April 2008 Archives

I'll leave the good stuff to Ars Technica, but Howard Berman's bouncing baby copyright bill is one step closer to becoming law, sailing through the Judiciary Committee.

The bill would create a new position for a federal copyright enforcement czar, establish a new copyright enforcement division within the Department of Justice, and would also permit law enforcement agents to seize property from perpetrators of copyright infringement. 

The good people at the NYT have given me more reason to get excited about next month's NCTA Cable Show in New Orleans: Watching the speculation, rumour and intrigue behind who might try and take over Time Warner's cable systems, which are about to become sort of "up for grabs" as they get spun off.

Jeffrey L. Bewkes, the chief executive of Time Warner Inc., continued to trim what has for years been the world's largest media company by announcing Wednesday that it would completely spin off its cable company.

The news -- which was not unexpected and follows an earlier transaction in which a portion of the cable unit was spun off into a separate public company -- came as Time Warner reported quarterly earnings that were largely in line with Wall Street's expectations.

This is going to be fun to watch for a number of reasons. Last time there was a major group of systems up for sale was when AT&T sold off their Cable systems, leading to a "friendly" competition between Cox Communications, and the eventual winner Comcast. That victory gave Comcast a huge market advantage in the number of subscribers, but Comcast, which has a reputation for fighting like Rocky, the unofficial mascot of its' home city of Philadelpha, may not be able to benefit from going after TIme Warner without helping Cox, their old Atlanta-based foes. 

In this space, when we write about  Silicon Valley and its' relationship with the federal government, it's usually something nasty or hot-button, like net neutrality, energy, patent reform, intellectual property, or copyright. When people bring up environmental issues with the technology sector, usually it's the air pollution from all the cars, or whether or not Apple uses too much packaging, or what materials go into hardware and whether or not it should be illegal to throw away that old computer in a landfill. 

Capitol Valley interactive at kyte.tv/capitolvalleyinteractive
Capitol Valley content from Alex and Andrew at kyte.tv/capitolvalleymedia

Don't forget to check out the rest of the media center, with links to the Kyte.tv channels, our flickr pools, the dop.io drop and any other cool stuff we might add later.

For years, people have wondered if Microsoft has built in backdoors for law enforcement. China created their own Linux distribution for government use. There have been instances of police using off the shelf monitoring tools for investigations, installing them in court-sanctioned "black bag jobs."

Now, the good folks at Ars Technica reveal that Microsoft proudly crowing over their latest achievement, a (built-in) back door into Windows and the tools to open it!

 Microsoft revealed its development of a digital forensic analysis toolkit at a security conference yesterday as part of a wider discussion of how technology can be used to fight crime. The Computer Online Forensic Evidence Extractor, or COFEE for short, is a USB thumb drive that contains software capable of executing approximately 150 separate commands. Once plugged in, COFEE can be ordered to decrypt system passwords, display a history of internet activity, and search the system for evidence.

That loud anguished crying sound you heard is a million IT managers' heads exploding. Why? This thing has been available "to law enforcement" since last June.

Here's a question, what company in their right mind that has any requirement for confidentiality would buy software from a software company that sells decryption and password cracking tools for its' own operating system? Isn't that almost advertising how poor your software's built-in security is? Security extends beyond malware protection. It also means that if you build doors and install locks, you should install a good lock. In this case, you're being sold a foam core with a skeleton key.

I would expect a surge in Apple enterprise sales. In their zeal to be helpful and combat computer crime, this may be a shocking case of corporate suicide. They thought people were reluctant to buy Vista now? They'll be shipping XP for a very, very long time, I believe.

CNN.com had an article today that, while in no way dispensing any new information, is something that could be pretty useful for people who a) are brand new to social networking sites or b) have kids who are on or want to be on one.

"I don't want to have to worry about all the different online scandals and problems," says Brown, an education major at St. Joseph College in Connecticut. She'd like to control her personal information and keep it out of the hands of identity thieves or snooping future employers. "It's just common sense."

It sounds like her info is locked down and airtight. But is it?

Turns out, even the privacy-conscious Sarah Browns of the world freely hand over personal information to perfect strangers. They do so every time they download and install what's known as an "application," one of thousands of mini-programs on a growing number of social networking sites that are designed by third-party developers for anything from games and sports teams to trivia quizzes and virtual gifts.

The rest of the article is here, and if you fall into either of the categories I mentioned, you should totally check it out.

I feel the need, again, to make the point that nothing is free.  Not entirely.  If you want the neat applications and you don't want to pay for them they need to be supported by ads.  The ads are more effective and therefor more profitable if they are targeted based upon assumed interests and patterns of behavior.

So should you be careful?  Sure.  Should you whine and moan because your online activity is being tracked?  No, you should just stay away from sites and applications that do the tracking.

So much for the idea that Silicon Valley doesn't understand the Legislative or Regulatory process, turns out that some don't even get the Judicial system either.

In a murder case with no body, no crime scene, no reliable eyewitness and virtually no physical evidence, the prosecution began the trial last November with a daunting task ahead. By the time prosecutor Paul Hora rested his case February 14, he had called some 60 witnesses, but presented mostly circumstantial evidence demonstrating animus between Reiser and his wife, and suspicious behavior by the defendant following Nina's disappearance in September, 2006.

The turning point in the trial came when Reiser took the stand in his own defense March 3.

In his 11 days of testimony, Reiser offered lengthy and verbose explanations for every piece of circumstantial evidence. But Reiser's version of events often drew disbelieving head shakes from jurors -- and occasional smirks from the trial judge.

Reiser's case, at least to this writer's, is in one way a microcosm of the landmark Federal Antitrust case against Microsoft. Gates squirming under the camera lights at deposition,  Reiser offering detailed, geeky explanations for every bit of circumstantial, even silly pieces of "evidence" brought in front of him. He just didn't know when to keep his mouth shut. The state presented a weak case. No body, no scene, nothing. Some detectives following Reiser while he tried to avoid unmarked cars following him (I'd probably get creeped out by that, too). It looked like the prosecution hadn't really proved anything at all, until Reiser made a classic Valley mistake, commonly made in Washington hearing rooms, but found just as often in courtrooms across the land: he took the stand in his own defense:

As the prosecutor rested his case, it seemed far from clear that the circumstantial evidence would be enough for the jury of seven men and five women to find Reiser guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Throughout his cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, defense attorney William DuBois aptly painted a picture of Reiser as a misunderstood computer nerd, so inattentive to social cues, and so slavishly devoted to logic, that his innocent behavior could be easily misinterpreted as evidence of guilt.

From his seat at the defense table, Reiser seemed to offer supporting evidence for that so-called "geek defense" in the form of his own actions, frequently quarreling with his attorney, and interrupting DuBois' cross-examination...Reiser couldn't explain why, following his wife's disappearance, he suddenly drove through the Sierra Nevada mountain range to Reno, to sample casino buffets. And he admitted taking evasive maneuvers while walking and driving to determine if he was being followed by the police, something he attributed to his innate distrust of authority, amplified by the books he read when authorities began investigating him.

He bought those books about murder investigations, he said, because he wanted to know how police behaved. "I was under investigation by the police," he said. Reading up on their techniques was only logical, he testified.

"I have a compulsive tendency to say things that I know are true that people don't want to be true," Reiser said at one point.

As testimony wrapped up April 14, Reiser offered his assessment of the proceedings in front of the jury. "This whole thing is silly," he said from the stand.

"What do you mean, the 'whole thing'?" DuBois asked.

"The whole case."

Does anyone recall Gates on the video 10 years ago? He got a lucky break when the judge involved had to recuse himself. No such luck for Hans, who will spent at least the next 25 years in prison, where perhaps he can design a better system for tracking inmates or a database for record keeping. 

I saw this at mocoNews.net and was blown away.  It's the kind of simple, common sense stuff that gets so easily lost in the bureaucracy and over analyzing of a big corporation.

Guy Talmi is a Senior Marketing Director at Pontis, an Israel-based company that works with wireless and cable operators to help determine the most relevant marketing approaches based on a user's profile, preferences and behavior. Talmi has compiled a list of the top 10 most common marketing mistakes he sees made by the operator.

Here I'll just list the actual top 10, but you can click here to see the explanation of each over at mocoNews.

1.  Operators fail to target the right products to the right customers
2.  Free trial offers fail because of poor follow-up
3.  Introductory offers for new customers alienate existing customers
4.  Non-targeted offers look like spam
5.  Operators address churn too late
6.  Marketing campaigns may fail if not tested before launch
7.  Operators use the wrong medium to market to users
8.  Value the customer
9.  Operators miss marketing opportunities
10.  Success breeds success - if you can recognize it

When you get into the explanations it makes even more sense.
What he says in his summary, praising online retailers like Amazon for marketing based on past searches and purchases, is something that has been a little controversial.

There's growing concern among (mostly older) web surfers and purchasers that companies are keeping too much information about them.  I tend to shoot down these concerns, more vocally when referring to sites that are trying to monetize a free service, because there is a reason behind targeted advertising.  I think that Talmi would agree with me that targeted advertising and marketing, regardless of industry, can help companies save money and hopefully pass those savings onto their customers in the form of more competitively priced goods and services.

First, here's a little bit of the story that ran at CNN.com today

James Karl Buck helped free himself from an Egyptian jail with a one-word blog post from his cell phone.

...

Buck, a graduate student from the University of California-Berkeley, was in Mahalla, Egypt, covering an anti-government protest when he and his translator, Mohammed Maree, were arrested April 10.

On his way to the police station, Buck took out his cell phone and sent a message to his friends and contacts using the micro-blogging site Twitter.

The message only had one word. "Arrested."

After that one-word message was sent out James' followers started Tweeting and blogging about their friend's precarious situation.  One friend even got on the ball and hired a lawyer on James' behalf.  James was freed.

Less than 24 hours after he was arrested.

This is exactly the kind of thing that needs to be given the spotlight, and I'm super excited about seeing it on CNN.com.  It's the sort of thing that can further help to spread awareness of how Twitter can function as more than just a fun tool or even a professional one, both of which are hats it wears quite well.

The only failing I see is that it can only benefit Twitter.  If, as we rant about ad nauseum,  this good press could have benefited the entire social networking/blogging community.  We're always saying that Web 2.0 (And I'm caught playing Buzzword Bingo) companies, and those that are involved in social networking especially, should and need to form an industry organization to keep themselves safe from potential regulation hell.

Let's face it - Like it or not, a negative story will wash over an entire medium like wildfire.  Did Janet Jackson's nipple focus the ire of over-reacting, zero-responsibility, whack-job, non-parents on CBS and the NFL?  I think that we all know what the answer is there. As I've said about on-topic examples and as was discussed in our interview with Dr. Patrick Moore, it's true that forming an industry organization means working with your competitors.  But it's working with your competitors so that you can be allowed to compete and to keep your own set of rules.

I won't go into much more detail, because I'd basically be reposting old info (more than I have already).

I'll close by giving big ups to Twitter, of which Andrew and I are big old fanboys.  This kind of story is what can help to elevate a technology from "fun" to "professional" to that next level where it can be used for very serious situations.  The same way that text messages and mobile phones in general have, the latter over the past decade and the former over the past 4-5 years.

Twitter, great job!  Social Networking/Web 2.0 execs - Celebrate the good but team up and protect yourselves from the bad.

My hometown paper, The Washington Post, has a (for once) terrific and thoughtful article on the public policy and employment law implications of social networks: that which you have done in the past but recorded for your own memory, can now be easily used against you. Quoth the Post:

It's almost like Googling someone: Log on to Facebook. Join the Washington, D.C., network. Search the Web site for your favorite school system. And then watch the public profiles of 20-something teachers unfurl like gift wrap on the screen, revealing a sense of humor that can be overtly sarcastic or unintentionally unprofessional -- or both.

One Montgomery County special education teacher displayed a poster that depicts talking sperm and invokes a slang term for oral sex. One woman who identified herself as a Prince William Countykindergarten teacher posted a satiric shampoo commercial with a half-naked man having an orgasm in the shower. A D.C. public schools educator offered this tip on her page: "Teaching in DCPS -- Lesson #1: Don't smoke crack while pregnant."

Sarcastic? Yeah. Unprofessional? I'm not so sure. I think the danger begins when you identify yourself by your employer. While we were all proud to post that first job on Facebook, many of us neglected to take down photos or change profiles. And then they caught on. I saw an old employer's H.R. director on Facebook. As much as I considered her a friend, there were parts of my life I wasn't comfortable sharing. So, I blocked her. I also went through the trouble of blocking the network of another employer from viewing this sight. Hindsight being 20/20, many of them have written to me since unblocking it in complementary terms, but I did out of an abundance of caution, not to mention never making a single reference to where I worked or what I did for living. I live a very public life (or as my friend Andy Beal says, a Radically Transparent lifestyle - BUY HIS BOOK!).

I know that employers will look at that page, and I need to be more careful," said Webster, adding that other Prince William teachers have warned her about her page. "At the same time, my work and social lives are completely separate. I just feel they shouldn't take it seriously. I am young. I just turned 22."

many school systems are wrestling with the problem, as teachers are in a way, public figures, and certainly role models. To the credit of some systems, they aren't reacting in a knee-jerk fashion. Pulled on one hand by the need to maintain reputations, but on another by the need to recruit quality teachers who are enthusiastic about their jobs (anecdotal evidence shows young adults with healthy personal lives have better interpersonal and workplace skills) they are walking a fine tightrope, and to some, it may come down to a Justice Potter Stewart-style "I know it when I see it" mentality which some smart employment lawyers are going to have to codify.

