The 463: Inside Tech Policy

Regulate YouTube to Save the Australian Idol

The 463: Inside Tech Policy — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:37:34 -0700

Follow along please....

A prominent Australian recognizes that "consumers are demanding more extensive online, video-based entertainment" and that "we are the 'what, when and how we want it' generation."

He then says that require circa-1960s rules that require that 55 per cent of all programs broadcast on free-to-air TV between 6pm and midnight to be Australian are outdated.

The punch-line has to be that he views the TV content content rules as so archaic in a networked world that they should be struck down?

Wrong.

Instead, he is calling for these types of "Made in Australia" rules to be extended to the Internet.

Oh, and I suppose it is relevant that the man making this pronouncement is the head of the Australian public television network -- ABC-TV.

Seems that Kim Dalton believes:

"It is likely that existing regulatory arrangements to deliver local drama, documentaries, comedy, children's, news, current affairs and other programming may have diminishing effects on the market as the existing business models of broadcasters are challenged and the content offered becomes, increasingly, foreign.

"It is time to reassess and reshape the Australian content policy framework.

"By making new connections between the previously distinct fields of communications, media and cultural policy, the Government can address the issue ofensuring Australian content ismade available in the digital environment."

What happened to consumers getting what they want, when they want?

After all, Australian TV viewers consistently watch Desperate Housewives, Lost, CSI and Law & Order more than most any homegrown products. And, the most popular locally produced shows are generally bastardizations of American or European created shows like Australian Idol, the Australian Big Brother and Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.

Nothing wrong with that. But, pretending that you are going to save Australian culture by getting government involved to force people to watch your network's programming on all mediums is a bit, uh, problematic.

Fortunately, the reaction in Australia was not positive.

Today, The Australian ran reactions. Here is one...

John Lindsay, the carrier relations manager for Internode -- one of the country's largest internet service providers -- said the call was hypocritical.

"This used to be the same Australian media industry that refused to make Australian TV available online," Mr Lindsay said. "You can't regulate it. It connects everyone to everyone. Are they really going to stop people watching YouTube and CNN?"

He said attempts to try to restrain or direct people's use of the internet would be met with fierce resistance by consumers.

Orgies and Apple Pie

The 463: Inside Tech Policy — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:49:06 -0700

A couple days old, but I thought this legal tactic (as written about in the New York Times) was clever and a sign of the times...

Judges and jurors who must decide whether sexually explicit material is obscene are asked to use a local yardstick: does the material violate community standards?

That is often a tricky question because there is no simple, concrete way to gauge a community’s tastes and values.

The Internet may be changing that. In a novel approach, the defense in an obscenity trial in Florida plans to use publicly accessible Google search data to try to persuade jurors that their neighbors have broader interests than they might have thought....

...“We tried to come up with comparison search terms that would embody typical American values,” Mr. Walters said. “What is more American than apple pie?” But according to the search service, he said, “people are at least as interested in group sex and orgies as they are in apple pie.”

Americans for Internet Regulation

The 463: Inside Tech Policy — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:53:00 -0700

We give lots of other countries gruff for taking steps to regulate the Internet like old-school media. And, we often heckle US politicians for taking the slightest steps down a slippery slope of toward Internet content regulation.

Our snarky (and substantive) comments stand. Sadly, though, politicians tend to care more about rafts of voters than part-time bloggers.

And, according to a poll that came out over the weekend, good ole' Americans (at least 1500 of them) think by a decent margin that the Internet should be regulated like other media.

Specifically, Rasmussen Reports asked, "Should the Federal Communications Commission regulate the internet like it does radio and television?"

And, the results were:

49% Yes
35% No
16% Not sure

Rasmussen qualified that... "women... feel much more strongly about federal regulation of the Internet, with 55% in favor, 25% opposed and 20% undecided. Men reject federal regulation by a small margin – 46% to 42% -- with 12% unsure."

Unfortunately, these results weren't too dissimilar than the results of of a 463/Zogby question that we asked last Fall We found that:

- More than half of Americans believe that Internet content such as video should be controlled in some way by the government. Twenty-nine percent said it should be regulated just like television content while 24% said government should institute an online rating system similar to the one used by the movie industry. In contrast, only 36% said the blocking of Internet video would be unconstitutional.

- Only 33% of 18 to 24 year-olds supported government stepping in on content, while 72% of those over 70 years of age support government regulation and ratings.

(photo by photogail)

If You Can't Beat 'em; Regulate 'em

The 463: Inside Tech Policy — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:06:57 -0700

The Retail Industry Leaders Association, which represents the country’s largest retail chains, wants to legislate onerous rules against online retailers and limit what could be sold online all in the name of stemming theft.

It could be taken as a badge of honor that Internet commerce is so growns up now that the big bricks and mortar retail players are taking extraordinary measures to try to beat back their online rivals. But, sadly, such badges won't do much for consumers and small businesses that will be negatively impacted by the big, old-school guys.

In a Politico article about the retailers actions, NetChoice executive director Steve DelBianco calls a spade a spade:

“This is not about consumer protection; it’s about competition. Retailers want to prevent competition from online sellers of new and used goods.”

TechDirt's Mike Masnick chimes in...

The really sneaky part of this push to get Congress involved is that the reasoning isn't even accurate. I'm sure there may be some groups of shoplifters out there who have been going around stealing goods out of stores and reselling them on eBay, but the details suggest it's barely a blip on the radar. A study by the National Retail Federation (who also represents large retailers) found that most store theft comes from employees or vendors. Only 1/3 comes from shoplifting. Stores themselves are partly to blame, as they've cut back on prosecuting shoplifters. And, most importantly, retail theft appears to be dropping rather consistently over the past few years.

