Google stands accused of violating a California law that requires a website operator to "conspicuously post" a link to its privacy policy on its "home page or first significant page after entering the Web site" with the word "Privacy" in a larger font than the rest of the page's text.

Are we not fortunate to have state laws that make it possible for customers to actually find website privacy policies? With all the billions of documents floating out there in the dark and mysterious pipes and tubes of the so-called “Internet,” how on earth would any simple user ever find the Google privacy policy if Google were not required by law to include an obvious link to that policy on its homepage? Some modern-day da Vinci would have to invent a technology that could magically index every single webpage in existence and let users find—or “search,” to use a classic science-fiction term—for that particular webpage by typing the words “Google privacy policy” and clicking a button.

Until such fantastic Jules Verne-style technologies are developed in some distant century, it is obviously vital that each and every state government develop its own requirement as to how website operators—especially those that purport to offer fantastic-but-as-yet-clearly-impossible “search” services—must clutter their websites' homepages with links to information that no user could ever possibly find on his or her own with today’s crude technology.

My former PFF colleague Randy May, now president of the Maryland-based Free State Foundation, had an editorial in The Washington Times over the weekend about the ominous new trend of state governments pushing Net Neutrality mandates. He notes that Maryland has just introduced such a measure, joining California, Maine and Michigan as states who have tried to go at it alone on this front.

This is a dangerous development for reasons made clear in another Free State Foundation report, this one by James Speta of the Northwestern University School of Law. Speta points out that:

Although some issues in telecommunications have salience at more than one jurisdictional level, network neutrality is the quintessential federal issue. First, applications and content on the Internet are distributed nationally -- and internationally. Almost never will a user access only in-state websites. Network neutrality regulation addresses the relationship between Internet access providers on the one hand and applications and content providers on the other. As a matter of telecommunications doctrine, therefore, network neutrality is a federal issue. Indeed, the FCC has already defined what it considers to be the best network neutrality regime: a general statement of policies to be applied, if necessary, on a case-by-case basis. State attempts to regulate in this area are therefore preempted.

Second, Internet access providers themselves have national footprints, design their networks based on national business practices, and advertise in national media. As a matter of policy, any fragmentation caused by different state network neutrality rules would introduce inefficiencies at a time when expanding the availability of broadband is a high national priority.

I would hope that even supporters of federal Net neutrality regulation would understand the dangers associated with giving state government more authority over the day-to-day workings of the Net. It could be a disaster in the making if a patchwork of parochial policies was applied to this global medium, especially if states use NN rules as a way to embark on other forms of Net regulation.

Education is a hot topic for tech companies, thus I link to this commentary by Milton Friedman in the LA Times.

Maryland's descent into regulatory chaos and insanity proceeds apace.
The Baltimore Sun has a good synopsis of what is going on. My op-ed appeared in The Sun today and can be found here.
I spent some time with the briefs from the lawsuit filed by the dismissed PSC members last night, and must say there appears to be a valid state constitutional objection to the legislature's statutory dismissal of a body that constitutionally can only be removed by the governor for official malfeasance. Perhaps my favorite part of the Maryland legislature's dismissal statute is its siting of legal challenges to the Act in Baltimore City. Given the Democratic bent of Balmer' and the hyperpartisan nature of this dispute with the Republican Governor Ehrlich, I think this is what is colloquially known as being "home-towned."
We will have to wait and see if the Maryland appellate courts play it straight on the outcome...

The Maryland legislature, as expected, overrode Governor Ehrlich's veto of a bill that would have limits Baltimore Gas & Electric's rate increases and eliminated all the current members of the PSC. The bill is a travesty for two reasons, and bodes very ill long-term for Maryland's electricity customers.

First, the bill continues the Maryland legislature's well-known belief in its ability to suspend basic principles of economics. With this bill, the legislature effectively denies BG&E cost recovery for its electricity service -- or, rather, to pay the competitive price for electricity. While this is being hailed as a populist victory over corporate greed, no one has made an effective case that the PSC's determination back in the spring was indeed wrong. The 72% rate increase -- whether phased-in or digested all at once -- is certainly large, none of the opponents has made the case that BG&E's costs have not increased that much. With natural gas prices up in the neighborhood of 300% in the past few years and the market price for electricity being far above that currently charged by BG&E, it is no surprise that rates would rise, even substantially. Of course, none of this can get in the way of a good political skewering of the PSC and Constellation Energy, BG&E's parent. In the future, though, Maryland ratepayers will get to enjoy lower bond ratings for its utility, higher debt costs, less capital expenditures, diminished reliability, and all other byproducts of a good populist rebellion.

The House has overwhelmingly passed the Communication Opportunity Promotion Enhancement Act of 2006 (COPE). Of course, the last time Congress overwhelmingly passed communications legislation, we got this. So there is reason for to take pause.
On the whole, the COPE Act isn't exactly awful, but it is a high price to pay for the laudable goal of television franchise reform. In the best of all worlds, franchising would be ditched entirely as the outmoded regulatory institution it is. But it isn't the best of all worlds, so there are concessions to the reliance interests that localities have on the tax revenue from franchising, and to silly little shibboleths like PEG channels.

The nationwide debate regarding whether and how states and cities should help regulate digital age communications has evolved considerably in recent months. Thus, it is interesting to note how well areas of developing consensus were anticipated by a working group of university and other scholars back in autumn of last year.

Two weeks ago, my colleague Randy May posted a short critique of the principles announced by Senators Burns and Inouye to guide video franchise reform. Randy called for reform. Wouldn't you know it? A half dozen senators released a new set of principles just in time for the February 15 Commerce Committee hearing on the issue. The Senate hearing came on the heels of a filing deadline at the FCC for a NPRM soliciting input on franchise authority. What will come of all this activity? I sure don't know, but read below for the briefest of scorecards on who is saying what on the issue.

Last night the County Council voted unanimously to grant Verizon a video franchise. Some news reports estimate that there are more than 265,000 viewers -- the total population is below 300,000 so note that this is not the same as households. The latter figure is probably slightly less than 95,000. Regardless, this suburban Maryland county is a coup for deployment of the FIOS system. Of interest, the county is unincorporated (no city government). As a result, Verizon doesn't have to deal with officials in Ellicott City, Columbia and each of the other areas trying to extract rents.

What did they give up? There appears to be a buildout schedule with the densly populated part of county on a three-year schedule and most of the rest of the county on a seven-year plan. This move is just more evidence that the former telcos are not of one mind on the franchising issue. Some find it distasteful, others find it abhorrent. Needless to say, officials from DBS providers and Comcast won't be pleased with the new competitive threat in a wealthy market.

Early this week, the Ohio utilities commission announced a series of seven public hearings that will take place across the state in January. On its face, the hearings are an opportunity for public comment on a staff proposal for the implementation of recent legislation, House Bill 218. At issue is the regulation of basic local telephone service

It might be better understood as a victory for the Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel (OCC).