Local school officials say they have no policies concerning social networking pages or blogs kept by teachers. But they said that online improprieties would fall under general guidelines requiring proper behavior in and outside school and that sketchy Web sites would be handled case by case.

"I hate to think of what's out there. . . . There's so much out there that it's hard to know what's there," said Ken Blackstone, a Prince William schools spokesman. "But as public employees, we all understand the importance of living a public life above reproach."

Above Reproach? Get thy recruiter to a nunnery, Mr. Blackstone! Here is the sad truth, you will find eager young men and women who want to be teachers. Inspired by one of their own, or driven by a calling or desire to help or do good, they apply for underpaid, overworked positions which are afforded little respect by parents or the institutions which they serve. 

While I won't make any jokes about Cher or trees, or skiing, I will give a hat tip to That Other Andrew(tm) for pointing out the reintroduction of bills governing "Orphan Works" under copyright law.

As Alex reported in the Weekly Mobile News Roundup, NextWave Wireless, Inc. (yes, THAT NextWave) is planning on selling off their 2.5GHz PCS spectrum licenses.

So here it is, a day late, but in no way short.  It's the Weekly Mobile News Roundup.  Let's jump right in, starting with the price-per-share (PPS) at last trade on Friday, 4/25 for the Big 4, posted highest-to-lowest with the amount of change over last Friday.

AT&T - $38.58 + $1.07
Verizon - $37.04 + $1.01
Deutsche Telekom (T-Mobile) - $17.90  -$0.05
Sprint - $7.91 + $1.24

As usual, AT&T and Verizon are pretty much tied for first place, with only $1.54 separating their PPS.  What's interesting is that Sprint gets the fancy highlight action with their leading $1.24/share gain over Friday 4/18.

Quotes from Yahoo! Finance.


More after the jump...

(this was originally dated 4/10 but I think it deserves another look at how a big, often maligned corporation is doing something right. Hopefully Frank and I will talk again soon.)

Image Credit: The New York Times
The Gray Lady's Brad Stone has a 3 pager in today's paper on everyone's favorite new holy war: RIM versus Apple. It comes complete with a cute historical reference to RIM's headquarters:

STEVE JOBS, Apple's chief executive and field general, has Napoleonic dreams of global conquest for his 10-month-old wonder gadget, the iPhone. So it may be fitting that he's encountering his most serious resistance in a city called Waterloo.  That is where, 70 miles west of Toronto in Ontario, 19 nondescript, low-rise office buildings comprise the headquarters of Research In Motion, maker of the BlackBerry.

Well, I, for one, have welcomed our Canadian overlords, having ditched my iPhone for a BlackBerry after 3 and a half months of swerving, sweating, and getting annoyed at the coolness of Apple's $400 screen.

In March, Mr. Jobs announced that Apple would take the rare step of licensingMicrosoft's corporate e-mail technology, to allow iPhones to connect directly to business computers -- a dagger aimed at the heart of R.I.M.'s strength in the corporate market. In Apple's quarterly conference call last week, Apple executives said that one-third of Fortune 500 companies were interested in giving iPhones to their employees.

I'll go out on a limb here and actually praise Microsoft for delivering a great product, Exchange, and RIM for leveraging it for the on the go email user (sadly, most of my mobile use is email, Instant Message or an even cooler feature, RIM's peer-to-peer BlackBerry Messenger follow, but I use email more than anything). Also, the calendar. Ah, the calendar. I can add an appointment and invite a friend and it hits their calendar and mine, I can edit it on my Mac and it hits the phone in the same way. Yes, ActiveSync does that but at what cost?

I'll admit that I'm probably the last guy who you'd expect to come out in favor of limiting a consumer's use of their own technology.  Well, I don't know that I am in favor of Skype not getting "Carterfoned" for use on U.S. mobile devices, but I certainly understand it.

Being able to have free, unlimited calling to other Skype-ers and dirt-cheap rates to other phones would rip the bottom out of the mobile phone industry.  Think about how many people would activate data-only plans or just get the cheapest rate plan to maintain an account with their carrier.  Either carriers would lose a ton of money or, more likely, we'd see the price of data-only plans soar to compensate for the loss in calling plan revenue. 

Also, keep in mind that one of the Big 4 is in pretty serious trouble.  I won't name names, but they've seen millions of customers and billions of dollars evaporate in the last 3 years, seen their stock plummet from a respectable low-$20's to about $6.50 and have been entirely unable to find their direction.  If Skype came in on mobiles we could see our Mystery Carrier shut down or get bought out.  We would lose 25% of the Big 4 national carriers and there would be an enormous number of jobs lost.

So if you're gearing up to scream about how stupid I am, I'm way ahead of you.  I get why people want Skype on their mobile and why they think they should be allowed to.  I understand it, I promise.  But at the same time, it's a really tricky situation that K-Mart (the FCC Chairman, not the retailer) is in the middle of.   Sometimes it's easy to say that  the Government  just likes to meddle or that they can't get their heads out of their asses, but this isn't one of those times.

Trying to find a balance between being pro-competition and (no exaggeration) protecting the future of an entire industry in this country - I'm not jealous.

At CTIA, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin ("K-Mart") announced his intent to deny Skype's petition for a declaratory ruling that would apply "Carterfone" rules to wireless networks, meaning the Big Four couldn't interfere with Skype software on iPhones or BlackBerries. Maybe this was a message to Skype, "stay off their lawn."

Skype didn't get the message. According to this press release, they're testing mass-market VoIP software in a number of countries.

Following recent moves to extend Skype? conversations to a wide variety of new mobile and wireless devices, Skype is taking another major step as it continues to merge its internet communications software with mobile phones. Today, the company released a beta version of Skype for your mobile, a mobile "thin" client that works on about 50 of the most popular Java-enabled mobile phones from Motorola, Nokia, Samsung and Sony Ericsson.

The beta version of Skype for your mobile is available worldwide with a feature set that includes chat, group chat, presence (seeing when your contacts are online), and receiving calls from Skype users, and through SkypeIn.* Additional features, which include the making of Skype-to-Skype and SkypeOut calls from the mobile handsets, are initially supported in seven markets: Brazil (Rio de Janeiro), Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

  Now, note that this doesn't include the US. Maybe because of K-Mart's intentions to let the Big Four block Skype traffic, maybe because they want to see how it goes elsewhere first. But no matter what, when that 700mhz phone market opens up, expect Skype to get huge. You'll be able to have a landline, mobile, and portable number on any device you can think of. Now that's competition.

That's right, I'm going to New Orleans next month for the National Cable and Telecommunications Association's Cable Show 2008. which takes places May 18th-21st.

The 5th Revision- Scripps Networks

The 5th Revision is made up of: Doug Klein on drums. Jeza Kepler on vocals. Spencer Corden on piano/keyboards. Stewart Pack on bass. Phil Fuson on guitar.

The Frontline - Charter Communications

The Frontline is made up of: Eric Ketzer on guitar/vocals. Chris Logan on bass. Brendan O'Neil on guitar/vocals. Patrick Swan on trumpet/keyboard. John Sykes III on drums. Robert Little on vocals.

Full Mesh - Juniper Networks

Full Mesh is made up of: Robb Foster on vocals. Richard Russman on guitar/vocals. Eamon Loftus on guitar. Brad Ryan on drums/vocals. Bill Seeger on bass.

Links:   Full Mesh on MySpace

More Cowbell - Time Warner Cable

More Cowbell is made up of: Julie Simon on vocals. Lyndel Navarro on guitar. Bill Helms on guitar/vocals. Howard Pfeffer on bass. Scott Ramsdell on drums. Kent Vermillion on cowbell/vocals. Tom Richards on keyboard/vocals.

Links:   More Cowbell on MySpace

One Night in NOLA- Fox Cable Networks/TVN Entertainment.

One Night in NOLA, a rock fusion band, is made up of: Sean Riley on guitar. Jim Riley on bass. Nick Constantinides on guitar. John Malkin on guitar. Carlo Hume on drums.

Charter Communications Presents The Paul Allen Band

The Paul Allen Band is made up of: Paul Allen Terry Davison Gary Thompson Andrew Nelson James Clark

Ralphie and the Streamers - Cisco

Ralphie and the Streamers are made up of: Ralph Galione on vocals. Pat Craig on guitar/vocals. Jason Shreeram on bass/vocals. Andrew Smith on drums. Ken Orbach on guitar. Ted Brown on guitar.

The Solutions - ARRIS

The Solutions are made up of: Mike Caldwell on lead guitar. Mike Dorff on rhythm guitar/lead vocals. Tom Dutra on bass. Tony Davis on drums/vocals. Alex Swan on harp/vocals. Vickie Marti on percussion/vocals.

TV Rejects- C-Span/CableFax/Broadband Gear Report/Retirement Living TV

TV Rejects are made up of: Mike Grebb (CableFax) on guitar. Tim Hermes (Broadband Gear Report) on drums. Tommy Bullough (Retirement Living TV) on bass. Rob Kennedy (C-Span) on keyboards. Seth Arenstein (CableFax) on trumpet.

Xpanded Bandwidth - Cox Communications

Xpanded Bandwidth is made up of: Ginger Davis on drums/vocals. Alfred Ellis on bass. Bob Wilson on guitar. Domingo Hipona on lead guitar. Heidi Martell-Barnes on piano/vocals. Stephen Wilson on keyboards. Deniece Yarbrough on vocals. Kenneth Brown on vocals. Mike Rossenwasser on vocals.

Thankfully, it's the last night of the event, so I will rest up for it by giving you full coverage of the public policy events, the show floor, and anything else I see that's cool. If we're lucky, I'll be able to stream some live video, and you'll be able to contact me live on the floor with a new toy (to be announced) so I can see what you want to see. More as the show approaches, including my schedule. I can count on one thing, though: I will be hitting Cafe du Monde for a Diet Coke and some Beignets.

Yes, Washington, There is a Santa Claus. Traditionally, the Federal Communications Commission would announce their meeting agenda only days, sometimes 24-48 hours before a meeting.

Washington, D.C. -Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin 

today announced that topics selected for open meeting agendas will now formallybe made public and posted on the Commission's website three weeks prior to the upcoming monthly meeting.  This step enhances the openness and transparencyof the Commission's processes and deliberations. 

Now and then, I just have to give the FCC (and K-Mart) some credit for doing the right thing. Good job, all.

As anyone who has a mobile phone will know, kidz cnt wrt well whn txtng all the time.

...so here's a funny youtube video.

CNN reported it as speculation last week, but it's true. Israel has jailed one of its' soldiers for Facebook photos. H'aaretz reports:

A soldier from the elite Intelligence Corps unit "8200" was sentenced to 19 days in prison for uploading photos taken on his base without approval to the popular social networking site Facebook. 

This is the first time the Israel Defense Forces has sentenced a soldier to military jail for an offense of this sort. 

The Israel Air Force has recently instructed all servicemen under their command who are serving in sensitive units to remove any photos they may have uploaded to Facebook. 

Of course, this doesn't apply to most of the other IDF citizen-soldiers, who aren't in classified units, but I wonder what would happen if Facebook finally gave Palestine its' own network and militants started posting photos of themselves with their AK-47s...remember the guy who asked Zuckerberg why Palestine doesn't have a network? He should be smiling right now...

A day after Chairman Martin testified before the Senate Commerce Committee where he was...questioned, to be polite about the status of the DTV transition, the FCC released this Order of Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on DTV Education and labeling for converter boxes.

I'm not sure what to say about this I'm angry. Basically, the FCC has exempted many VCR and other device manufacturers from noting that their boxes won't work after the DTV switch, because the CEA lobbied them to leave them out. Read the order.

No wonder we can't get this right. Anyone want to explain?

In fact Bat Out of Hell has been charted for over 30 years, sells 200k copies a year, and each of its' seven tracks has been a hit single.

I think Michael Lee Aday, aka Meat Loaf has earned the right to have a little commercial fun. After all, he did play Jack Black's dad in "The Pick of Destiny."



I think even Ian MacKaye would forgive the man. He can rock.

John Kerry made a good point at yesterday's Senate Commerce Committee hearing (which I live-blogged). He noted that the last major revision to communications law in 1996 was mostly written to deal with telephone competition, and while he said that by now saying the Internet is the "future" has reached cliche level (it's the present, actually) that our last attempt to make policy was obsolete upon signing, dead on arrival.

Let me repeat that. John Kerry understands we're 12th in the ITU's "digital opportunity index." This is "Mr. Out-of-Touch" John Kerry, and even he understands what we have no broadband policy at all (which really is the official policy, to have no policy and let the "market" deal with it). Policy is no policy, sounds like J. Alfred Prufrock does Broadband, doesn't it?

For the more fun part of the hearing, I'll defer to Tech Liberation Front and their notes on celebrity testimony. Why was Justine Bateman a witness? I sort of fell asleep during that part of her testimony. Not really, but I wasn't quite alert to live-blog it as much as I cared about say, the FCC Chairman or Larry Lessig.

