas, primarily in rural areas across 18 states, the company said in a statement.

Verizon Wireless is required to divest from these properties as part of the regulatory approvals granted for its purchase of Alltel earlier this year. (Yahoo)

Just as we’ve begun to some pricing scuffles in the obsolete wireless voice arena, the telcos have been carefully maneuvering to insure that there will be less competition in the wireless broadband space. Their cohorts in the Federal government seem to be only too happy to help.

Well it looks like the House, not having been satisfied with whipping itself the first go around is coming back for a second round. We have already pontificated enough on the stupidity of this move. Check the archives if you are interested. You want to put your healtcare in the hands of these idiots? –

After failing to get the required two-third majority on Wednesday, the House is expected next week to pass legislation delaying the digital television transition to June 12, according to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. The Senate has already voted to extend the deadline, and President Obama has indicated he will sign the bill.

Just Do It Already!

Linky

This isn’t quite where we’ll end up, but it is a sign of where we are going. A newly released (to the US market) IP radio  from Sanyo comes in at a price point that signals the race to zero has begun.

As Sanyo’s vice president, Tom Van Voy states, the device needs no tethering to a computer. It seems that it has an own database for Internet stations. Oh, and it looks quite ugly. You have to wait until January to get one for $169.99. (Crunchgear)

How does this simple internet audio player fit into the Third Pipe world? The answer lies in the seed change we are witnessing for all media. We can debate how the bits will wirelessly travel to the new IP receiver be it Wifi, Wimax, 3G or a combination, but the fact is wireless IP is the future of terrestrial radio. What about satellite? When we have national wireless IP coverage, not even the truckers will care. What about HD or digital broadcast radio? Too little, too late. It will likely survive as a replacement for it’s analog ancestor for a time, but why invest in transmitters that cover a limited area when you can push your signal world wide for less? This is bad news for broadcasters that rely mostly on syndicated programming.

With a new group of zealots taking charge of the US Congress in January, the move to IP could accelerate if they are short signted enough to reinstate the so called “fairness doctorine”. Soing so would push many nationally syndicated programs to IP only creating a big shift from broadcast to IP for most talk radio listeners.

Lobbyists and rank and file house members rejoice, the telcos will be spreading the wealth inside the capitol next year. A lot of noise will be made about what will be done to them, but in the end there is still a vote, and the telcos will buy the votes needed to keep things the way that they are.

It will be entertaining though. Henry Waxman, the unrivaled master of holding hearings that do little more than dominate  airtime on Cspan will be pointing his nostrils towards the twisted pair when his reach is extended next year. There will be a lot of talking, a lot of money spent, and nothing will change in the end.  I’ll be around to tell you we told you so when it happens.

Yesterday Rep. Henry Waxman ascended to the head of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce — which you may remember for its investigation into how web firms use consumer data — and convened two hearings into online privacy.

As the head of that committee, Waxman has considerable influence over its agenda. The Wall Street Journal speculates that Waxman will delegate many telecommunications issues to Rep. Ed Markey, of Massachusetts, who has already pushed for a Net Neutrality bill, and has a fondness for consumer issues. (GigaOm)

By the way, if your interested in fixing the duopoly problem, it’s time to think local. More on that in a future post.

If you are a regular reader, you already know that I think a new net neutrality law is likely to give us the opposite of what it claims.  You simply can’t make a duopoly behave. The real problem is the last mile, and it belongs to us - both in the wireline and wireless mode of delivery, yet we have laws and regulations that have given control of it to one or two companies in most localities. If we need any new national laws, we need to reinforce the right for all comers to access public right of ways.

Looking deeper into the real danger of net neutrality legislation, I would like to call your attention to a piece from Timothy B. Lee at the Cato Institute. Yes he’s a staunch libertarian, but so are the very founding principles of our internet (and yes, it also belongs to US).

New regulations inevitably come with unintended consequences. Indeed, today’s network neutrality debate is strikingly similar to the debate that produced the first modern regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission. Unfortunately, rather than protecting consumers from the railroads, the ICC protected the railroads from competition by erecting new barriers to entry in the surface transportation marketplace. Other 20th-century regulatory agencies also limited competition in the industries they regulated. Like these older regulatory regimes, network neutrality regulations are likely not to achieve their intended aims. Given the need for more competition in the broadband marketplace, policymakers should be especially wary of enacting regulations that could become a barrier to entry for new broadband firms. (cato.org)