So, basically, retailers get to push for the idea that they need to ban online auctions from selling certain products -- when it turns out what they really want is to get rid of the competition. There's no real evidence of an epidemic of thefts due to online auctions, and even if there were, the problem should be dealt with via the retailers' own loss management efforts.

This is yet another example why Internet companies need to be vigilant and proactive against their more policy-experienced offline competitors (another is the Internet tax issue). In this case, reactively fighting on the terms of a false shoplifting debate set by the retailers starts the conversation from a defensive stance. Rather, this is about choice, competition and small business growth and, fortunately, organizations like NetChoice are now not allowing their rivals to have easy PR lay-ups. Hopefully, policymakers will see through the retailers' effort for what they really are, too.

(Photo by Daniel Light)

U2, I Mean, YouTube Now Faces Political Speech Regulation in Brazil

The 463: Inside Tech Policy — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:52:44 -0700

....and so does any other Internet publisher big or small that publishes political content.

According to a blog round-up on the excellent Global Voices, the top election law body in Brazil has created a legal environment where:

Broadcasting of any political propaganda on the Internet, radio or television - including, among others, community radio stations and television channels operating in UHF, VHF and by subscription - and, besides, rallies or public meetings are prohibited, from 48 hours before through 24 hours after the election.

This means that a blogger might need to black out a post advocating a candidate two days prior to election day. It means that questions over whether YouTube, for example, would be responsible to pull all Brazilian election content would be raised.

And, speaking of YouTube, just to get a sense of the Internet reading level that the Brazilian ministers were operating under, the Global Voices post translates the words of a Brazilian judge writing about the opinion:

As I heard the arguments being presented, I was increasingly surprised in face of the ministers' lack of knowledge to understand what the Internet is. It seemed - and this impression was very strong - that they did not know what they were talking about. To get an idea, Youtube was turned into U2.

Ultimately, this lack of understanding led to a confused opinion:

In the end, the decision was a clear sample that they did not know what they were deciding right then. It was decided that to the extent that problems arise, they would be dealt with, case by case. This is great for lawyers and too bad for voters, who are left with a Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads without knowing what they can and can not do.

I've said it before: The Internet has created the greatest generational divide since Rock 'n' Roll. This borderless divide has also proven that cultures of all stripes have the ability to enact profoundly counterproductive (and technically impossible) rules that increase the chasm between both sides.

Disability Access Legislation: The End of Free IM?

The 463: Inside Tech Policy — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:43:09 -0700

My post below on the impact of Chairman Markey's draft Internet disability access legislation quickly struck a cord with a few readers. They agree on the video part that I focused on, but are focusing their worries on possible near-term impact on instant messaging. The essence of their collective perspectives is that the potential mandates placed on IM could have the ironic impact of hindering an extremely popular tool of the disabled community.

A few of their points:

--The legislation would require the FCC to regulate IM and make it interoperate across all services and platforms, including old-school telephones on old-school networks.

--The bill creates massive annual reporting obligations on IM providers and forces them to contribute to the FCC's Telecommunications Relay Fund.

--It would force IM applications to transmit real-time text. This means that my IM contacts will see me write a word one letter at a time and then watch as I delete, re-enter a word, change my thought and then ultimately quit trying to come up with a pithy thought. Does the FCC really need to mandate this window into my soul?

Disability Access Legislation: Hear No Internet Regulation; See No Internet Regulation?

The 463: Inside Tech Policy — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:19:09 -0700

Captions for 30 Rock to the right of the video above.

I wrote back in September of 2006...

...the movement toward (Internet video) regulation doesn't have to come in big shifts like those proposed overseas. We just mentioned closed captioning regulations for TV shows. Well, closed captioning regulations for Internet video are being fought for already. Advocates want the Telecom Act of 1996 to open up the rules to online video. If this is done, what next?

Well, any minute now, Representative Edward J. Markey (D-MA), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, will introduce legislation that will give the FCC enforcement rules on mandating disability access for Internet delivered video. The draft legislation is here (PDF).

The Boston Globe top-lines the bill like this:

....(it) would require major producers of Internet videos to add captions as well as "video description" soundtracks that describe the on-screen action for blind people.

The measure would also force changes in the design of television and telephone equipment to make the devices more accessible to the disabled. The goal, Markey said, is "to ensure that people with disabilities are not left behind as technology changes."

The bill would require TV networks to provide captioning and video description tracks when they stream their shows over the Internet.

Markey is seen as a true friend to the Internet on Capitol Hill, but he also has a deep attachment to disability access technologies. He introduced and championed the legislation that led to closed captioning on televisions in 1990.

Still, friendships aside, some are troubled by the bill and don't think it will stand legal tests. Kevin Goldman at the CommLaw blog says:

While an admirable attempt, the legislation has, in our mind, many flaws. The first is the obvious constitutional question. While broadcaster have traditionally been subject to some regulation due to the “scarcity” and “pervasiveness” of the medium, the Internet has been classified by the United States Supreme Court as the perhaps the freest medium of expression in existence – deserving of even more First Amendment protection than even newspapers. It is hard to conceive of a regulation that mandates speech in this way surviving constitutional scrutiny. Another problem raised by several parties is technical in nature. Again, unlike, broadcast television, there is no single technology by which Internet video is delivered. If a broadcaster finds it is even possible to automatically convert captions from a television program to the Internet stream (not always a guaranteed proposition because many programs are condensed on the Internet, with commercials removed), viewers use different programming formats to receive the stream. Captions prepared for delivery via Internet Explorer may not be readable in Linux. Work to solve this problem and create a single format for captioning is ongoing but still some time away. Finally, there is the further concern that captions would be unreadable on smaller computer screens, let alone iPods, iPhones or other mobile phones to which the law would apply.