Another flashback and money quote from TLF on celebrity testimony:

So there's another Net neutrality hearing today. I'm beginning to think we'll have to endure one every week for the rest of time. Anyway, today's took place in the Senate Commerce Committee and it featured the testimony of 1980s TV star Justine Bateman, who was in the sitcom "Family Ties."....

...my favorite celebrity testimony of all-time had to be from 1993, when Sheri Lewis and her sock puppet "Lamb Chop" testified in favor of the Children's Television Act, a law regulating educational TV programming. What made is so special was not that Ms. Lewis testified alone. Lamb Chop testified too! I wish I had the video of that to post here. I mean, there was a woman with a hand in a sock making it talk to elected members of Congress... and they were listening. Awesome.

I am going to find that video. Apparently, Kermit the Frog has also appeared before Congress. I will find proof. This I swear.

I think that now, the morning after, just about everyone knows that Microsoft debuted Live Mesh last night.  To very briefly sum it up, Mesh let's you sync information and files to multiple devices (Windows-only for now) via the web so that you can have access to your information from any device.

 

Rather than try and break it down myself, here is a link to Robert Scoble's rundown.

Also included are the links that he mentions in his post to even more Live Mesh-y goodness.

 

Here is Robert's write-up on Live Mesh.

Here is the link to Mary Jo Foley's "10 Things You Need to Know About Mesh."

Here is the link to Mesh on TechMeme.

Here is the link to the Mesh Team blog.

A few months ago at Politics Online, I had the opportunity to demo a service called TVEyes. TVEyes is a monitoring architecture for television content. I give them keywords, and they listen and watch for them. If they pop up, I get an alert and a clip, and a transcript.

Why is this cool?

Local News. CNN. Cable news. International news. C-SPAN. I don't have time for them all. But, I can have time with TVEyes.I can scan the news and see what's going on. Sadly, I haven't had time to check my account as often as I'd like due to certain changes in my routine, but whenever I do, I can get an up-to-date pulse on broadcast media that is better than any blog search.

TVEyes has been gracious to act as a "Facilitator-Sponsor" for Capitol Valley and provide us with access to their service. Within the next few days, you'll see a badge appear on the site. I don't accept advertising, but I am proud to display their logo as a company that allows me to provide better service to you, my reader.

Thanks, guys.

First - the straight facts from Reuters

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Online auctioneer eBay Inc said on Tuesday it had sued Craigslist, alleging the Craigslist board of directors had diluted eBay's 28.4 percent stake in the online classifieds site.

Sadly, for the observers, the suit was filed under seal.  eBay says that it's to protect certain Craigslist confidentiality requirements. 

Now I'm even more curious to find out what exactly it is that Craigslist did to dilute eBay's minority stake in the online classifieds giant. 

The last time Craigslist was sued, they were found not guilty.  However, that lawsuit was filed on the basis of user-generated content that was simply posted on Craigs.  This suit brought on by eBay is attacking Craigslist (and Founder Craig Newmark and Chief Exec Jim Buckmaster) directly for their actions.

As much as I want to jump right up and defend Craigslist (the site is responsible for me finding my TV, my computer, my car and my current day job) it wouldn't seem prudent without any details on the table.

We'll let you know as soon as details become available.

Live coverage here:

That's right, friends. On May 19th, while most in the industry will be at the NCTA Convention in New Orleans, the FCC is quietly, in almost a stage whisper, convening a summit on the future of the Emergency Alert System. The agenda for this shamefully timed conference is here in PDF format.

Here's the scoop:

Washington, D.C. -The Federal Communications Commission's Public Safetyand Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) todayannounced the agenda for its upcoming Summit on the nation's  Emergency Alert System (EAS):Promoting an Effective Emergency Alert System on the Road to  a Next Generation EAS, to be held on Monday, May19, 2008, 9:00 a.m. -12:45 p.m., in the  Commission Meeting Room (TW-C305).

In line with the Commission's 2007 Second Report and Order on EAS that was released last July, the panel discussions will focus on the current state of the nation's EAS and what is needed to transition to a more robust, Next Generation alert and warning system to help ensure that all  citizens receive accurate and timelyinformation please see the attached agenda.

I'm sorry if I'm about to offend anyone at the FCC, but DO ANY OF YOU REALLY CARE ABOUT EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AT ALL? IF SO, WHY SCHEDULE THIS WHEN MOST OF THE CABLE TELEVISION INDUSTRY WILL BE AT THEIR ANNUAL CONVENTION IN NEW ORLEANS?

Oh, right. I know. It's because broadcasters don't like EAS, because they have to maintain equipment for it that could be better used for reruns of American Idol or something. Considering that most Americans get their TV over Cable (to say nothing about the people that will be ABSOLUTELY SCREWED AFTER YOU AND THE NTIA BOTCH THE DTV TRANSITION NEXT FEBRUARY) I think it would be important to have people like representatives from Comcast, Cox, Time Warner, Verizon, etc around to talk about a next generation Emergency Alert System. Maybe even the larger mobile phone carriers?

Maybe someone will notice this bone-headed scheduling conflict and fix it...but I doubt it.

The Senate Commerce Committee will hold a star-studded hearing tomorrow on "The Future of the Internet." Witnesses include:

Opening Remarks

Witnesses

Opening Remarks

Panel 1

The Honorable Kevin J. Martin Chairman Federal Communications Commission

Panel 2

Ms. Michele Combs Vice President of Communications Christian Coalition of America

Dr. Robert Hahn Executive Director, Center for Regulatory and Market Studies American Enterprise Institute

Mr. Patric Verrone President Writers Guild of America, West

Ms. Justine Bateman Actress / Writer / Producer

Mr. Kyle McSlarrow President and CEO National Cable & Telecommunications Association

Professor Lawrence Lessig Stanford Law School

That's right, peeps! K-Mart is testifying! K-Mart! and Lessig! and McSlarrow! Oh, My!

I'm getting in line early, that's for sure. Those line standers ain't got nothin on me. Bring it.

If I can get into the room, we'll see some fun live bloggin'

George Takei turned 71 yesterday, April 20th. Happy birthday, Mr. Sulu!

Right now, across the river from me in Virginia, there is a conference on the future of Internet 2 taking place.

I'm not there. I'm not covering it, and I don't plan to. Why?

It's all academic. Seriously. There is no serious use of Internet2 technology going on that affects the general public, aka those who don't have tenured professorships or use scientific applications, in any meaningful way.

Internet2 has been languishing for years as a backwater of pocket-protector academia with all the problems and strings attached that kept the general Internet out of the public eye until the 1990s, but the difference is the stakeholders seem to like it that way. They enjoy their high-speed videoconferencing and authentication and feeling of superiority that they get from being on the "academic research" Internet2 "next generaiton" network when the real next generation is IPv6, and that the physical reach of Internet2 is only to a few college campuses. I can't get Internet2 to my home, and neither can you.

They're spending 4 days talking about something only they care about, thinking it will benefit the public when in reality it's just a huge financial sinkhole.

Even smart people get obsessed over stupid things that don't matter.

Here's a public policy question: why does DARPA still fund something that hasn't even gotten a single real use for real people or the defense of the nation? Who cares that people can have high-speed videoconferencing because there aren't P2P applications on Internet2?

That's because THERE ARE NO REAL PEOPLE ON IT. ONLY GREYBEARD ACADEMICS DREAMING OF A NEXT GENERATION THAT PASSED THEM BY.

Internet2 is DOA. Instead we've got DOCSIS 3.0, FIOS, 700mHz as a 3rd pipe and 3G, and sooner or later IPv6 will take off.

Give up and put that Internet2 government waste towards rural broadband, where people who need it could use it.

This is exactly the kind of thing that I like to point out any time someone says that Web 2.0 technologies aren't good for anything more than fun.  Tom Hadfield, who at 17 sold soccer.net to ESPN for a cool $40 Million, is designing a site that will do more "...than putting up soccer scores."

 

Tom has been instrumental in founding www.MalariaEngage.org, a site designed to spread awareness of malaria in Africa and raise money to fight and prevent its spread.  I'm not going to get into the details of MalariaEngage.  Reuters, where I found the article, does a way better job than I would anyway.

 

The article reminds me of three major things -

 

• Social Networking Sites are About More Than Just Fun

Facebook and MySpace are primarily, nowadays at least, regarded as "fun."  They're a new way to keep in touch, but not always respected as being as innovative in how we keep in touch as they really are.  There are also sites liked LinkedIn that allow you to form professional bonds.  Hadfield's new project is a very logical step in that progression.  We've seen a similar usage shift in other technologies.  Look at text messaging - In its earliest incarnation it was very much a "fun" feature that was usually used by kids.  Then it expanded to notify people of sports scores and stock quotes.  Now the FCC has announced its plan for a nationwide SMS (text message) alert system to let citizens know about things like terrorist threats.  It's the same evolution - from fun to professional to public service/safety.  Tom Hadfield is helping to do the same for social networking.  Big, big ups to Tom, and I hope that MalariaEngage.org is a huge success.

 

• Stress the Positive

Sometimes, the "positive" may seem to be "business as usual."  Like MySpace helping two people get back in touch after years and years.  To an employee at MySpace it might seem like it's no big deal, but to skeptics...it's something that could turn their head and make them think "Hey, MySpace actually helped these people do more than share photos of a frat party."  So, if social networking sites like MalariaEngage promote their successes and how they're helping it will help remind people that for every Megan Meirs that there are literally millions of people using social networks uneventfully and that there are even social networking sites that help people.  As for the latter, why does MariaEngage care about MySpace?  Well, if they would...

 

• Form an Industry Organization

As was stated by Dr. Patrick Moore in our interview with him last month, members of any industry organization are competitors.  The reason for the formation of the organization is so that these competitors can band together against common foes (like potentially restrictive legislation) so that they can focus on competing with each other to eventually drive down prices and improve the quality of their products. With a Social Networking/Media organization in place a lobbying firm could handle things in Washington ans watch out for the entire organization so that the individual members can focus on business rather than worrying about how to handle a bill that might shut them down.  Heck, I can even take us out of the realm of the serious and into comic book territory.  Sometimes the hero and the villain team up against something that would destroy the entire planet.  That way, thanks to their team-up, they survive so that they can go about competing against each other.

 

I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, especially on the last point, but it's true.  Do you think that the tobacco industry would wield the power that it does if R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris lobbied Congress individually?  I doubt it. 

 

Ranting aside, I'm really excited to see social networking make the leap leap that text messaging has just started to make.  Moving from nice to mainstream to public service is a surefire way to help ensure the longevity of a technology.

 

Here is the full article about MalariaEngage, at the Reuters.

You know now that Capitol Valley has 2 channels over at Kyte.tv.  Kyte.tv is an online Television network where users produce content for their own channel(s).  Because there's so much that you can do, I'm not going to go in to too much detail - if I did this would be the longest post in the history of capitolvalley.net.

The Basics
You start out by creating an account - just the standard stuff like picking out a user name and password, entering an email address, etc.  Once you have your account you're free to roam around and check out everyone else's channels.  If a channel isn't password protected you can produce content for that channel (don't worry, I'll explain that in a bit).  If the channel is protected, well, you'll need the password.

Create a Channel
On your account home screen there's a handy-dandy link labeled "Create a new channel."  Next you need to pick out a name for your channel.  Provided the name you picked is available you'll proceed to the channel display screen.  Here you can tweak how the channel name is displayed and you can upload an image to use as a logo for your channel.  Next screen,  you get a little more nitty-gritty.  This is where you can decide whether or not your channel is password-protected, if submissions will be moderated and if the chat will be open to anyone.  Did I fail to mention chat?  Your channel has a built-in chatroom.  How cool is that?  People can let you know what they think as they see your content and you, or anyone else, can respond to them.  So, incredibly cool.  I can't express how in love I am with the built-in chat feature.

More about Kyte after the jump...

You might have noticed a new badge over on the right.  The Capitol Valley Media Center is officially up!  For now it's a little sparse, but it does contain both of our Kyte.tv channels. 

The first is the official Capitol Valley Channel.  For now it's dominated by Andrew's (fantastic) coverage of the various events he's covered and participated in.


The second, and I think more exiting, is Capitol Valley Interactive (CVi).  This is the channel that anyone can upload content to.  Be it a really cool picture or a video telling us how awesome (or craptacular) we are, that's where you can share it.  Just go to http://www.kyte.tv/capitolvalleyinteractive and click on "produce."  If I could figure it out from there, you will too.  And probably in half the time.

The Media Center has only been live for a couple of hours and we'll be adding new content to it soon (like later on on Monday, maybe? ::hint::).

So take a look and don't be afraid to upload your own Tech/Policy content to CVi.

Here we have, courtesy of the Capitol Valley Kyte.tv channel, Andrew's slides from his presentation at podcamp.  Very well-done and insightful.

I really wish someone had recorded it...I'll get slides up ASAP.
The yellow thing was a laughing prop. People liked it.

Courtesy of AP and Wonkette:

Caption: Hillary Clinton had sex with the Burger King once, and this is their baby who robs banks for a living. [AP Photo]

Shashi has a great talk going on about how small businesses can manage "buzz" and reputation using social media as well as communicate with customers. FYI, he's the "Social Media Swami" at Network Solutions, and knows a ton about connecting with people.

FYI: not every company needs a blog.

