Well… of course not but some seem to think so.

http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/05/att-verizon-dominate-wireless-is-it-time-to-regulate.ars

The government’s latest annual report on the state of mobile wireless competition is out, and its conclusions are not what the wireless sector wanted to hear. Over the last half-decade, concentration in the industry has gone up—way up, in fact. The Federal Communications Commission says that the two dominant providers, AT&T and Verizon, now enjoy a 60 percent chunk of revenue and subscribers, “and continue to gain share.”

Their nearest rivals, T-Mobile and Sprint, serve most of that remaining 40 percent. T-Mobile enjoyed some growth over the last two years. Sprint lost subscribers.

As a consequence, the antitrust measurement gauge that the FCC uses, the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, has jumped by almost 700 points since the agency first began using it in 2003. That’s a 32 percent increase. Some of this newer concentration is a consequence of mergers over the last few years: AT&T/Aloha, T-Mobile/Suncom, Verizon Wireless/Rural Cellular, and Verizon Wireless/Alltel.

So the wireless sector HHI is now at 2848, the agency says, which doesn’t mean diddly until you know that the Department of Justice regards a market to be “highly concentrated” if, following a merger, the HHI in a given industry throttles past 1800. The FCC typically starts to eyeball the situation after a post-merger calculation of 2880.

More…

The cell phone industry is quite heavily regulated as are most ‘utilities.’ There are some issues that can’t really be dealt with such as the momentum of the old AT&T monopoly (which was created by the federal government). Those entities which came from it continue to hold huge amounts of capital and I don’t see any reasonable way to deal with that. It could be argued that they should be broken up I believe simply removing the existing intervention would cut them down to size should they be unable to compete with new comers.

How can we get some improved competition and therefore truly fulfill the customers desires?

• Scrap the FCC. They increase the barrier to entry to entering the field within the current technological structure, stifle technological advancement and time to market by requiring devices to undergo special testing and limiting the frequencies that can be used. The limiting of frequencies reduces the supply and therefore increases costs. It limits the reasons to research in new technologies with different frequencies since they can’t be used without great lobbying. They in effect create a cartel which normalizes service not only from a technological perspective but also their general service.
• Stop any intellectual property abuse. Don’t allow the government to proactively go after individuals on behalf of the hardware and software providers. Only enforce those terms that are clearly agreed to in the contract. This is not any different from game consoles. The owners of the console have the right to modify the hardware and it’s software as they see fit just as the service provider has the right to attempt to discover such changes and stop servicing that individual.
• Remove any service requirements, taxes, etc. that rise the barrier to entry and normalize service. If the customer is fine without the ability to make emergency calls, for example, that’s between them and the provider.

I’m sure there are other issues that could be addressed but as far as I can see the first one, the FCC, is the biggest. Removing restrictions on all forms of wireless technologies would go a long way in opening up the floor to new technologies and entrepreneur wishing to exploit those technologies to provide a better service for the customer.

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance. –Murray N. Rothbard

This is regard to the statement in the Gizmodo article about how Comcast won in court against the FCC and its attempt to stop it from banning BitTorrent traffic.

The FCC’s changed too, with a new administration. Obama’s FCC has gotten even more aggressively pro-consumer and pro-competition—promising to make net neutrality the law, even applying it to carriers like AT&T, and doing things releasing tools to check your broadband connection.

Apparently the author never took economics 101… or even bothered to think about what was being said. Net-Neutrality, as with all forms of regulation, are by definition limiting competition by removing that particular feature from the competitive pool (ignore black markets). And empirically licenses or other requirements are often included in such regulations which raises the barrier to entry further limiting competition. So… what Rothbard said.

http://www.webmd.com/skin-beauty/news/20100330/fda-panel-new-tanning-bed-restrictions-needed

A ban on tanning-bed use by people with the palest skin is among several new restrictions recommended by an FDA advisory panel.

Earlier reports from the panel’s March 25 meeting focused on its advice to restrict tanning bed use to adults age 18 and older. But that wasn’t the only restriction the panel advised the FDA to adopt.

Perhaps the most interesting change would be the panel’s recommendation to prohibit the use of tanning beds by people with Fitzpatrick skin type 1. People with this very pale skin type (such as red-haired people with freckles) get sunburns instead of tans when exposed to sunlight or tanning lamps.

The biggest recommended change is the panel’s unanimous proposal to change tanning beds’ Class I device designation, the least restrictive classification intended for devices that pose minimal risk to users or operators. Elastic bandages and hand-held surgical devices are examples of Class I devices.

Half the panel supported making tanning beds Class II devices, which require special assurances — such as labeling requirements or mandatory performance standards — that they will not cause harm. Class II devices include X-ray machines and powered wheelchairs.