On the constitutionality question, I've repeatedly gotten the same response by legal minds when I do my Chicken Little dance on Internet video regulation. I may just be a caveman PR guy, but I also can see the evolution of laws as society and technology does the same. Just yesterday, Microsoft's Steve Ballmer said that *all* media content would be delivered over IP networks in a decade. If that is going to work, I would presume that this dynamic will require pretty significant pervasiveness.

And, as I wrote back in that 2006 post....

....at what point of penetration do you need to get to be broadcast TV-esque? Way back in 2003, more than 60 percent of U.S. households had computers and the more recent OECD report said that the US has 49 million broadband subscribers. Oh, and what about those little computers that people carry in the pockets? That is, phones and soon-to-be a bevy of different mobile devices that merge video capabilities and old-school voice calling? There are 180 million wireless subscribers in our country of 300 million. All we're saying is that those are a lot of video platforms that are a lot easier to access than paid-for cable on a 40-inch screen that's attached to a cable box.

To the original "what's next" question: If the FCC has regulatory authority to impose disability access rules on "broadcast-like" Internet video*, than why not be able to impose advertising rules for videos targeted towards children? How about next-generation v-chips? Or, if the Fairness Doctrine sees the light of day again, would it be extended to the Internet?

If precedent is created on any of the above, how far could Internet video regulation go?

All said, there is a very good chance that, at least for now, the Markey bill is one big kick in the industry's ass to get in gear and create disability access solutions that pre-empt legislation. Indeed, Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft and AOL created the Internet Captioning Forum to "overcome the technical and production challenges of providing captions on large video aggregation Web sites."

Indeed the Web captioning site, Captions.org noted recent progress online earlier this week...

More major network channels are setting up video players on their sites..and the good news is, the players show captions! More and more captioned programming is now available through Fox.com (read the review at Disabled in the Digital Age) and others. Plus there is a new online tv broadcaster, Hulu.com, that makes some captioned programming available....

...This is a good start. Part of me wonders if the networks are rushing to provide at least some captioned programming in hopes of avoiding government requirements to provide captions on the internet? After all, because the law that requires captions on television does not apply to the internet, there is now pushing to get a new, updated law that will apply to the internet.

Putting on my Chicken Little suit again, I would respectfully suggest that my friends at businesses heavily invested in online video not merely view their disability access "self-regulatory" efforts as a hedge against bills like Markey's but also see it as a way to maintain that important firewall between them and the FCC vacuum.

Markey has been proven to call industry's bluff before.

*The draft legislation defines the term ‘video programming’ as meaning programming provided by, or generally considered comparable to programming provided by, a television broadcast station, even if such programming is distributed over the Internet or by some other means.’’

Newt's Valley Guy

The 463: Inside Tech Policy — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:31:43 -0700

David Kralick works for Newt Gingrich in Silicon Valley and attracts strange artificial lighting wherever he goes. (photo by Chistina Koci Hernandez for The Washington Post)

The Post has a piece today about Newt Gingrich's emissary to Silicon Valley. It's written by a Bay Area native with an engaging, evocative style and doesn't spare many clichés about life and work between San Jose and South of Market. (Neither apparently does the Post's photo editors. See above).

The lede:

Here, he's from another planet. Here in Silicon Valley, David Kralik is, let's face it, some strange import. That's why he's attracting such buzz one recent afternoon inside Buck's, the legendary eatery, while lunching on a pulled-pork sandwich.

Jamis MacNiven, Buck's owner, plops himself down and blurts out: "So you're the guy that works for Newt the Snoot!"

Yep, that's Kralik. A lifelong Republican in the land of liberal Democrats. Who relocated from uptight, Brooks Brothers Washington. And works for Newt Gingrich.

Bucks really needs to be taken out of the Let's Go Silicon Valley Guide for Media. And, OMG a Republican in Silicon Valley! Get me my binoculars, ma!

But, there are good amounts of interesting anecdotes in the piece -- especially centered around how to apply tech to solve big government problems....

...Says Peter Leyden, the former editor of Wired magazine who heads the New Politics Institute, a think tank focusing on technology's impact on Washington: "There's an emerging sense that both worlds need each other. Think of it this way: The scale of the problems that the world faces -- globalization, global warming, global terrorism -- can't be solved without these two hubs cooperating with each other."
ad_icon

Kralik knows all of this full well. On a recent six-hour flight from Washington to the Valley, he drafted a three-column chart. "The world that works." "The world that fails." "Making government from a world that fails to a world that works."

Kralik puts the U.S. Census Bureau in the world-that-fails column. After spending more than $150 million on handheld computers to count everyone in the country, the Census Bureau announced a few weeks ago that it will scrap that program and hire 600,000 temporary workers and go back to the same way that it's counted people since 1790: with paper and pen.

"You've got to be kidding me, right?" says an incredulous Kralik. "Why can't we get together the brightest minds at Google, at Apple, at whatever companies here in the Valley, and figure out a more high-tech way of counting our citizens?"

Let the Obama v. McCain in Silicon Valley Stories Begin...