The recording and slides should be at the blog he runs for Network Solutions, Solutions are Power.

There's some interesting talk on how different generations view and use social media, focusing on Gen-X, Boomers, and "Millennials" (god I HATE THAT TERM).

Life cycles: Boomers - indulged in secure environment. Come of age, rail against the "moral decrepititude" of the world, emerge with a values discussion (Reagan?), and "shine in elderhood".

(pictures are on Flickr, by the way).

Peer personality of Boomers - values, vision and religion.

Gen-X - abandonded as children, competitive as adolescence, in elderhood, slow the pace of social change...I'm not sure how I feel about this. All about "protecting society." 

Millenials are "special" children, very team-oriented, but increasingly "protected" by adults. As young adults are "can-do heroes" and take on BIG challenges.

(this is all generational language, means absolutely nothing, speaker says)

Book suggestion: "Millennials Rising" and "Fourth Turning"


We're just going to talk about Millennials, Gen-X, and Boomers.

Question about Obama/Clinton and Social Media...I need to field this one.


Gen-X: all about survival. Not trusting institutions. They like information that is vetted through a person, such as a traditional source (seeding), but transmitted peer-to-peer.

FYI - Boomers were railing against their grandparents, not their parents. Is she sure?

"Wisdom of using social media is using the world view of your target market."

This is crap. I'm done with this. I'm going to challenge the hell out of this.

This woman's view of social media politics is so viewed through a Gen-X prism. Has she read ANY of Amanda Lenhart's studies?

I am speaking around 3pm at PodCamp DC at the Art Institute of Washington. I'll be talking about "Identity, Privacy and Security in Web Enabled Environments," 

First, apologies for the name change.  Last week was the inaugural edition of this feature and, well, there's tweaking to be done.  Sorry.

Big, big things happened in the wireless world this past week.  It seems like every week is bigger than the last lately.  I'm convinced that next week we'll be announcing the invention of a phone that will sing your baby to sleep while pouring you the perfect G&T and lighting your cigar.  Maybe not, but wouldn't that be a kick-ass phone?  Don'tcha think?

Anyway, just like last week, here's the week-ending stock prices of the big 4.  These are the prices of last trade on Friday 4/18, listed highest-to-lowest, with their change from last Friday.

AT&T - $37.51 + $0.21
Verizon - $36.03 + $0.47
Deutsche Telekom (T-Mobile) - $17.95 + $0.38
Sprint - $6.67 + $0.20

Stock Quotes from Yahoo! Finance.

Big ups to Verizon for the biggest gain from Friday to Friday.  Also, notice that stock leader (and Big Dog of the Big 4) AT&T and Sprint (Number 3 in the Big 4) had almost identical gains since last Friday.  Too bad that Sprint is still over $30 behind per share.

The rest of the roundup, after the jump...

The Clerk of the House wants to know who's paying for those trade associations lobbyists. The associations don't want to tell. Now they have to.

Last year's Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (aka the Lobbying Reform bill) requires coalitions and trade organizations that lobby to disclose who contributes at least $5,000 to their efforts per quarter. The National Association of Manufacturers was not too happy about this, since well...transparency would allow people to know who has been paying them to lobby against stuff like, the DTV transition and converter box subsidies.

Well, as CQ Politics reports, judges are just not buying the NAM's...bill of goods (sorry, I had to).

A federal judge Friday rejected the National Association of Manufacturers' request to delay enforcement of a new lobbying law requirement while the group appeals a decision last week upholding the mandate.

Under the 2007 law, umbrella lobbying groups such as NAM must file reports by April 21 that disclose every member that contributes at least $5,000 to lobbying efforts during a quarter and "actively participates in the planning, supervision or control of such lobbying activities."

U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly upheld that requirement in an April 11 ruling against NAM.

Interesting note, Judge Kollar-Kotelly is rather prolific. She is also:

A) The judge that extended the Microsoft antitrust consent decree earlier this year, and

B) The chief judge of the secret FISA court that oversees secret wiretapping warrants. I guess her tolerance for secrets only goes so far.

Someone's getting a Christmas card.

The Dutch are gearing up to lift their ban on Segway scooters.  I didn't think that a government would need to ban them.  Between their high price and how goofy you look riding one I thought that they pretty much banend themselves.

 

The Dutch will, however, be reequiring that you are over 16 years old and have insurance for your Segway before you can ride.  No word yet on whether or not you'll need license plates.  That last sentence was not a joke.  Seriously.

 

In other Segway news, remember when Bush fell off of one?  As in, he fell off of what was suppsoed to be un-fall-offable?  Good times.

More on the Dutch at Reuters.

...they've designated TracFone, a wireless carrier, eligible to be declared "lifeline service" for rural areas.

This would allow rural Americans who might not be able to afford wireless service to discontinue their wireline service and use TracFone, and TracFone can offer discounts to those consumers by receiving subsidies under the Universal Service Fund. Quoth the order:

We find that TracFone's universal service Lifeline offering will provide a variety of
benefits to Lifeline-eligible consumers including increased consumer choice, high-quality service offerings,nd mobility.In addition, the prepaid feature, which essentially functions as a toll control feature, may be an attractive alternative to Lifeline-eligible consumers who are concerned about usage charges or long-term contracts. 

 

Many have complained that Universal Service is just a slush fund for the old wireline telcos. Not anymore. On the other hand, TracFone first asked about this in 2004. Why did this take 4 years to be finalized?

Also, where are the big 4 carriers on this? Wouldn't some Universal Service cash help them bolster their coverage caps and say, use the savings to deploy next generation service faster? If Wireless is a "lifeline" now, shouldn't they get some help maintaining it and use their money to improve everything else?

...that sentence pretty much sums up the candidates' attitude towards technology policy.

On one hand, we have a candidate who has made great use of social media to allow his message to spread, and another who, through surrogates, uses email to send out untraceable smears and pictures of his or her opponent in funny hats. They clearly understand that the Internet is more than a series of tubes.

But, when I looked at the witness list and live-blogging from yesterday's FCC hearing on Net Neutrality, I noticed that this is a niche issue when it should be affecting all Americans. We spend more time at the computer and less on TV. Those computers bring us more and more media using new and different formats. Audio, video, blogs, text, email, social networking. These require bandwidth.

So does the exchange of information in general. Why, then has not a single candidate made broadband penetration and competitiveness a part of their campaign? I mean a major part. Seriously, folks. If Obama is the candidate of the "Internet Generation" why isn't he making it a point to push for us to be competitive with Scandanavia and South Korea in terms of the quality of our 'net connections and usage?

Where is DARPA? Are we so invested in building toys to control the Middle East and spy on each other that we're no longer interested in our great universities collaborating and communicating? If we're doing such a bad job with the DTV transition, what do you think will happen with IPV6?

Instead of concern over the quality of connection, we get shock-value news stories about MySpace or gee-whiz non-stories about how great Google is even though many of their engineers aren't even U.S. Citizens, and as many execs said at last month's Tech Policy Summit, the dearth of H1-B Visas is killing our economy and we really are losing out to other countries. There is a brain drain.

We're not training enough engineers, either. At my Alma Mater,it actually costs MORE to get a degree in engineering, but sociology is a great bargain. Why aren't there incentives for more engineers, or computer scientists? What about all these Iraq vets? Bush has stalled on Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA)'s new GI Bill because it would "hurt retention rates in the military." What about retention of intelligence (I mean the real kind, not the CIA kind) in this country?

Tech policy is national security policy.

Just a morning rant.

Louis Grey has this fantastic piece up on the sad reality, that bloggers shouldn't expect ad revenue to take in the cash.

t's routinely shocking to me that so many bloggers think they should try and make a profit from their Web site.

Urged on by the success of mega blog networks like TechCrunch and spurred forward by stories from ProBlogger, or corner cases likeDooce.com, Daily Kos and others, an inordinate amount of people are hoisting ads on their blogs, from Google AdSense, from AdBrite orFederated Media, in the hope of turning their daily rantings into big dollars that could possibly change their life. It's no surprise that blogging for many has the shiny look of a "get rich quick" scheme, when actuality is far different.

Their hopes are misguided, and for most, a serious reality adjustment is needed.

Anyone notice the lack of ads? I'll probably have one badge replaced with one soon, because someone is doing me a real favour with their service and I want to give them credit. However, I don't expect to make money through this site. At least via ads. If someone thinks my content is good enough that they'll help me keep it running (as a friend has done by providing a service), I will happily accept help. On the other hand, I won't go begging for clicks. And neither should you.

Besides their live-blogging at Tech Policy Central the kind people over there had some great off-the-cuff commentary on their Twitter stream. 

Aaron over at TechnoSailor beat me to the punch with this gem of litigation (well, via TechCrunch):

In December, I wrote a post stating that Companies using Facebook Beacon as a marketing tool would get sued and demonstrated the privacy policies in effect at a number of the Beacon partners. One of those is Blockbuster, which as noted in the December post, was so over the top with it's privacy policy. It's, in fact, criminal, in my opinion.

Techcrunch is now reporting that Blockbuster is in fact being sued by a Texas woman who under the premise of a 1988 federal law called the Video Privacy Protection Act (18 USC § 2710) which was enacted after Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork was b0rked when video rental history was released during his confirmation hearing. The law prevents video rental companies from disclosing personally identifiable data regarding a member and his/her rental history.

Point of fact, this law has never been tested in court. However, non-lawyer Aaron does a great job of drilling down what's so messed up about this.

Regardless of whether a Facebook user has opted in or out of Beacon advertising within Facebook, express opt-in is required on the Blockbuster side. And at the time, and pertinent to this lawsuit, even with consent it is criminal for video rental companies to share this kind of data, per 18 USC § 2710.

I'll play around on PACER later on and see if I can dig up any more.

Courtesy of Free Press

Great story at Reuters, filling us in on the details of a study by The Internet Watch Foundation regarding the pervasiveness of online child abuse, primarily child pornography.

Here are some key excerpts

Its researchers found about 3,000 sites, with more than three-quarters run as commercial operations, typically by criminal gangs trying to make money out of the images.
...
Computer networks in Russia and the United States host the most child abuse images, although many other countries are involved, a watchdog spokeswoman said.
...
Since 2003, less than one percent of child abuse content has been hosted on UK computers, down from 18 percent in 1997, the report says. Sites hosted in Britain are closed within hours.

Additionally, Chief Executive Peter Robbins had this to say

"A coordinated global attack on these Web sites could get these horrific images removed from the Web...."

It's pretty clear, from the numbers, that what The IWF is doing works.  Their innovative partnership with the government (in their home of the UK), police and ISPs has allowed them to nearly eradicate  child abuse content from their neck of the Internet woods.  If other countries adopted similar practices the amount of content could, and probably would, go down significantly.  The problem is that offenders would still have the ability to jump to a hosting company or ISP in a different country, wait to get shut down there, and then move again.  And again.  And again.  See where I'm going?  With international cooperation the number of potential (unintentional) safe harbors for distributors of this content would nearly disappear.  Obviously there are concerns that different countries have different views on what is or isn't obscene, but I think that it's pretty internationally agreed upon that child abuse and pornography are absolutely intolerable.

Last month Andrew covered a talk at Google's DC offices, centered around Jonathan Zittrain's book The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It.

Vint Cerf also spoke, specifically about how to stop and prevent abuse on and of the internet.  He also noted that because of the borderless nature of the internet that local and even national sanctions and laws aren't effective.  He says that international-level agreements and treaties are what it will take to effectively remove abusive content from the internet.

The Internet is wide open, allowing anyone with a connection to produce and distribute content (like what you're reading right now).  That openness brings along with it the potential for abuse.  Unless international standards for what constitutes abusive content or behavior, information sharing and prosecution can be agreed upon it would be very easy to see the Internet become like Television and radio, where a few corporations under strict strict strict FCC guidelines decide what content we get to see.

Vint Cerf and The IWF are on the right track.  Now they just need more people to listen.

Speakers are Alan Rosenblatt from CAP,  Tracy Russo from the DNC and Mindy Finn, Director of eCampaign Strategies for Mitt Romney  Live coverage is below:


The rest of my photos are here.

It's really hard to follow an audio feed when you don't know who is talking. Tech Policy Central may have someone there.

Instead, they did what they had to do to make the U.S. Wireless market competitive with the EU. Bloomberg News writes:

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. The rules were a ``social engineering'' experiment by the Federal Communications Commission that prevented the spectrum swath, known as the C-block, from raising billions more

Once again, I will refer everyone to my post from yesterday where I note that Google gave Kevin Martin ("K-Mart") the ammunition he needed to fix the errors of the 1996 Auctions. 

Enter Google. Their proposal for a reserve price and open access was supported by Chairman "K-Mart," who probably has nightmares about NextWave when he thinks of auctions. Why? 

Easy. "K-Mart" can't order or ask for a subsidized network, but the FCC can order a reserve price, open access, and a build-out requirement.

What's the result? The 700mhz auction suddenly becomes a de facto low bid contract. Google hit the reserve, and the rest of the players simply bid enough to win, hoping the other would lose, because either way, the network would be open to everyone. The FCC won because they got their open network, allowing for more competition ("K-Mart" likes competition) and Google won because they can develop their Android phones and be assured that they will have a network to operate on.

This wasn't an auction. It might have started as one, but it finished as a low-bid RFP...and that's a good thing for all of us.

