This week, the Senate Commerce Committee will apparently be considering S. 602, the “Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007,” which was introduced by Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) earlier this year. The measure marks an important turning point in the ongoing battle over content regulation in the Information Age--in one way for the better, but in some other ways for the worse.

The measure wisely avoids direct content regulation and instead focuses on empowering families to make media consumption decisions on their own. Unfortunately, the measure seeks to accomplish that goal through government actions that could have potentially troubling regulatory implications, especially because of the First Amendment issues at stake here. Specifically, S. 602 opens the door to an expansion of the FCC’s authority over media content on multiple platforms and threatens to undermine private, voluntary rating systems in the process.

I have just released a brief analysis of the measure discussing these concerns. This 5-page paper can be found online at:

http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop14.17pryorchildsafetyviewingact.pdf

Good piece in the Wall Street Journal yesterday by Dennis Patrick (former FCC Chairman) and Thomas Hazlett (former FCC Chief Economist) on the Fairness Doctrine. In their editorial entitled, "The Return of the Speech Police," they argue that the Doctrine represented "well-intended regulation gone wrong" and that "re-imposing 'fairness' regulation would be a colossal mistake." The continue:

The Fairness Doctrine was bad public policy. It rested on the presumption that government regulators can coolly review editorial choices and, with the power to license (or not license) stations, improve the quantity and quality of broadcast news. Yet, as the volcanic eruption triggered by repeal amply demonstrated, government enforcement of "fairness" was extremely political.

Evaluations were hotly contested; each regulatory determination was loaded with implications for warring factions. The simple ceases to be easy once government is forced to issue blanket rules. What public issues are crucial to cover? How many contrasting views, and presented by whom, in what context, and for how long? The Fairness Doctrine brought a federal agency into the newsroom to second-guess a broadcaster's editorial judgments at the behest of combatants rarely motivated by the ideal of "balanced" coverage.

I was down in Raleigh, North Carolina this week testifying at a big hearing on mandatory age verification for social networking sites. It was quite a heated battle. The legislation, SB 132, was supported at the hearing by North Carolina attorney general Roy Cooper, several of his staff attorneys, a couple of NC senate lawmakers, and some folks from Aristotle, a company that claims it has devised a workable age verification solution for social networking purposes. A vote on the proposal was delayed and we're still awaiting the final outcome.

Down below, I have attached the outline of my remarks in which I argued that age verification mandates would actually make kids less safe online. Here's why:

PFF has just released Version 2.2 of my book, “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools and Methods.” It can be found online at: http://www.pff.org/parentalcontrols

As promised when we launched book last month, we plan on making ongoing updates available to ensure that the report offers a timely, comprehensive snapshot of the amazingly diverse marketplace of parental control tools and methods, as well as the ongoing state of child safety efforts.

Toward that end, Version 2.2 offers the following updates:

* over 20 new color exhibits or screen captures that highlight the many excellent websites or products on the market to help parents better manage media;
* a new section on how the “power of the purse” and sensible media budgeting can serve as the ultimate parental control strategy;
* a short section of good books on Digital Age parenting and online child safety;
* various other additions, clarifications and improvements to many other sections.

If you have other suggested additions, updates or corrections, please let me know. Version 2.3 of the book is already in the works!

I wanted to draw everyone's attention to this week’s edition of “Tech Policy Weekly,” the weekly podcast of the Tech Liberation Front blog. Yesterday’s discussion features the thoughts of Hance Haney (Discovery Inst), James Gattuso (Heritage), Jerry Brito (Mercatus) and Tim Lee (Cato) about the upcoming 700 Mhz auction and recent proposals to apply open access mandates on a portion of that spectrum. It’s a very in-depth 20-minute discussion of the issue:

http://www.techliberation.com/archives/042580.php

Comptel recently released a regulatory scorecard that ranks "the relative effectiveness of the regulatory frameworks for electronic communications across countries." Quantifying regulatory governance and rules is potentially very useful in terms of providing data that allows us to test the effectiveness of particular regulations and regulatory approaches. The rankings, however, are highly problematic and uninformative for policy purposes.

The main problem is that Comptel implicitly assumes that certain regulations are good when, in fact, their effects are at best highly debatable.

Consider, for example, how the scorecard handles unbundling regulations. A country gets high marks on the scorecard for having extensive unbundling regulations. Most empirical research finds that unbundling was a failure in the U.S. (and in a recent paper I found that extensive unbundling was not good for broadband penetration across OECD countries). Yet the U.S. could improve its Comptel ranking by imposing strict unbundling regulations despite the evidence that such regulations would likely harm facilities-based competition. Achieving a higher score by imposing strict unbundling regulations is clearly not supported by the evidence.

The scorecard in general assumes that regulations are always good, and countries get higher scores for having more regulations. Some regulations have net benefits and some do not. Simply assuming that regulations that favor CLECs are good is not helpful to policy.

Over on Verizon's PolicyBlog, Link Hoewing, VZ's Assistant Vice President – Internet and Technology Issues, has posted an interesting comparison of the US and European mobile markets. He's put together a side-by-side chart comparing contracts, competition, coverage, prices, new services, and more. He's asked for input from others, so take a look.

Fresh on the heels of Sen. Jay Rockefeller’s (D-W.Va.) show trial hearing about “violent TV” in the Senate Commerce Committee two weeks ago, Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) has just announced he would be proposing two new amendments that would seriously roll back the clock on broadcast industry regulation. According to a report in today’s Broadcasting & Cable,

"Brownback, a member of the Senate Appropriations committee, said Tuesday that he will offer two amendments to a general government appropriations bill Thursday, July 12, one that would "continue support for the FCC to fine broadcasters who air indecent, profane, or obscene content," and another that would "fine broadcasters for airing excessively violent content during the hours when children are most likely to be in the audience."

Before getting into the substance of these measures, a word about the process. I find it more than a little troubling that Senator Brownback is attempting to legislate on sensitive constitutional matters like this through the appropriations process. It seems to me that any measure that cuts to the core of an industry’s First Amendment rights should not be snuck into a bloated spending measure in order to get it passed. But hey, who cares about the Constitution… this is about “protecting children”! Right? Well, actually, it wouldn’t do that either.

From the WSJ, coverage of the impact of the Net on China:

The Party's rescue mission was staged to quell public discontent -- not out of any real obligation to upholding the rule of law. Which brings us to the real problem: The Party can't wholly enforce the rule of law without allowing a free press, and it can't loosen the reins on the press without exposing its own corruption. It's a catch-22, and China's citizens, especially its poorest, are the ones who suffer.

Some citizens, like the brick kiln fathers, are brave enough to take justice into their own hands. Armed with the Internet, they now have a mechanism to do so.

Recent remarks by Deborah Platt Majoras caution against adopting net neutrality regulation, following the FTC's report:

Majoras said that without evidence of "market failure or demonstrated consumer harm, policy makers should be particularly hesitant to enact new regulation in this area."

In separate remarks before a lawyers' group Wednesday, Majoras said the agency was unaware of any market failure or consumer harm in the high-speed Internet market, according to a written copy of her speech.