The 463: Inside Tech Policy — Tue, 27 May 2008 10:06:07 -0700

Amy Schatz of the WSJ is the first out of the gate with a Obama v. McCain-for-the-hearts-and-wallets-of-Silicon-Valley story. (Previous pieces hedged with other candidates).

Few presidential candidates have had as much experience dealing with technology and telecommunications issues as Sen. McCain, who for years chaired a Senate committee that deals with them. But he rarely brings tech issues up on the campaign trail and hasn't released many significant policy proposals about them yet.

By contrast, his likely rival, Sen. Obama of Illinois, presented a detailed technology agenda in November that addressed many of the industries' hot-button issues -- including support for building faster broadband networks and keeping Internet traffic unfettered. He has subsequently raised significantly more Silicon Valley cash than Sen. McCain.

A running total of campaign donations by Silicon Valley zip codes maintained by TechNet, an association made up of 150 high-tech chief executive officers, finds that by March 31, Sen. Obama had raised $5 million, compared with almost $800,000 for Mr. McCain.

The piece notes that the discrepancy in funding between the two candidates can be partially attributed to the fact that tech issues aside, there just happens to be a lot more people ideologically attuned to Obama in the Bay Area. Very true, but a well-done June Atlantic Monthly piece also shows how Obama quietly used the Valley as a fundraising launching pad for his campaign early in the process...

...But more than any policy, the idea of Obama and the world he speaks for seemed to excite something deep within the limbic system of the Valley brain that manifested itself through the early and continuing financial support that was crucial to launching Obama’s campaign. Getting behind Obama, especially for those who did so early, appealed to their self-image as discerning seers.

Discerning seering aside, the WSJ does pick up on one policy note that will likely be exploited by McCain with industry-types in the coming months (and with good reason): Free trade. As the primary election trudged on, Obama's pragmatist instincts were smothered by an apparent need to score populist political points on the issue. McCain has had no need for nuance on the need for free trade in a global economy.

BTW, this week marks the year anniversary of McCain's keynote interview at the All Things D conference (my picture below). I remember a general feeling among the many tech execs in the audience of "it's kind of embarrassing that this guy has zero chance to get the nomination and he's speaking here, but, hey, he's a war hero, a senator, and (John) Chambers supports him, so I guess I will listen."

Even more tellingly, was the post-speech handshake tour among the dining attendees. Cisco's Chambers diligently introduced the Senator to different tables of folks. It was all very polite and people were genuinely interested in meeting and talking to McCain, but there was no rush of people to do so. Folks stood back and if McCain made it to their table, than great, if not, than, hey, look over there... what is Chad Hurley wearing?

It would be different scene altogether if McCain was speaking this year (not to mention Obama). Just shows how vaunted visionaries can miss half of the future even when it has walked in the room and extended its hand.

Lee Gomes Loves Wal-Mart, Hates Family Businesses and Probably Puppies, Too

The 463: Inside Tech Policy — Wed, 21 May 2008 09:32:35 -0700

Do you think that little family businesses should be able to compete against stampeding big box retailers by being able to provide their products online free of unreasonable and costly bureaucratic rules that are not so coincidentally advocated by Wal-Mart, Target and Best Buy and powerhouse lobbying groups like the National Retailers Foundation? Or do you think that these families should wave the white flag and pray that Mom and Dad can get jobs as greeters in front of the 2000-square-foot laundry detergent section of their local big box?

Too much hyperbole? Perhaps not enough when you consider the lede of Wall Street Journal's Lee Gomes piece on Internet tax today...

Do you think that billionaire Internet moguls should continue to benefit from a tax loophole that hurts parks and schools, and makes it harder for your neighborhood bookstore to keep open for business?

I didn't think you did.

In that case, cheer on New York and Texas as they chip away at the popular but grossly unfair advantage enjoyed by the Amazon.coms of the world. Online retailers don't have to collect sales tax on the items they sell if they're "out of state" companies.

Now, Gomes is the Journal's resident tech contrarian. He thinks that he democratizing forces of Internet may NOT be a good thing for politics. He gets bored at the big tech events that tens of thousands of others enjoy attending. And, he thinks that iPods may be the death of quality music. Ha, ha. There goes that Lee again. At times, he's the Andy Rooney of the tech world. But, it does get him attention and a nice paycheck.*

Sadly, his Lou Dobbsian screed against "billionaire Internet moguls" plays right into the hands of those who benefit from limited consumer choices and less competition from small businesses.

On cue, Overstock.com has cut off their affiliates based in New York state thanks to the New York law that Gomes "cheers on." Here is the perspective of one small business owner in the New York Times Bits blog...

Janet Attard, the owner of BusienssKnowHow, which is based in Centereach on Long Island...expressed worry that the state’s new tax rules would hurt her and other small businesses. ...

“I know a lot of small businesses that make a significant amount of money from selling other company’s products,” she said. “Laws like this can put small businesses out of business.”

Oh, and, pay little mind, Lee, that the New York rule is likely unconstitutional. From the director of the Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force for the American Legislative Exchange Council (a conservative individual membership organization of state legislators) in Forbes...

New York saddles taxpayers with the third-highest tax burden in the nation. But not content with taxing its own citizens and businesses to the max, the Empire State is now unleashing its tax collectors on the rest of the nation. A first-of-its kind law recently passed in New York places new sales taxes on catalog and online retailers in every state of the country. Retailers that have no physical presence in New York, but sell products to New Yorkers, are now expected to collect and send tax revenues to the treasury in Albany....

...Serious constitutional concerns plague this bill. Its overextension of state taxing authority to corporations lacking any physical presence in New York appears to be an unlawful tax on interstate commerce. The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling 16 years ago in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota reaffirmed that a corporation must have a "substantial nexus" with a state in order to be subject to its sales and use taxes.