...in reporting on the total scariness of Google Health. 

In an article in The New England Journal of Medicine, two leading researchers warn that the entry of big companies like Microsoft and Google into the field of personal health records could drastically alter the practice of clinical research and raise new challenges to the privacy of patient records.

The authors, Dr. Kenneth D. Mandl and Dr. Isaac S. Kohane, are longtime proponents of the benefits of electronic patient records to improve care and help individuals make smarter health decisions.

Did the good doctors read my story from over a month ago called Google Health is Frightening?People's medical records contain all kinds of things that are nobody's business but their own. Any doctor or hospital that would outsource their record-keeping, which is one of the most important things that a doctor can do for a patient (keep a good chart), is abdicating their responsibility and calls into question whether they value convenience over ethics. The doctor-patient relationship, including medical records, has long been considered sacrosanct. For a company like Google to actually want to offer this as a service says more about their arrogance than the system itself does about their capacity to innovate, and for any doctor or hospital to buy or use it would, to me, be a violation of trust.

There are those in Washington and around the country (Paul Krugman is one) who believe that electronic, portable charts are the key to universal health care. Krugman regular cites the Veterans Administration as an example, since they use some electronic records. The big difference is a) they keep it in-house, and b) they are a single organization. If I wanted to send my VA records to a private doctor, I would have to jump through way more hoops than just telling Google it's OK...and I should have to. Hillary Clinton regularly throws out "e-charts" as the solution to all our problems, and more centralization of records was a big part of her failed 1993 "Hillarycare" plan that she is so loathe to discuss now.

This should not be easy.

Google should be commended for trying to simplify health care record keeping, but this is an arena where they should keep their mitts off. If they want to sell a "black box" turnkey solution for internal record keeping, go for it, but I will still insist on paper. Host my records for me? Go away.

How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Reuters has a story about how two major consumer groups want to have a "Do Not Track" list created by the FTC.  The list would let you tell the Web at large not to track your information for advertising purposes.

Two consumer groups asked the Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday to create a "do not track list" that would allow computer users to bar advertisers from collecting information about them.

The Consumer Federation of America and the Consumers Union also urged the FTC to bar collection of health information and other sensitive data by companies that do business on the Internet unless a consumer consents.

The call echoed those of other privacy advocates who filed statements with the FTC on Internet companies' use of "behavioral advertising." That is the practice of tracking a computer user's activities online, including Web searches and sites visited, to target advertisements to the individual consumer.

Time just picked up on the laser graffiti movement.  The guys at Graffiti Research Lab (GRL) have devised a totally awesome system by which they use a laser to tag, well, just about anything they want.  The graffiti is non-permanent and doesn't damage the surface being tagged.

 

Back in early January Bre Pettis (still making Weekend Project videos for Make Magazine at the time) talked to and got a demo from GRL Vienna crew.

Very cool, guys.

 

Link to the article at Time.

Link to Bre Pettis' blog post about GRL Vienna.

Nick O'Neil at  AllFaceBook reports that an author of a book about the "social networks" that sprung up around Harvard's House System (each of their dorms is a self-contained house with cafeteria, etc, even their own intramural rowing team, actually) and had registered "Facebook" as a trademark with USPTO. 

Is this a way to build buzz for his upcoming book release? Possibly. So far there has been no legal action taken by Aaron Greenspan aside from a filing to the U.S. PTO which is really not much of an action, it is instead more of a statement then anything else. It will be difficult for Greenspan to file any sort of suit following the launch of his book since it could be argued that the suit is being used for promotional purposes.

Actually, Nick, registration with USPTO is a big deal. If the trademarks had been registered around the same time, there would be a serious legal problem (IANAL). On the other hand, "Facebook" is a widely used term. I had a "Badger Facebook" my freshman year at Wisconsin. Nick is probably right. This smacks of a publicity stunt and should be ignored. I'm not sure why he's even reviewing the guy's book.

Eight Miles High and Falling Faaaaaaaaaaaaast...

Seriously, build that shelter. If you grew up in my old neighborhood, you might have had one (my next door neighbors had theirs filled in with concrete, but I remember my piano teacher had hers fully stocked even in 1997).

Why? Congressional Quarterly reports that (I have no idea what prompted this) in a nuclear attack, the best thing to do (when you're not vaporized) is to stay put.

Actually, the reason that they're talking about is because this is what Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) thinks is important.

In the event of the most likely type of nuclear attack, people would be better off ignoring the instinct to flee and remain inside their homes, security experts said Tuesday.

"The natural inclination is to flee and what they're going to do is they're going to get caught in gridlock," said Cham E. Dallas, director of the Institute for Health Management and Mass Destruction Defense at the University of Georgia. "They're going to get caught in gridlock because everyone else will be fleeing, and that is not viable. Most people should not flee" because they won't be affected.

Dallas made his comments following a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on confronting challenges a day after a nuclear attack.

Ashton B. Carter, co-director of the Preventive Defense Project at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, echoed the sentiment. "Certainly most of my friends and family who don't do this, they think that a nuclear weapon levels an entire city and that anybody nearby better get out of the way or they're going to get covered in radiation," Carter said after the hearing. "That's just not true."

Please note, Senator Lieberman is Chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee...does anyone think he has more important things to hold hearings on?

Just in case you didn't know...

Don't own your name? Someone else does? Check out Shashi Bellamkonda from Network Solutions tipped me off to this cool tool that NetSol just introduced:

One of the best ways of keeping track of domain names that are expiring that relate to your name is the Keyword Alerts by Network Solutions. This is a free service and you can sign up by creating an account. You get an email everyday for the domains that are expiring for the keywords you specified.
For people who use RSS feeds and find that very convenient Network Solutions introduced a RSS feed for expired domains. Ades Blog has great review on using this RSS feed for expired domains

Just as its wise to setup a Google alert for your name, I think you should use both these services to keep track of domains that contain your name or your company name that maybe expiring.

Representatives Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Chris Cannon (R-UT) introduced the  "Cell Tax Fairness Act," which is CTIA's latest baby.  Basically, the act calls for a five-year hiatus on raising or introducing new mobile phone taxes.  These taxes are much higher than the average taxes on good and services and have grown at a rate of four times the rates of other sales taxes.  CTIA goes on to contend that having an industry that is growing and changing burdened by excessive taxes will stifle innovation.

But here's the entire CTIA press release, right from CTIA

WASHINGTON, DC - On Tax Day, CTIA-The Wireless Association® and its member companies are urging Congress to pass legislation requiring a five-year hiatus on new discriminatory state and local wireless taxes.  To achieve this goal, Representatives Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Chris Cannon (R-UT) introduced the "Cell Tax Fairness Act" today in the U.S. House of Representatives. 

"The wireless sector of the technology industry continues to be an important driver for growth in our nation's economy.  Americans don't just talk on their wireless phones anymore; they access the Internet, get information, pay bills and use wireless to be more productive at work and other every day activities, " said Lowell McAdam, CTIA-The Wireless Association® Chairman and Verizon Wireless President and CEO. "With about 15 percent of each customer's monthly bill already going to taxes and fees, increasing discriminatory and unfair taxes on wireless customers presents a clear and present danger to future growth.  Policymakers should roll back taxes on wireless customers."  

Grant Gross at InfoWorld has said what I've been telling people for months: Google gamed the 700mhz auction system and won.

San Francisco - Three lawmakers complained Tuesday that Google "maneuvered" its way into an open wireless network without having to come up with a winning bid in the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) recently completed 700MHz spectrum auction.

Some lawmakers aren't too happy about that. In particular, Reps. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) and John Shimkus (R-IL) "suggested Google out-maneuvered the FCC when the agency required the winner of about a third of the spectrum that was auctioned to operate under open-access rules."

Um, guys? Let me tell you a secret.

Remember the last round of auctions after the 1996 Telecommunications Act? They were a disaster. Ensuing litigation from licensees who couldn't afford to both build out their networks and pay the FCC held up the deployment of PCS services for years. Does anyone remember NextWave? I suggest all of you, yes, every single one of you, go to Amazon and buy "A Tough Act to Follow?" by former FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth.

Furchtgott-Roth, who incidentally, is an economist who used current FCC Chairman Kevin Martin (aka K-Mart) as a legal adviser during his tenure on the Commission, tells the NextWave story in great detail.

Now, let me tell you about Europe. Over there, GSM is the standard, because governments subsidized the built-out of wireless networks. So, instead of a patchwork of country-to-country incompatibility, they agreed on GSM and use it, with great success. Unfortunately, if someone tried that here, they'd be shouted down as communists before the idea got off the ground.

Enter Google. Their proposal for a reserve price and open access was supported by Chairman "K-Mart," who probably has nightmares about NextWave when he thinks of auctions. Why?

Easy. "K-Mart" can't order or ask for a subsidized network, but the FCC can order a reserve price, open access, and a build-out requirement.

What's the result? The 700mhz auction suddenly becomes a de facto low bid contract. Google hit the reserve, and the rest of the players simply bid enough to win, hoping the other would lose, because either way, the network would be open to everyone. The FCC won because they got their open network, allowing for more competition ("K-Mart" likes competition) and Google won because they can develop their Android phones and be assured that they will have a network to operate on.

This wasn't an auction. It might have started as one, but it finished as a low-bid RFP...and that's a good thing for all of us.

I just saw the first 30 second DTV Education "crawler" on my TV (on WGN, watching Homicide: Life on the Street) and well...I'm underwhelmed.

I had to rewind to see it. How is your average target (senior citizen) going to catch something that small and quick?

Maybe they should go to the Post Office instead.

So, Monster Cable is known for making some...interesting claims with regard to how special their cables are (not always so special) and employs lawyers to send fancy letters to unsuspecting companies that make special cables, too.

Generally, they claim that Company X has infringed upon one of their patents by making cables that might in some way look like Monster's but aren't the same, and hopes that the threat of litigation will compel a settlement, and a licensing agreement. This tends to work when the company on the receiving end is easily intimidated.

Not this time.

In this case, they chose to attack Blue Jeans Cable, a manufacturer of high-end (and American made) audio equipment. What they didn't know is that their CEO is an attorney who graduated from UPenn Law School and spent almost two decades in litigation. The response is hilarious enough to have made it to Slashdot. After systematically deconstructing Monster's claim as frivolous and making it quite clear how unenforceable it is, he lets them know they have messed with the wrong guy, he's mad as hell, and he's not going to take it anymore! First off, he starts by completely deconstructing Monster's claims as facially insufficient for well, anything, and notes that the information they've supplied him with is completely inadequate for him to figure out if he's actually infringed:

I will begin by addressing your trademark/trade dress claim.  You have referred to two trademark registrations, and have attached some printouts from the USPTO system but the depiction of the marks on the drawings provided is small and indistinct, making it difficult to determine exactly what the alleged resemblance is, and I need further information from you.

            First, I need legible, scale drawings of the marks, preferably with dimensions shown on the drawing.  To the extent that drawings are inadequate to show the nature of materials, finishes, print legends, colors and the like, I will also need examples of each of Monster Cable's actual uses of these marks in commerce; actual physical examples would be best, but photographic reproductions might do.  As you will understand, these considerations are essential to any claim arising out of trade dress, as you are alleging in essence that there is a resemblance sufficient to cause confusion over the identity or origin of the goods, and no mere line-drawing can suffice.

            Second, I will need copies of the trademark applications and any correspondence between the applicant and the USPTO in support of the applications.

Translatation: Prove it.

            Third, you have not identified the Monster Cable products in question, in actual use and distribution in commerce, whose trade dress you allege has been appropriated.   I have reviewed Monster Cable's online materials and have examined connectors on various Monster Cable assemblies in local retail outlets and am unable to determine which, if any, of these are thought by Monster to represent use of these particular marks.  I am also unable to determine from this review whether Monster Cable actually offers any product for sale to which the Tartan connectors are alleged to be particularly similar.  My own sense of it, in looking at the connectors, has been that there is no similarity between the Tartan connectors and any of the many Monster Cable connectors beyond the general  functional and conventional characteristics which all or nearly all solder-cup, mechanical-assembly, barrel-style RCA-type connectors share.  It may be that there is some line of products to which you have intended to refer but which I have not found in Monster Cable's marketing materials or displays; but if so, you will need to show me specifically what product it is, and you will need to call to my attention the specific aspects of the connector design which you contend constitute unique Monster Cable trade dress, what the associated secondary meaning of those aspects of the trade dress is, and in what manner and by what characteristics you allege that this trade dress has been appropriated.

            Fourth, if the dimensional characteristics of the connector as used in commerce vary from the dimensions of the scale drawing of your mark, I will need a proper scale drawing, with dimensions, of each version of the actual connector as used in commerce, as well as photographs of the connectors showing actual in-use finishes.   If there is more than one such connector design in actual use by Monster Cable as to which appropriation of trade dress is alleged, of course, I will require this information for each and every such design.

            On the basis of what I have seen, both in the USPTO documents you have sent and the actual appearance of Monster Cable connectors which I have observed in use in commerce, it does not appear to me that Monster Cable is in a position to advance a nonfrivolous claim for infringement of these marks.  There simply is not sufficient resemblance between the Tartan connectors and any mark or any example of the marks' actual use that I can find to support such a claim.  But if you have further information for me on that point, you are welcome to submit it.

