January 2010

[Commentary] The media shield bill that frequently seems poised to whisk through Congress, but has incurred several discomfiting delays, is a bad idea unless it gets one big change. If the story goes to trial, the judge should have the discretion to disallow the confidentiality protection of the sources if the reporter has made any significant errors or if the sources' information is wrong or unfair. If the reporter has screwed up or been dishonest or been suckered, why should he/she be protected? Without this change, the law is a bad idea for the public because the rights of the subjects of the stories and possibly others affected are totally ignored. And it might be a bad idea for the press itself because one can easily foresee it backfiring during a libel trial that centers on wrong and harmful information.

[Commentary] For over a decade now, health care experts have been promoting telemedicine, or the use of satellite technology, video conferencing and data transfer through phones and the Internet, to connect doctors to patients in far-flung locales. But are doctors ready for this form of technology? Telemedicine has the potential to improve quality of care by allowing clinicians in one "control center" to monitor, consult and even care for and perform procedures on patients in multiple locations. A rural primary care practitioner who sees a patient with a rare skin lesion, for example, can get expert consultation from a dermatologist at a center hundreds of miles away. A hospital unable to staff its intensive care unit with a single critical care specialist can have several experts monitoring their patients remotely 24 hours a day. But despite its promise, telemedicine has failed to take hold in the same way that other, newer, technologies have. Not because of technical challenges, expense or insufficient need. On the contrary, the most daunting obstacle to date has been a deeply entrenched resistance on the part of providers.

[Commentary] The Obama Administration and its allies at the Federal Communications Commission are retreating from a militant version of Network Neutrality regulations first outlined by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in September.

Chairman Genachowski had initially described his vision for the future role of the FCC as a "smart cop on the beat preserving a free and open Internet." Communications companies understood that to mean aggressive and detailed enforcement of rules that would, among other things, prohibit ISPs from offering premium, or "fast lane," services.

Downes cites an American Spectator article (see link below) saying that Obama advisor Susan Crawford left the White House in a row over how radical proposed Network Neutrality rules would be. At the Consumer Electronics Show, Crawford and White House deputy CTO Andrew McLaughlin reminded the audience that the FCC had yet to determine whether net neutrality is needed to preserve the open Internet and characterized the proposing of the rules as simply opening a dialogue on the subject to allow the FCC to collect data.

Downes writes that the major carriers are making the investments, and have every business reason to make more. But the Net neutrality rules, depending on how the FCC defines key terms, could hamstring their efforts to make their money back. Net neutrality is making Wall Street uncomfortable about financing broadband deployment. That in turn is making the White House nervous. Net neutrality is turning out to be a noisy side show and a growing distraction from the real priority for both the White House and the FCC: getting the country wired for recovery.

[Larry Downes is a consultant and author, most recently of "The Laws of Disruption: Harnessing the New Forces that Govern Life and Business in the Digital Age." He is a nonresident fellow at the Stanford Law School Center for Internet & Society.]