And, the impact on the people of New York? From the Journal's editorial page earlier this month...

...some companies will feel pressure to pay instead of doing battle with a state government. New York's overall business tax climate ranks 48th among the states, according to the Tax Foundation. Mr. Paterson's money grab could make New York the biggest loser when it comes to tax competitiveness.

*UPDATE (5/28): I struck these sentences and made a couple of other small tweaks because Lee Gomes made the time to send me a thoughtful response to this post. This tells me that he genuinely cares about his position and isn't just being a contrarian to move his column up the "most-read" Journal chart. Oh, in the process of responding to Gomes, I found this Tax Foundation review of the New York law. I wish I had seen it and used it before. Here's a healthy excerpt....

New York's move is just the latest in a string of state efforts to abandon the physical presence rule of taxing out-of-state businesses. In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the rule in the Quill v. North Dakota case, holding that a state could not impose sales tax collection obligations on a company, unless the company has either property or employees in the state. Amazon has neither in New York.

As we mention so often, politicians are tempted to increase state spending not by asking constituents to fund the programs they want, but instead by shifting burdens to hidden taxes on (faceless, non-voting) out-of-state businesses. Such moves add to complexity, make the tax system less neutral, and lead to more government than citizens are willing to pay for. In this case, beyond being poor tax policy, New York's "Amazon tax" may also violate the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause.

Some local retailers applaud these of raids on out-of-state business:

"This is a first step -- but a critical one -- in our ongoing battle to level the sales tax playing field between New York retailers and the out-of-state Internet giants that have, for years, capitalized on an unfair and unintended competitive advantage driven solely by tax policy," James Sherin, president CEO of the Retail Council New York, said in a statement reacting to the bill's passage.

Far from creating a level playing field, New York's new law and other efforts to abandon the physical presence rule (California has a pending bill, A.B. 1840) actually move away from a level playing field. If every state did what New York did, online retailers would have to keep track of the different rates and bases of the 7,400+ sales taxing jurisdictions in the United States and all the income tax systems. We here at the Tax Foundation have a lot of researchers and subscriptions trying to do that, and it'd be quite burdensome for small online retailers to tackle that task. Meanwhile, brick-and-mortar retailers need only keep track of one sales tax rate and base.

(photo by retrogression)

Microhoobook

The 463: Inside Tech Policy — Mon, 19 May 2008 08:24:42 -0700

Microsoft buys Yahoo's search capability and then buys Facebook -- all for about the price than what it would have taken to buy all of Yahoo.

Web entrepreneur John Furrier is spreading the same rumors that I heard repeatedly at various geek gatherings over the weekend.

The impact if it happens? Lots. But, expect more and chatter about data portability and open social networks vs. closed.

(photo by neverletmego)

The Egyptian Facebook "Revolution"

The 463: Inside Tech Policy — Thu, 15 May 2008 08:31:50 -0700

General Al Jazeera story on the protests

Jack Fairweather of Islam's Advance (Newsweek/WaPo) writes a fascinating post on the role of Facebook in organizing recent protests in Egypt. He notes that the social network has engaged young moderates and liberals in the type of political activity previously reserved for Islamists. The piece also suggests that the impact of the social network might be overblown thus far. Of course, that could be true, but, then again, could you imagine reading an article like this two or three years ago?

A excerpt:

When most people log onto Facebook, the thought of fermenting revolution is pretty far from their minds. But in the Middle East, and most recently in Egypt, Facebook has become an important platform for dissent in countries that routinely clampdown on liberal activists, and where the mosque has traditionally been the only outlet for venting political frustration.

Last month saw the arrest of Esra Abdel Fattah, 27, after she formed a group on Facebook calling for protests against the high price of food and other commodities in Egypt. Strike action was already planned by factory workers in the Nile Delta city of Mahalla al-Kobra, and the Facebook group, which attracted 64,000 members, tapped into a national mood of unrest. During Fattah’s incarceration, police clashed with protestors in Mahalla, killing three; some 500 people were detained.

By the time Egyptian police freed her two weeks ago, Fattah, an active online activist and member of the liberal al-Ghad political party, had become something of a cyber folk hero, feted by Middle Eastern bloggers and tech-minded students.

Intel Begins Big New DC Push

The 463: Inside Tech Policy — Wed, 14 May 2008 15:08:56 -0700

From RollCall today...

Intel Corp., one of the country’s largest and best-known high-tech manufacturing outfits, today is launching an effort to refurbish its brand on Capitol Hill. The two-pronged campaign involves a major inside-the-Beltway advertising push and, ultimately, a transformation of its operation here with a new chief lobbyist.

Another big tech company doubling down in DC. This helpfully supports my ramblings from yesterday.

(Subscription needed to see the full article).

(photo by ricky romero)

I Don't "Get" Nathan Mhyrvold, Either

The 463: Inside Tech Policy — Wed, 14 May 2008 09:20:37 -0700

I've seen him give his Powerpoint a few times on how the patent litigation crisis is supposedly a false one and have been left scratching my head. Mike Masnick at TechDirt articulates my feelings...

...Then Mhyrvold is asked about whether or not it's okay for someone to get a patent and then not do anything with it, to which he responds:

I would say, yes, there's nothing wrong with that. And the analogy I would use is, it'd be like saying, "Is it OK for someone to buy a chunk of the business and never show up there?" And the answer is, yes. We call them venture capitalists or shareholders. To have a system of taking risk and building valuable companies, you have to have people that are financiers or have other specialized roles.