Translation: You cannot be serious, but go ahead. I dare you.

            You have also supplied me with partial documentation on five design patents which you claim these connectors infringe.  I will begin by observing, first, that the five design patents are so very much unlike one another that it is very hard to imagine that any product could actually infringe more than one of them at a time; anything close enough to one of them to be deemed an infringement would, by that fact alone, be too dissimilar from the other four.  The dissimilarity of the Tartan connector from each of them is readily evident.

            I should add that, for the purpose of this letter, I am assuming that these patents are valid.  This is in no way a concession of the point.  In fact, this is a very significant and likely inaccurate assumption, and you should expect the patentability of these designs to be under attack if you commence an action for infringement.

Translation: I'm keeping a straight face, but if you really want to dance, let's dance.

For his next trick, he proceeds to rip apart Monster's "patents" even more. By this time, the lawyers have to wonder what is going on...

My sense, in looking at these five patents, is that either you are attempting to present some argument that I simply do not understand or you are arguing for untenably broad coverage of these patents which would sweep every functional aspect of the typical solder-assembly RCA connector within the scope of a handful of mere design patents.  You need to clarify this, and frankly, I think you need to indicate to me which, if any, of these patents you actually contend are relevant to the present discussion.  It cannot possibly be that you believe that more than one of these patents is pertinent, and if you insist that they are, we cannot have an intelligent dialogue on this subject.   Once you have identified the patent which you contend is relevant,  I need to see the file history and the references to prior art; I need copies of the applicant's correspondence with the USPTO; and I need a clear and cogent explanation from you as to exactly what aspects of the Tartan connector design are alleged to constitute the infringement, and how.

            Additionally, if you are able to identify any of these patents as applicable, please let me know whether Monster Cable presently sells, or has at any time sold, any products bearing connectors which are in conformity with the patent drawings or which are otherwise contended to be within the coverage of the patents, and identify those products for me.  Please also provide photographs and/or physical examples of these connectors as manufactured and sold.

            Also,  please provide me all of the information referenced above as it relates to your expired patent D323643, a copy of which I am attaching.  I will need to know what products Monster now offers or at any time has offered for sale which were believed to fall within the scope of D323643, and what claims, if any, of infringement of D323643 were made against others by Monster, whether those claims of infringement took the form of correspondence only, litigation, or otherwise.  Please let me know  which, if any, products Monster has ever sold or offered for sale which were marked with the patent number, or other reference, to  D323643.  Please also advise me whether, in your view, the Tartan connector does or does not fall within the scope of D323643, and if it is your view that it does not, please identify each and every difference between the Tartan connector and the connector represented by D323643 upon which your view is based.  (On that note, let me point out to you that the "turbine cut" feature is irrelevant here as your client makes only functional, not design, claims for that feature in its marketing materials for the product.)  I would assume that you would agree with me that if the Tartan connector is less dissimilar from the D323643 patent than from any of the five patents you cite in your letter, then the Tartan connector is within the coverage of the prior art and cannot, as a matter of law, infringe any of your client's current patents.

            I must also point out that unless there is a good deal of background information you have not provided me which makes the case otherwise, Monster Cable cannot possibly square its patent infringement claim(s) with its own patent history.  Two views of the matter might be taken; the first, which is my view, is that none of the design patents, including D323643, encompass the Tartan connector.  If that is so, of course, the claim for infringement fails.  But if one grants the sort of breadth to these patents that you appear to wish to do, a problem arises for Monster.  D323643 is the least dissimilar to the Tartan connector of any of the patents, and stands as an obstacle to any claim of infringement of the others because it establishes prior art; if its scope, like the others, is granted the breadth you argue for, then the Tartan connector falls plainly under the prior art and cannot constitute an infringement of the later, and more dissimilar, patents.  Read the patents narrowly, and Monster loses; read them broadly, and Monster loses.  You are welcome to point out any error in my reasoning; but I have to say that I will be unreservedly surprised if you are successful in doing so.

            Please also let me know whether Monster Cable or any related entity has brought actions to enforce any of the patents and trademarks referenced in your letter or above, and provide me with the jurisdiction, court and docket information pertaining thereto, along with copies of any decisions or judgments resulting therefrom.  If any such litigation proceeded through discovery, I will need all discovery responses, including document production, issued by Monster, as well as copies of any and all depositions taken and the exhibits thereto.

Translation: I Double Dog Dare You!!! Let's go!!!

Oh, and here's my favorite part when he insinuates that Monster operates an illegal tax shelter (probably true):

Further, if any of these patents or trademarks has been licensed to any entity, please provide me with copies of the licensing agreements.  I assume that Monster Cable International, Ltd., in Bermuda, listed on these patents, is an IP holding company and that Monster Cable's principal US entity pays licensing fees to the Bermuda corporation in order to shift income out of the United States and thereby avoid paying United States federal income tax on those portions of its income; my request for these licensing agreements is specifically intended to include any licensing agreements, including those with closely related or sham entities, within or without the Monster Cable "family," and without regard to whether those licensing agreements are sham transactions for tax shelter purposes only or whether they are bona fide arm's-length transactions.

Now, what Monster could not have known was that this guy was a highly trained and experienced litigator in a previous life, and the ending paragraphs of this response are absolutely the most priceless thing I've ever seen in my life and I assume have caused a few changes-of-underwear at Monster. Translation: You've f*cked with the wrong guy, buddy. You wanna play rough? I'll play rough!

I have seen Monster Cable take untenable IP positions in various different scenarios in the past, and am generally familiar with what seems to be Monster Cable's modus operandi in these matters.  I therefore think that it is important that, before closing, I make you aware of a few points.

            After graduating from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1985, I spent nineteen years in litigation practice, with a focus upon federal litigation involving large damages and complex issues.  My first seven years were spent primarily on the defense side, where I developed an intense frustration with insurance carriers who would settle meritless claims for nuisance value when the better long-term view would have been to fight against vexatious litigation as a matter of principle.  In plaintiffs' practice, likewise, I was always a strong advocate of standing upon principle and taking cases all the way to judgment, even when substantial offers of settlement were on the table.  I am "uncompromising" in the most literal sense of the word.  If Monster Cable proceeds with litigation against me I will pursue the same merits-driven approach; I do not compromise with bullies and I would rather spend fifty thousand dollars on defense than give you a dollar of unmerited settlement funds.  As for signing a licensing agreement for intellectual property which I have not infringed: that will not happen, under any circumstances, whether it makes economic sense or not.

            I say this because my observation has been that Monster Cable typically operates in a hit-and-run fashion.  Your client threatens litigation, expecting the victim to panic and plead for mercy; and what follows is a quickie negotiation session that ends with payment and a licensing agreement.  Your client then uses this collection of licensing agreements to convince others under similar threat to accede to its demands.  Let me be clear about this: there are only two ways for you to get anything out of me.  You will either need to (1) convince me that I have infringed, or (2) obtain a final judgment to that effect from a court of competent jurisdiction.  It may be that my inability to see the pragmatic value of settling frivolous claims is a deep character flaw, and I am sure a few of the insurance carriers for whom I have done work have seen it that way; but it is how I have done business for the last quarter-century and you are not going to change my mind.  If you sue me, the case will go to judgment, and I will hold the court's attention upon the merits of your claims--or, to speak more precisely, the absence of merit from your claims--from start to finish.  Not only am I unintimidated by litigation; I sometimes rather miss it.

            I will also point out to you that if you do choose to undertake litigation, your "upside" is tremendously limited.  If you somehow managed, despite the formidable obstacles in your way, to obtain a finding of infringement, and if you were successful at recovering a large licensing fee--say, ten cents per connector--as the measure of damages, your recovery to date would not reach four figures.  On the downside, I will advance defenses which, if successful, will substantially undermine your future efforts to use these patents and marks to threaten others with these types of actions; as you are of course aware, it is easier today for your competitors to use collateral estoppel offensively than it ever has been before.  Also, there is little doubt that making baseless claims of trade dress infringement and design patent infringement is an improper business tactic, which can give rise to unfair competition claims, and for a company of Monster's size, potential antitrust violations with treble damages and attorneys' fees.

            I look forward to receiving the information requested and will review it promptly as soon as it is received.

                                                            Sincerely,

                                                            Kurt Denke

I think I have a new hero.

We got this super-cool email from Comcast today.  It outlines their plans, in partnership with Pando Networks to create a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities for P2P users.  P2P users are the people who got their bandwidth throttled when they used "too much."  This announcement is really exciting because it moves towards something that I'm pretty vocal about - giving consumers all the info about a product or service so that they can make the decision that's best for them.  Comcast and Pando are both deserving of a big big BIG "Way to go!"

 

Here it is, right from Comcast.

 

For Immediate Release

 

Comcast and Pando Networks To Lead Creation of "P2P Bill of Rights and Responsibilities" for Peer-to-Peer Users and Internet Service Providers

 

Companies also announce plans to test Pando Network Aware? P2P technology on Comcast's network to identify faster and more efficient ways to deliver legal P2P content

 

Philadelphia, PA and New York, NY - April 15, 2008 - Comcast Corporation and Pando Networks, Inc. announced today they will lead an industry-wide effort to create a "P2P Bill of Rights and Responsibilities" (BRR) for peer-to-peer (P2P) users and Internet Service Providers (ISPs).  The two companies plan to collaborate and engage with industry experts, other ISPs and P2P companies, content providers and others to set a framework for the BRR that can serve as a best practice.  The purpose would be to clarify what choices and controls consumers should have when using P2P applications as well as what processes and practices ISPs should use to manage P2P applications running on their networks.  For example, P2P users should have the right to control their computers' resources when using P2P applications.

 

In addition, Comcast and Pando plan to conduct a test of Pando Network Aware? P2P technology on Comcast's fiber-optic network.  The purpose of the test will be to capture and analyze the data flow associated with downloading a file using Pando's P2P application.  These tests, along with tests Pando will conduct on a variety of other ISP networks, including cable, DSL, fiber and wireless, will measure things like performance, speed, distance and geography as well as the bandwidth consumption impact to the ISP.  Comcast, Pando and the P4P Working Group plan to publish the results of these tests so other ISPs can benefit from understanding how P2P applications might be optimized for traveling over different types of networks in different environments and geographies.

 

Today's announcement builds on Comcast's March 27^th announcement to collaborate with BitTorrent and the broader Internet and ISP community to more effectively address issues associated with rich media content and network capacity management.  It also builds on Pando's recent announcements of its P4P test results which demonstrated Pando's ability to reduce network congestion and speed content delivery by routing P2P traffic more effectively across cable, DSL, and fiber broadband networks.

 

The Pando test will provide additional data to help Comcast migrate to a protocol-agnostic network management technique by the end of this year.  The arrangement is yet another example of how these technical issues can be worked out through private business discussions and without the need for government intervention.

 

"Working together, Comcast and Pando can help lead the discussion about what consumers should expect in terms of a 'P2P Bill of Rights and Responsibilities' for P2P users and ISPs," said Tony Werner, Comcast Cable's Chief Technology Officer.  "Doing so is in the best interest of everyone involved - ISPs, P2P companies and consumers.  We hope to get other industry experts, ISPs and P2P companies together this spring and publish the 'P2P Bill of Rights and Responsibilities' later this year.  By having this framework in place, we will help P2P companies, ISPs and content owners find common ground to support consumers who want to use P2P applications to deliver legal content."

 

- MORE -

Comcast and Pando announcement PAGE 2

 

"At Pando, we have always believed that good P2P applications give users control.  Now we are committing to lead the industry in codifying that," said Robert Levitan, CEO of Pando Networks.  "In addition, we need more data and analysis of how P2P applications deliver content over a variety of different networks.  By sharing the test methodology and results, all P2P companies and ISPs can learn how to more efficiently deliver legal content.  This will ultimately benefit consumers who are relying on P2P programs as well as content providers who are interested in delivering their content to consumers where and how they want it."

 

 

Last week I had the pleasure of attending an event hosted by George Mason University's Information Economy Project which was focused on the topic of unlicensed spectrum.

The 10 second version: if you use Wi-Fi or a cordless phone, you're using Unlicensed Spectrum. Those 700mhz bands considered "white space" are unlicensed because to use them for TV channels would cause all sorts of TV interference. On the other hand, letting them be used for cool stuff like wide-area networks would have the same effect that the Part 85 rules did in the past (opening the door to stuff like 802.11, which is now an international standard).

It is fair to sell licenses for the exclusive right to use a chunk of spectrum. On the other hand, it is just as fair, not to mention in the public interest (see Communications Act, 1934) for the FCC to allow White Spaces to be used to develop new devices which would use the White Spaces, which are by definition public property, to provide the public with new wireless applications.

Google, MS, Dell and the rest of the White Spaces Coalition (WSC) want to keep white spaces unlicensed.  They want the unused spectrum to be available for use to anyone, the way the internet is.

Sprint and T-Mobile want white spaces to opened up as well.  But under licenses.  Specifically, they want to license the spectrum and use it for backhauling. CTIA  has joined Sprint  and T-Mo (the number 3 and 4 wireless carriers in the country) in supporting the use of white spaces under licenses.  CTIA pointed out that they're worried about interference with devices on the licensed portion of the spectrum, but FCC-mandated tests are being run on potential white space devices to make sure that doesn't happen.