The other half of the panel wants tanning beds listed as Class III devices, which not only require special controls such as operator training requirements but require premarket approval by the FDA. Class III devices include implanted pacemakers and silicon breast-augmentation gels.

The panel also recommended other special controls:

* Strengthening current requirements for protective eyewear
* Equipping tanning beds with mechanisms that prevent their activation until a customer acknowledges reading and accepting a series of warnings about indoor tanning risks
* A registry program for all tanning bed users, possibly supported by a user fee
* Strengthening requirements for tanning bed operator education, training, testing, and recertification
* Collection of data on the irradiance put out by tanning beds, possibly to be included in the user registry
* Restricting tanning bed use by pregnant women and by people who take certain drugs or use certain cosmetics that interact with UV light
* Even stronger restrictions on tanning beds sold for in-home use

The panel said there was no need to separately regulate tanning beds that are UV-A only, UV-B only, or a mixture of both.

Tie this in with the federal government’s takeover of the healthcare industry and digitizing of medical records and you’ve got the first glimpses into the growing nanny state. “You tan?! To the end of the queue!” When everyone pays for your healthcare, everyone wants to know what you’re doing to yourself and believe they have a say.

Can’t wait to see what the unintended consequences are when this gets implemented.

I was informed by the gentlemen at the NYCLU earlier this week that the charge against me for violating Code of Federal Regulations Title 41 Subpart C — Conduct on Federal Property Photographs for News, Advertising or Commercial Purposes § 102-74.420 have been dropped.

Julian Heicklen who was arrested under the same CFR Title but different section was unsure as to the state of the charges against him as of Monday, March 8th, 2010.

Here is the video of the arrests as captured by my gumstick cam:

Read more here: Activism/Filming_Julian_Heicklen

• Arrived at 500 Pearl St at approximately 9:55AM. Met NYCLU representatives in front of building.
• Approximately 10:00AM we entered the building and stood in line for a security scan.
• At 10:20AM we got to the appropriate floor / counter. I let them know I’m present and we wait.
• 10:40AM two officers arrive. Neither is the arresting officer, C. Barnes #245.
• 10:45AM I overhear the officers say to the clerk that C. Barnes #245 is not going to show up. He’s apparently in training in Washington DC for the next 2 weeks. Later we learn that the Assistant US Attorney only learned he was going to be absent that morning.
• 10:48AM Officers notify two women that their meeting with the AUSA has been rescheduled due to C. Barnes #245’s absence. They are both obviously upset. The taller, Hispanic officer attempts to get them to just pay the tickets. Asking several times if they would be paying it. As they go to leave a gentleman in his 60’s asks one of the women if she was contacted in any way. She responds in the negative. He, obviously upset by that, says something to the effect: “They could have at least let you know he wasn’t going to be here. It’s the courteous thing to do. It’s *your* government. They should issue a warrant for him. They would have done that to you had you not shown up.” At least 5 people, including myself, are affected by C. Barnes #245 not showing. Each person spoken to by the Hispanic officer he tries to get them to pay the ticket.
• 10:50AM The Hispanic officer says to the other: “I say we just reschedule all of them.”
• 10:52AM The Hispanic officer speaking of Julian Heicklen’s 5 tickets, which he did not appear to contest: “They should just issue a warrant for this guy. He’s got five tickets.”
• 10:53AM The Hispanic officer starts checking out his cell phone. Perhaps reading text messages. There are several signs posted in the room saying that absolutely no one is to use cellphones.
• 10:55AM The officers leave to meet with the AUSA with the paper work for all those present.
• 11:00AM they start calling people in.
• 11:15AM I’m called and told C. Barnes #245 will not be showing up and therefore the appearance is rescheduled to February 9th, 2010. We ask to talk with the AUSA anyway.
• 12:05PM we are told to stand out in front of the conference room where the AUSA is meeting with people. He is in with the 60ish y/o who commented that Barnes should have a bench warrant issued for him. I missed the lead up to the incident but the gentleman was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. Prior to the arrest apparently the officer stepped on his foot so hard that he broke at least one toe and caused the nail to come loose. He was wearing a cast. I was unable to gather any specifics otherwise.
• About 12:55PM the man leaves the room with the AUSA and we knock and walk in. The AUSA says that we need to reschedule due to C. Barnes #245’s absence. My NYCLU reps inform him we are not fighting the description of events but feel the regulation does not apply. We are told that he would likely drop it down to deferred with a 60 day period in which I would not be able to record otherwise I’d they’d bring the issue to trial. We indicate we want full dismissal and he tells us that he will talk with C. Barnes #245 when he gets back and if he’s OK with a dismissal so be it otherwise we will have to talk again in February.

An account of the November 9th, 2009 arrest of Julian Heicklen and myself as well as a video can be found here.