That sounds nice, but that analogy doesn't work in the slightest. Patent hoarding isn't like an investor or a shareholder. It's about someone holding onto a patent and then popping up and suing when someone else does something. A shareholder or an investor is a win-win relationship based on a fair transaction. A company gets some money, and the shareholder gets some equity. Patent hoarding is quite different. It's about holding onto a patent and then using it to legally threaten someone else or prevent them from doing work and then demanding money out of them after the fact. To equate that with an investor is simply incorrect.

Leadership 2.None?

The 463: Inside Tech Policy — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:10:57 -0700

A decade ago, we had industry leaders like John Doerr, John Chambers, Jim Barksdale, Reed Hastings, Craig Barrett and so on who put on the hat of industry steward and talked about the growth of the technology industry and the policy issues that would impact it. They weren't necessarily reserving their big keynote addresses or sit-downs with the Wall Street Journal to discuss Kleiner Perkins portfolio companies or Cisco's growth strategy.

Who is doing this in 2008? With a few exceptions, it's pretty much the same people. That's a good thing when considering how well Doerr, Chambers and Barrett do when evocatively connecting the dots between sound policy and innovation that benefits society at large. But, it's also a bad thing when you consider that a whole lot of companies have grown up and a lot of executives have made their marks since then without a contribution to the policy dialogue.

This made me wonder why there has been such a leadership gap.

Now, much has changed since 1998 that changes the dynamics of need. Back then, very few companies had strong government affairs staffs and the different tech trade and lobbying groups were just getting their footing. Now, the big companies in the Valley have a straight line to key policymakers via their own teams; organizations like TechNet, ITIC, and TCC; ad hoc issues focused coalitions and advocacy groups. This means that while it is nice for Eric Schmidt to take a leadership position on spectrum issues at a National Press Club event, it is not wholly essential. Google has a strong team and informal coalition of folks doing the day to day work on the issue that make an appeal from the boss merely a helpful component of the overall strategy.

But, I can't help but think that one of the biggest trends of the last decade of tech policy is how the rich have gotten wiser and the poor, less informed. That is, the big and/or smart companies have made a land rush to DC to hire the best staff; secure lobbyists and establish control over the existing trade groups. This has had the effect of transferring much of the tech policy conversation and work to DC. Now, this may seem like a no-brainer and the right thing to do (which it perhaps is), but it wasn't so long ago that there were many more public forums in Silicon Valley that revolved around policy issues. Without the DC apparatus in place, executives needed to do the work themselves in talking about a bad piece of legislation. Media covered this in the Valley. Events were held to take advantage of this. People paid attention. They then got involved.

Now, with the policy stuff "taken care of" by the DC types, very little Valley buzz is created around specific issues (save Net Neutrality) and, more importantly, dedicated ongoing policy activities. Not only is this because there is less of a need for executive involvement, but because the DC types who are now controlling the conversation see very little need in including Valley audiences in it. If they can talk to Roll Call and the key staffer on the Commerce Committee, why do they need to brief GigaOm?

The net impact of all this is that the CEO of the emerging start-up that may or may not be the next Facebook rarely reads about key policy issues that may impact her business and almost certainly never sees her peers engaged on them. If confronted, the CEO would probably say that she assumed that the Googles, Ciscos and Microsofts of the world were taking care of a particular issue. And, while that may be the correct answer, is it the right answer?

To be considered:

Have the big players left the small ones behind?

And, if they have, should they care?

If John Chambers is the next John Chambers, who comes next?

Are there any new executives out there who can make policy issues relevant to the Twitter-class? Or does Michael Arrington become the default leader from his perch at TechCrunch? (He does write about policy from time to time). I would prefer if someone who didn't profit from their words would take this mantle, instead.

What is the real impact to all of this? I, for one, have thought that if there was better organization among the new turks, that there would have long been a forceful organization created that would advance the interests of the new online video industry. I have felt the same about the social networking niche.

There also has been a lot of lost opportunity. While the big companies are now controlling the message in DC, the truth is that policymakers like hearing from any sized firm that can educate them. They don't care about market cap. A perfect recent example is the storm that the content distributor Vuze created when it made a FCC filing on network management not so long ago.

Happy to keep kicking these thoughts around....

(Photo by Thomas Hawk)

The Future of The Internet Was Posh For a Night

The 463: Inside Tech Policy — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:09:39 -0700

Katie Hallen -- Arianna Huffington and Melanie Ellison threw a posh soiree for Berkman Center for Internet Society Co-Founder Jonathan Zittrain this past Saturday night in honor of his new book, The Future of the Internet – And How To Stop It.

Held at the Ellison’s breathtaking, ubermodern Pacific Heights home overlooking Alcatraz and the Golden Gate Bridge, the party was well attended by Silicon Valley celebrities including Melanie’s husband, Larry Ellison, Larry Page and Craig Newmark (sporting an Obama pin). Others included Mayor Gavin Newsom, Jerry Brown, Phil Bronstein, Yves Behar (designer of the XO laptop), USA Today’s Jon Swartz (co-author of the cybersecurity caper Zero Day Threat), and Stanford Law’s Joshua Cohen (leading John Rawls philosopher and editor of the Boston Review). And, myself.

The Wall Street Journal’s Kara Swisher posted this fun video capturing the evening and thoughts on the book. For more, Zittrain discusses the book tonight on Charlie Rose.

The Berkman Center is a 463 client.