I'm a little torn or the issue.  On the one hand, it would be great to be able to buy a white space device and access the internet for surfing or Skype-ing.  On the other hand Verizon and AT&T (who surprising aren't voicing opposition to the White Space Coalition) spent billions of dollars for 700MHz licenses.  Is it really fair for the WSC to roll out devices that will access that same spectrum without paying for a license?  Although the 700MHz spectrum could be used for voice calls Verizon has already stated that they're going to use theirs to roll out LTE, their next generation wireless broadband.  I don't see them as being happy with white spaces being used for the same thing.

I (as I've said close to 258,798,663,325,458 times) am not a lawyer or anything, but here's my common sense take on white spaces.

If you think (or know) that I'm way off base, please leave comments.


More on CTIA vs Unlicensed White Spaces at FireceWireless.

IE 7 was loaded onto my machine at work last week.  Currently, when compared to both IE 6 and Firefox 2.x there are things that I like and dislike.

 

First, here are some nice new things that we have in Microsoft Internet Explorer 7

 

• Tabbed browsing!  Everyone ( I think) loves tabbed browsing and it is great to see it in Internet Explorer.  I do not like that you have to select a tab in order to close it.  Firefox has the ability to kill a tab regardless of whether or not it is the active tab.  I have, however, fallen head-over-heels in love with the Quick Tabs feature.  Either by clicking an icon or using Ctrl+Q you can pull up a thumbnails of all of your active tabs.  You can actually see what's going on on each tab and then click on the one you want.  It's pretty useful if you have a lot of tabs, causing the names to get truncated.  Also, it's just pretty darned cool.
• Favorites - There are 2 little stars to the left of your tabs. One is just a star, and this will open up your favorities list.  Once it's open there are a few new things.  First, you have a regular scroll bar on the side to move up and down through your list.  Second, there are more options than just your faves.  You can click on an icon to see all of your feeds and another for your history.  There's also a pin fnction that will create a frame off to the left to keep the content on display.  Next to the plain star is a star with a plus sign.  Not only will it give you the ability to add the active page as a favorite, but you can add the entire group of tabs that you have open as a favorite.  Really cool if you have a group of sites that you need open at all times, like for work.
• The feeds button is kind of cool.  It will scan the site and see if there are any feeds available.
• Placement of Refresh and Stop bug the heck out of me, but I think that's because I'm a robot and am terrified of change.  In older versions of IE you have, across the top Back, Forward, Refresh, Stop, Address Bar.  Now?  Back, Fowards, Address Bar, Refresh, Stop.  I'm still getting a little lost when I want to refresh the screen.

 

My only other concern is speed.  I'd like it if IE 7 were a little quicker.  I'm not going to lament any shortcomings too much, because IE 8 is close on its heels.  I'm looking forward to the mapping capability of IE 8 and would like to see if it addresses any other issues.  From the articles I've read, it seems like IE 8 is more of a "Here's what IE 7 should've been" as opposed to being an entirely different animal. 

...not really. The only threat comes from brain-dead soldiers uploading photos of themselves with classified equipment or revealing information. As usual, the security flaw rests with the people, not the technology. They even say so:

The officials say some soldiers have uploaded pictures of themselves with classified equipment, inadvertently revealing sensitive information.

The rules allow soldiers to create pages on networking sites as long as they do not identify themselves as soldiers or reveal information about what they do.

Like I said, it's a slow news day.

...is still looking at the merger. Never mind that the Department of Justice Antitrust Division has given it the OK, the FCC has its' own complicated, convoluted merger review process that it has invented for itself based on the "public interest" standard it applies from the 1934 Communications Act. 

AOL's Platform-A advertising unit will be handling all of Verizon's online advertising.  If ever there was something to catapult Platform-A to another level, this is it.  It should be noted that we're talking about Verizon Communications, Inc, not Verizon Wireless.  This means that all of Verizon's online advertising, for any of their services, will be managed by Platform-A.  Seeing as Verizon offers internet services, which would compete with that same department within AOL, this announcement would lend weight to the rumors that AOL will be spinning off or selling its United States ISP operations (which they've already done in Germany and the U.K.).

 

Platform-A is AOL's revamped advertising unit.

 

Details on the deal at Reuters.

You know, I go to these conferences and hear the same people talk about new media and campaigns and getting their message across, blah blah blah but I never hear about how politicians get input from voters. Yes, there are grassroots campaigns but they are largely orchestrated and rarely come from "grass roots."

Enter Twitter. Just a few minutes ago Scoble wrote about how he uses the service versus how some people think it should be used.

But there +is+ value in having a great group of people you're following. Follow @craignewmark and you'll see what Craig is seeing or thinking (he's the founder of Craigs' List). Follow @pierre and you'll see what he's thinking (he's the founder of eBay). Follow HRBlock and you'll see what the team at H&R Block is thinking about taxes and such. Follow @newmediajim and you'll see what Jim Long, who is a camera guy in the press pool at the White House, is thinking about.

Now, do you start to get it? If you define yourself by who is following you you'll always feel inadequate. After all, you can't control your followers and any idiot can follow people. But, define yourself by who you are following and you can really build something of high value.

Do you get it? He's L I S T E N I N G. Remember when Sen. Clinton (D-NY) launched her campaign with a "listening tour?" Not much listening took place. Those town hall sessions you see? Participants are routinely screened and questions planted. We know this.

Robert has figured out what only a small number of politicians do, and those are the ones who aren't in the leadership. Remember Sen. Al D'Amato (R-NY)? He was known as "Senator Pothole" because of his commitment to his constituent services. Robert Byrd (D-WV) may be almost a century old, but he still cares about West Virginia enough to steer tons of federal funding there, and his "case work" staff is one of the best in Washington.

Talkers get headlines. Listeners get things done.

Another example? Comcast! They've got an entire program devoted to listening to social media and using new technology to connect with their constituents customers.

Listen. Listen. Listen.

If you're in @SiliconValley, you need to follow @Washington. If you're in Washington, you need to follow  @SiliconValley.  Then, you need to have a real conversation.

Patrick Ruffini is right. The next campaign managers will be online strategists who know how to listen to voters. Not pollsters, listeners.

You heard it here first.

Gary Vaynerchuk, the man behind winelibrary.tv is changing the way people look at wine.  Personally, I haven't gotten on the wine train yet.  The reason that I've started trolling the winelibrary.tv archives is that a) he's incredibly passionate and b) he's got the kind of mindset that seems to be based in a common sense that a lot of people overlook.

So, without further ado, here's why you should listen to Gary.

By now everyone is buzzing/blogging/bitching about this article where VirginMedia's CEO claims to be negotiating secret deals to have his content delivered, undermining so-called "net neutrality" principles. Money quote:

In an interview with the Royal Television Society's Television magazine, Berkett said that "this net neutrality thing is a load of b****cks", and revealed that Virgin is already in talks with unnamed content providers about paying to have their content delivered faster than others.

Just a bit of fact-clarifying for everyone:

1. Virgin Media is in the UK. The UK has a completely different infrastructure for content delivery than the U.S. does.
2. Because there is much more state-run media in the UK, their regulator "Ofcom" has far more authority to regulate content delivery systems.
   
3. Despite Ofcom's previous statements to be "hands-off" I suspect that these types of comments will probably inspire some kind of action.
4. None of this has anything to do with the U.S. where the largest Cable provider is a known enemy of FCC Chairman Kevin Martin (aka K-Mart) for their refusal to acquiesce to his desire for "a la carte" programmming.
   

Calm down, everyone. This is bloviating with no concrete effects. Wait and see.

We posted last month that Verizon wants the FCC's help in forcing cable companies to accept cancellations from competitors, as opposed to directly from the customer.  That way, if you wanted to leave your cable company to get your video services from Verizon, you would just call Verizon, sign up, and then Verizon would take care of terminating your cable account.  Currently, you would have to call Verizon to sign up and call your cable company to cancel.

Now Comcast wants the FCC to investigate, among other things, the customer retention policies of phone companies.  Why?  Because the same way you can get television from a phone company (like Verizon or AT&T) you can get phone service from a cable company (like Comcast).  Comcast is worried that certain retention policies may be anti-competitive. 

From what I've dealt with when I want to cancel a non-contract service, the retention department wouldn't appear to be anti-competitive.  They usually try to figure out why I'm canceling and then usually offer me something for free to try and change my mind.  Canceling a TV subscription will probably get you an offer for a free month of HBO.  Canceling a mobile phone account and you'll probably be offered a free month of wireless web access.  Are those really anti-competitive?  Are retention offers like that really any different than being offered cable internet for only $19.99 per month...for the first three months?  When you look at it, retention offers and introductory ones are pretty much the same thing - a special deal to make you pick them over someone else.  The only difference is that one is used before you're their customer and the other one is used when it looks like you might not be for much longer.

So, what would be an anti-competitive retention policy?  If they made you fax in a notarized letter stating that you want to terminate your service, that might be.  Or if you have to call one department to request a cancellation.  Then another to get a confirmation code and then call the first one back with the confirmation code so that they can cancel your service.  Basically, anything that would make canceling seem like such an ordeal that you decide not to would, to me, seem like anti-competitive behavior.

Obviously, I'm not a lawyer, but in the same way that the FCC is meeting to define just what constitutes "reasonable network management," it would be nice if e could have a clear definition regarding what retention practices are and are not anti-competitive.

"It is important that we do everything we can to maximize consumer choice and reduce rates." FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said in a statement on Friday. "In today's competitive telecommunications market we must make sure that there is a level playing field for all companies to compete."

Quote from Reuters.

Here's a great photo Tanja Barnes shot of me and Craig talking at TPS. Interview can be found here.

I was five years old when this was filmed. I still haven't seen anything like it, and I go to a ton of concerts.

I think we've all encountered a Short Code, whether we knew it or not.  Any time that a TV show or radio station wants you to send a text message to a 5-digit number, you're being asked to use a Short Code.  Some cost extra money (especially those bastardly ones that sign you up for the joke of the day) and some just cost the same as a regular text message.  They're used for a variety of purposes.  San Francisco alt rock radio station Live 105 (KITS) uses them to conduct listener polls and as an avenue for receiving requests.  Twitter uses them so that you can send and receive Tweets via SMS.

Carriers have to reach agreements with the companies that distribute content and information via Short Code before their subscribers will have access to them.  Verizon Wireless (VZW) caused quite a stink when they decided not to allow pro-choice organization NARAL to distribute Opt-In messages to its subscribers via Short Code SMS.  VZW quickly reversed their decision.

Ars Technica has details on why the FCC should get involved

Tech freedom advocacy group Public Knowledge, Free Press and other groups were unsatisfied with Verizon's turnaround and have asked the FCC to issue a clear policy position that will block Verizon from engaging in similar practices in the future. Noting that the FCC already unambiguously forbids similar discrimination in voice calls and e-mails, the activist groups argue that there is no reason why those same protections shouldn't extend to SMS messaging, especially since it is becoming an increasingly important vector for communication.

Verizon has also been accused of denying short code access to companies that intend to use SMS to promote of facilitate services that compete directly with other services offered by the carrier. Critics argue that this practice stifles innovation and discourages third-party development of some SMS-based services that are potentially advantageous to consumers.

The first paragraph makes a lot of (common) sense.  I mean, if you can use your mobile phone to make an appointment at planned parenthood, why can't you receive equally pro-choice text messages?  There's always the argument (expressed later in the article) that if carriers are limited in censoring of text messages that spam messages could run amok.  Well, not really.  Federal Law already prohibits the heck out of that.

The second paragraph that we included sounds more than a little like the net neutrality stories that we've posted about (like Comcast and BitTorrent).  Could mobile phone carriers do the same thing by limiting Short Code access?  We've all seen ads on TV telling us to text something like VERYNICE to 12345 to get buy a Borat ringtone.  All of our mobile phone carriers sell ringtones too.  Well, if they decide that they'd rather have you buy their Ali G ringtone as opposed to someone else's, they could deny your access to that company's Short Codes.

The Net Neutrality/Reasonable Network Management debate and the one about Short Codes go hand-in-hand.  Seeing as how there would appear to be a precedent forbidding the restrictions on a voice call because of content, the same would seem to apply to text message content as well.  If that argument hold up, then, seeing as how Short Code/SMS censorship is so similar to "Reasonable Network Management" that could help usher in official Net Neutrality legislation.

Full article at Ars Technica.

So here we are.  It's Saturday and I decided that it's time we give you a roundup of what's been going on in the wireless phone industry over the last week.  It isn't everything that's been going on, but what we though was interesting.  Why?  Because I'm pretty sure that everyone reading this has a mobile phone.  Also, I just think the stuff's pretty darned cool.

• First, we have the week-ending stock prices of the Big 4 - Please note that we're organizing these from highest-to-lowest based on price per share, not by size like we usually do.

So here's the breakdown of the Big 4, as of last trade on Friday, 4/11 -

AT&T - $37.30
Verizon - $35.59
Deutsche Telekom (T-Mobile) - $17.57
Sprint  - $6.47

Stock prices from Yahoo! Finance.

• A big one is the FCC's April 9th announcement (and subsequent approval) of a Nation-wide text message alert system.  Whether it's a potential terrorist attack, earthquake or AMBER Alert, you can be notified via text message.  Sprint has said they'll make the notifications available to their customers as soon as the system is in place.  AT&T said that they would as well, pending review of the details.