Final Obama Ad Update

The 463: Inside Tech Policy — Mon, 12 May 2008 10:42:14 -0700

My brother's MoveOn Obama ad won the "People's Choice" award. Out of 1000+ initial ads and a second round with 15 other finalists, Josh got the most votes from the people (5.5 million voted). For the top prize, the super delegates judges selected a well-done ad about a Republican veteran (Frank Black-look-alike) who is voting for Obama.

Band Uses CCTV Cameras for Video (or A Sucker is Born Every Page Load)

The 463: Inside Tech Policy — Fri, 09 May 2008 12:06:41 -0700

Blog biggie Boing Boing writes and links to a Telegraph (UK) article...

"The Get Out Clause, an unsigned Manchester band who could not afford a camera crew for their video, 'performed' in front of a load of CCTV cameras, requested the footage from the camera operators under the Data Protection Act and then stitched the results together for their music video."...

]
Genius idea. Even more genius marketing stunt. According to the lads' hometown paper, the hype bouncing around the Internet on this video might be a tad overdone. It seems that footage is just a little to good to be true...

But after the M.E.N. spotted some telltale signs that the footage was not all that it seemed, the band admitted that the idea of a CCTV video was a PR stunt.

The unusually clear images show them performing in a variety of Mancunian locations including on a tram, in the back of a taxi and at Castlefield.

CCTV footage showing the band playing in the back of a taxi that apparently belongs to Clayton cab firm Mantax also features in the four minute long video.

When we contacted the city centre firm they denied all knowledge of it.

Spokeswoman Bernadette Tabner said: "I don't think any of our drivers actually have CCTV footage yet. And even if they did it would not say Mantax on it. I'm the manager and if any request like this came in I would know about it and I don't!

Further clips show the band playing on a tram. Footage bears the label `GMPTE CAR 4'. But when we contacted Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority, they too denied that it was genuine CCTV film.

The Future of Content & Control (May 12 Event @eBay)

The 463: Inside Tech Policy — Tue, 06 May 2008 15:29:17 -0700

If you have an interest in tech policy and are in the Bay Area, than you need to be at eBay HQ next Monday for what should be a very interesting event. The free forum is a production of the Media Access Project and is the inaugural event in a series of conferences that are designed to give the technology community an opportunity to inform the presidential campaigns about the issues important to the future of American innovation.

These events are sponsored by Google, Microsoft, eBay, AT&T, and, my firm, 463 Communications.

All the info on Monday's (10:00 a.m to 2:30 p.m.) line-up is here. Please contact Brooke Rae-Hunter if you are interested in attending (seating is limited).

Obama Ad Update; Party & Vacation

The 463: Inside Tech Policy — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:15:03 -0700

Three things:

1. You might remember that my little brother (big liberal) and dad (life-long Republican put together a DIY YouTube ad in support of Obama. They subsequently shortened the ad to 30 seconds; made it one of 1000+ submissions to a MoveOn Obama ad contest; and, just learned yesterday that the ad made the final 15. (!) My family ad (They Said He Was Unprepared) and the other finalists can be view here.

2. If you're DC area and are interested in attending a 463 Happy Hour next Thursday, May 8), email me.

3. But, if you do email me, don't expect a quick reply. I have been and will be on vacation until next Tuesday. This means that the posts here be sparse to invisible.

Singapore Regulation and a Japanese Update

The 463: Inside Tech Policy — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:18:38 -0700

Singapore is currently considering how to best regulate Internet content and have asked a group of 15 bloggers to help them formulate a framework. From TodayOnline:

An open letter on proposed changes to Internet regulation will soon be sent to the Ministry of Information, Community and the Arts (Mica) by a group of 15 bloggers.

Their proposals include the setting up of an Internet consultative committee for the free and responsible use of digital media, and for rules governing speech to be the same across media platforms...

...The "platform-neutral" regulations should also be as minimal as those regulating the "current freest platform", which they believe to be film.

Nice gesture. But, of course, whether buttoned-downed Singaporean government listens to the bloggers is a whole other story.

Now, if the Japanese government listens to 91 percent of the public there, "harmful" Internet content will be shielded from those under 18-years-old. We wrote up a piece on the Japanese march toward content regulation earlier this month. Today, the Daily Yomiuri provides a update and broaches the white elephant in the regulation...

At a meeting on April 11 of the LDP General Council's committee on countermeasures against illegal and harmful information, many members questioned the advisability of allowing the government to get involved in vetting information on the Internet.

"People have different views about what is and isn't harmful," one committee member said.

Unlike judgments on explicitly illegal information, such as instigating murder or the use of narcotics or stimulants, distinguishing between "wholesome" and "harmful" information can be difficult.

Indeed, but it seems like they are still going to try.

Google is Now TOO Effective in Washington

The 463: Inside Tech Policy — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:17:42 -0700

I had previously seen this meme about the spectrum auction results pushed by some irony-loving wonky types, but when it is repeated by members of Congress (who fail to see the irony), it's been taken to another level...

From Bloomberg yesterday....

Google Inc. manipulated a U.S. government spectrum auction by bidding just enough to trigger rules that will open a nationwide set of airwaves to any device and then walking away, Republican lawmakers said.

The so-called open-access requirements, also backed by consumer groups, may have shortchanged taxpayers by discouraging more companies from bidding, Representative Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican, said today at a hearing.

``Google was successful in gaming the system,'' Upton said.

Upton's full comments are here.

The only right thing for Google to do is to begin to shut down its overly effective Washington operation. They are clearly operating on a level that is unfair to all those telecom giant DC neophytes.

Incoming Russian Prez Is Not as Dumb About the Internet as (Insert Favorite Senator Here)

The 463: Inside Tech Policy — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:31:21 -0700

The NYT blog, The Lede, has an interesting bit on the the incoming Russian president, Dmitri A. Medvedev. Apparently, not only has he used the Internet, he understands it (!) and can speak intelligently to current online trends. The bar is indeed low.

Most relevant to this space is the fact that the Times notes that Russia maintains a fairly minimalistic regulatory regime over the Internet...for now...

Unlike in China, the Internet in Russia is not censored and is full of online newspapers, magazines and videos that criticize the government. By contrast, the Kremlin controls television, and although independent newspapers and radio stations exist, they have relatively small audiences.

Under President Vladimir V. Putin, the Kremlin has considered measures that would tighten control over the Internet. It is currently drafting a law that would force websites to register with the government. A few bloggers have been prosecuted for remarks that were deemed offensive or extremist. Russian Internet entrepreneurs are hoping that Mr. Medvedev will push back against these efforts.

Photo by kecko

The I-5 Gap

The 463: Inside Tech Policy — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:00:31 -0700

The Bay Area and LA are a mere five hours away if you average 80 MPH on I-5, but I've long been struck by how the division between the Valley and Hollywood is even greater than the one between Techland and DC.

The New York Times takes (another) look at this dynamic in an anecdote-laden piece today. My biggest surprise in reading it was that the issue of bad/confused feelings around different perspectives on piracy was never raised once. That's progress alone.

Instead, the piece delves into the differing psychologies around dealmaking and compensation. Excerpt:

Mark D. Kvamme, a venture capitalist at Sequoia Capital, financed the comedian Will Ferrell’s funnyordie.com last year, which has had only one runaway hit, “The Landlord” video.

When Mr. Kvamme approached Mr. Ferrell and his agents at Creative Artists Agency about creating the site, he said he was struck by what he perceived as the short-term view then taken by his new Hollywood partners.

“They talked about the transaction — ‘What am I getting paid today?’ ” he said of Mr. Ferrell and his agents. “The big thing with Funny or Die was, we said, ‘Let’s build a company. We are not just going to write you a check.’ ”

Those perceptions can largely be attributed to the nature of their conflicting interests. Adam McKay, who started the Web site with Mr. Ferrell, said they had to get used to the notion that they were owners, not just talent for hire....

My simple and fairly obvious suggestion for Hollywood-types who want to "get" the Internet. Get in your car (or on a plane) and make the trip north. And, stay awhile. Warner, EMI, Universal and the other biggies should take a page from Microsoft, MySpace, the New York Times, NASDAQ, etc. and open an office in San Francisco or Palo Alto (none have this today). Don't just have meetings at conferences. Have dinner parties with techies on the weekend. The new perspectives may be just as circular and with as many jerks, but at least it will be new.

Global Voices & Japan's Turn to Protect the Children

The 463: Inside Tech Policy — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:06:40 -0700

463 does a little project work with the Harvard Law Berkman Center for Internet & Society, but I somehow had missed running across a fascinating project of theirs called Global Voices. It's a "non-profit global citizens’ media project." Or, in other words, it's an easy way to read aggregated perspectives of sharp bloggers from places other than North America and Western Europe that you wouldn't otherwise be able to find or understand.

For example, as I write this, the home page features summaries of home-baked blog coverage of Ecuadorian Internet security and privacy concerns; opinions on the current state of affairs in Iraq; and, reports of social networking-fueled strikes in Egypt over pocketbook issues. Super interesting stuff.

What grabbed me most, though, was a thorough summary of Japanese blogger opinion on the all-too-familiar Internet content regulatory creep.

The post by Chris Salzburg explains that the two leading political parties are currently trying to out do each other with legislation aimed to regulate Internet content deemed "harmful" to minors. Moreover, despite mainstream coverage of earlier moves by Japanese officials to filter mobile content to minors and top news sites, the bloggers say that, inexplicably, there seems to be far too little attention being paid to how severe the new potential regulations could become...

Japanese bloggers have been making noise the past few days [ja] in reaction to two separate bills, submitted first by the ruling Liberal Democratic Party of Japan (LDP) and next by the leading opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), each aiming, in apparently similar ways, to legislate regulation over Internet content deemed to be “harmful” to minors (users under age 18).

On March 19th, LDP Diet Member Takaichi Sanae submitted a bill to a government panel to legislate the “prevention of browsing on the Internet of information harmful to young people” in an attempt to maintain the “sound upbringing of young people”. Shortly thereafter on April 2nd, Diet Member Takai Miho of the Democratic Party submitted a bill with the aim to create an environment that “makes it possible for children to safely use the Internet”. According to bloggers, the bills go significantly further than earlier legislation introduced late last year, which mandated default filtering on mobile phones for minors. Nonetheless, aside from a single article in Asahi shimbun [ja] on the topic, the two bills appear to have been granted no mainstream media attention.

The bills follow on a recent trend of increasing moves toward regulation of the Internet in Japan, but according to bloggers, this time Diet Members Takaichi and Takai are going significantly further — and advancing legislation significantly faster — than in the case of earlier proposals.

Global Voices notes that one blogger raises obvious big issue in the proposed regulation:

First of all, the definition of “information harmful to young people” covers a broad range, and there are many vague expressions like “something that causes …” and “something that poses a danger of …” that can be interpreted at the discretion of the “Committee on the Promotion of Sound Upbringing of Young People"

Check out the post for more classic good intentions; really bad application of law.

(Photo by nolando)