We hoped the major media outlets would get to it eventually, and the Post has finally done it. Sort of. 

About 10 million coupons have been ordered through the agency, and about 3.8 million coupons have been sent to consumers, according to the NTIA. But only about 1 percent of the coupons have been redeemed. By law, the coupons expire 90 days after they are issued.

That mandated expiration poses a problem for Spence Haynes, who lives in Salisbury, Md. His coupon expires next month, but the box he wants -- a $40 box made byEchoStar -- is not expected to hit shelves until summer.

He also wants a box that can still receive the analog signals from some community broadcasters, which are not yet required to switch to digital programming. Federal officials said several boxes already have this capability, and they expect more to be available soon.

"I just want to make sure I have access to all the options out there before these coupons turn into pumpkins," Haynes said.

At a hearing Tuesday, members of the Senate Commerce Committee expressed concern that consumers, especially those living in rural areas, may lose some programming. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) worried that people who live far from broadcast towers may have trouble receiving the digital signal, even with a converter box.

"They're going to think they did everything right and then get no signal," Klobuchar said.

Kevin J. Martin, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, and Meredith Baker, acting assistant secretary of the NTIA, assured senators that their agencies' awareness efforts have been effective.

Baker said consumers shouldn't have a problem receiving the signals if they reposition their antennas. She also said not all converter boxes were required to receive analog signals because such a feature could degrade the picture quality and increase the cost.

The law doesn't care about Mr. Haynes fairy godmother, and neither does K-Mart or the Acting head of the NTIA (since everyone who gets that job quits). They say everything is hunky-dory, right? 

Harold M. Ickes is as close to Democratic Party royalty as they get. The son of FDR's Interior Secretary, he was a Deputy Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton, and now serves as an adviser to Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) in her own White House bid.

Catalist is transforming the way progressive organizations communicate and campaign by creating a comprehensive, well-maintained national database of all voting-age individuals in the United States, along with the tools and expertise needed to make this database broadly accessible, at an affordable price.

So I was looking at the Reuters this morning and saw an article that kind of annoyed me.  Not because of the reporting (top-notch) but because the article highlighted a lack of personal responsibility and a certain sense of entitlement that really bugs me.

Many people are uncomfortable with Web sites customizing content to people's personal profiles, according to a new survey.

"There's a creepy factor and a fear of the unknown that people don't want to deal with," said Michelle Warren, senior research analyst at Info-Tech Research Group in London, Ontario.

"The notion that there's a privacy issue in someone's email account hits a little too close to home for some," she added.

Nearly 60 percent of 2,513 people in the United States questioned in a Harris Interactive poll said they were uneasy when Web sites use information about personal online activity to tailor advertisements or content.

 

In a nutshell, the story related how a lot of people are uncomfortable with websites tracking their activity for the purposes of targeted advertising.  I understand that some people find it creepy, but it's nothing new. 

Courtesy of Potomac Flack and the wonders of this Facebook group:

You might be a Hill Staffer if:

? Indy is not a form of music
? No one looks at you funny when you sleep at the office
? A perfect boyfriend/girlfriend is someone who can actually put up with your work hours
? You know that perfect person doesn't exist
? You work insane hours for little money. . . And you love it
? Your friends visit your office to make sure you're still alive
? Therapy is something you wish you could get for free after the election
? Your track record, has nothing to do with sports
? Your best friend's name is Blackberry
? You have played some kind of sport in your office at least once (i.e. baseball, kickball, football, basketball, etc.)
? You have come to work when you look like you're about to keel over and die
? And you did it by choice
? Your car doubles as a closet during campaign season because frankly, you're not quite sure when you'll get home
? You have gone 48 hours plus without sleep
? Your desk kind of reminds you of the movie Twister, well after the tornado hit
? You watch either 24 or the West Wing compulsively
? When your power goes out or your telephone is disconnected you immediately blame it on the Democrats, or Republicans
? You have encountered at least 3 volunteers whom you are sure escaped from a Mental Institution
? All your friends say how "professional and cute" you look while you're running around on your blackberry trying to prevent Armageddon

Remember when Google bought DoubleClick and the FTC reluctantly agreed to it? Well, now come the layoffs, after a bunch of employees signed non-compete agreements.

8. Covenant Regarding Competition. I agree that for a period of one (1) year after my employment with the Company terminates, I shall not (a) engage in any employment, business or activity that is competitive with the Company's businesses; or (b) solicit business from, do business with or render services to, in any capacity, directly or indirectly, any entity that is or was a Company client or customer within the last twelve months of my employment with the Company, for a purpose or in a manner that is in any way competitive with the Company's business. If, during or after my employment with the Company, I seek work elsewhere, I agree to provide a copy of this Agreement to any person or entities seeking to hire me before accepting employment with or engagement by any such person or entity.

9. Solicitation of Employees. I agree that for a period of twelve (12) months immediately following the
termination of my relationship with the Company for any reason, whether with or without cause, I shall not either directly or indirectly solicit, induce, recruit or encourage any of the Company's employees to leave their employment, or take away such employees, or attempt to solicit, induce, recruit, encourage or take away employees of the Company, either for myself or for any other person or entity.

Now, notwithstanding that non-competes are unenforceable in many states (I'm not sure about CA), if the employer acted in bad faith, I can imagine that if this included enough employees it could turn into a class-action lawsuit. Why?

As a result of the recent California court decision in D'Sa v. Playhut, this approach by employers has been called into serious question.  Prior California cases have held that inclusion of an unenforceable noncompete provision could be the basis of a violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 16600 (which 

voids any contract provisions that restrain an individual from engaging in his or her lawful profession, trade or business) and could possibly lead to penalties under the Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (which prohibits unfair trade practices). In D'Sa, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District took these rulings a step further by holding that such a provision may subject an employer to liability.

Despite the "don't be evil" motto, I suspect Google could have a hard time defending themselves in court against this one, as California's court system has a very dim view of Non-Competes.

So, last year the Federal Trade Commission announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on "behavioral targeting" on which comments are due Friday. So, the National Advertising Initiative has proposed their own set of rules in the hopes that the FTC will adopt them instead of more restrictive ones that the public might want.

The essence of the proposal is to identify sensitive subjects that advertising companies should not keep track of. Here is the list:

1) Certain medical/health conditions-

• HIV/ AIDS status
• Sexually-related conditions (e.g., sexually transmitted diseases, erectile
• dysfunction)
• Psychiatric conditions
• Cancer status
• Abortion-related

2) Certain personal life information-

• Sexual behavior/orientation/identity (i.e., Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender)
• Criminal victim status (e.g., rape victim status)

The association also published a list of other topics that advertising companies may choose to consider sensitive, but then again they may not. This is the list of those topics the group suggests require "independent business judgment about what consumers could find particularly objectionable, but often do not."

Age, addictions (e.g., drugs, alcohol, gambling), alienage or nationality, criminal history, death, disability, ethnic affiliation, marital status, philosophical beliefs, political affiliation or opinions, pregnancy, race identification, religious affiliation (or lack thereof), trade union membership

Bits noticed that targeting ads to dead people might be OK under the NAI rules. Also included is a restriction on monitoring for advertising related to topics for children under 13, which is part of the FTC's NPRM. Technically, children under 13 are already a protected category, so this changes nothing except that they will stop monitoring for topics, since it's already illegal to target individual children based on their cookie histories. 

Wired News has picked up on the massive "user revolt" over Flickr's new video features.

The big issue is the way it was implemented," said Jason Bouwmeester, a systems analyst in Canada and one of the group administrators for No Video on Flickr. "There was no public beta.... They just reset everyone's settings."

Quite rightly, Underwired (that's Wired's oh-so-clever Blog name) points out that the new feature takes away from Flickr's purpose - photography.

"I had hoped my [Pro membership fee] would go to fixing issues with the site, not to starting a video application," said Bouwmeester. "I can't see them reverting [the video service] altogether, but they should have some way for users to ignore it."

I hope people complain as loud when their taxes get raised and their roads don't get fixed. Yahoo should take a lesson from good business and good government, and give the Flickr "taxpayers" a ROI instead of stuff they don't need.

I've written some of my best articles on flights home. Now I realize why:

Four weeks ago I had 5,250 emails in my inbox. Today? 10.

What's the difference? I've been on lots of airplanes in the past month. Why is that important? Because in airplanes there's no Internet. Nothing to distract you. I find I can answer about 10x more email in a plane than I can on the ground when the Internet is there to distract me.

That taught me an important lesson.

Want to get something done? Turn off Twitter. Turn off Facebook. Turn off blog comments. Turn off FriendFeed. Turn off Flickr. Turn off YouTube. Turn off Dave Winer's blog and Huffington Post. Turn off TechMeme.

Turn off the distractions.

Wow. That's blunt. On the other hand, maybe Congress would get more done if cable news didn't generate another outrage to be handled every few days. Think about it. How many "action alerts" generate tons of constituent spam from people who are barely interest in a cause? Just enough to fill out a form, not enough to call. What if Congress only listened to those who cared enough to do more than click a few buttons? Is E-Government really the answer, or do we need to slow down and pay attention to the most intense voices instead of the ones that repeat the same message over and over again? 

24 hour news cycle. Email. Twitter. RSS feeds. Click to complain forms. Nancy Grace. Turn it all off. 

Good advice.

Last weekend, Michael Arrington at TechCrunch had some trouble with his cable just as a New York Times article featuring him hit the front page. So, after a ton of frustration, he Twittered about it. What he didn't expect was that his "tweet" would lead to a phone call, and a resolution. He wrote about it here.

Microsoft announced its new Clearflow technology.  Clearflow will allow for web-based driving directions that can create a route designed to avoid traffic.  That's great.  That's fantastic.

 

Here's my problem - It's accessed through their live.com website.  If you select Maps and then Traffic, a map of the U.S. will pop up with icons over the 72 cities currently supported.  Very cool.  But where's the mobile support?

 

On my BlackBerry, which handles the web pretty darned well, I couldn't pull up the traffic options.  I tried it with my browser emulation set to BlackBerry, Pocket IE and even regular Microsoft IE and none of them would display the traffic options.  The first 2 displayed the incredibly neutered mobile version of the live.com site and the last one displayed a fuller, albeit format-challenged, site that still didn't have the traffic option.

 

I think that being able to see traffic on a map or have it factored in when you get a set of directions is great.  Needing to access it from a computer as opposed to a mobile device neuters it.  Sure, I can pull up my directions and print them out before I go, but that isn't the same.  Traffic changes far too quickly for that to be effective.

 

Here's your route, determined to be the fastest based on traffic...from 20 minutes ago when you were getting ready to leave the house.

 

See the problem?  I'm not out to bash MS or anything, but at the same time, I'm not going to get excited about Clearflow until there's mobile compatibility.  And I won't be really excited if the only compatibility is for Pocket IE and no other browsers. 

 

Unless MS wants to send me a free HTC Touch.  Then I'll get over it.  Totally.

 

Details at Reuters.

Despite canceling their meeting today, the Commissioners did manage to do what they love most - issuing fines.  While these aren't quite as...sexy...as those levied against various broadcasters for showing glimpses of buttocks or televising Bono, they actually serve a purpose - to punish big box retailers who have been selling TVs that won't receive digital signals, or not properly labeling them as such.

Sears, Roebuck, K-Mart $1,096,000 

Wal-Mart Stores/Sam's West $992,000 

Circuit CityStores $712,000 

Fry's Electronics $384,000 

Target Corporation $296,000 

Best Buy Co. Inc. $280,000 

CompUSA, Inc. $168,000 

Total:     $3,928,000

Of course, this means nothing in the larger context of the looming disaster next February when grandma, having failed to go to notice the poster at the Post Office or the DMV, turns on her favorite set to get...nothing.

You would think this would be common sense, but it comes up before the FEC constantly: are Bloggers making campaign contributions when they write for or against a candidate or issue? Since the rise of Internet grassroots, partisans on either side have tried to neuter the effect of bloggers of the other side by lobbying the FEC to restrict or penalize them in one way or another. To date, the FEC has been sane and said no.

"...any uncompensated personal services related to Internet activities, or use of equipment or services for uncompensated Internet activities, that 

are engaged in by any individual, group of individuals, or corporation wholly owned by one or more individuals that engages primarily in Internet activities and does not derive a substantial portion of its revenue from sources other than income from its Internet activities..."

Also, Linking is ok!

"The term 'Internet activity' includes sending or forwarding electronic messages, 

providing a hyperlink or other direct access to another person's Web site, blogging, creating, maintaining, or hosting a Web site, paying a nominal fee for the use of another person's Web site, and any other form of communication distributed over the Internet.''

Finally, Hensarling's Act explicitly defines "blogs" as media. You know, it's not just Democrats that understand the Internet. Finally, I can prove it.

Section 301(9)(B)(i) of the Federal Election Cam- 

paign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(9)(B)(i)) is amended by 

inserting ''including any Internet or electronic publication 

(including a blog),'' after ''periodical publication,''. 

 

Silicon Alley Insider reports on something that would have once filled my heart with dread: AOL and Yahoo! merging:

The WSJ confirms that a Yahoo-AOL deal may be imminent. Earlier, Rafat Ali at PaidContenthad speculated that the Yahoo-Google search partnership could pave the way for a Yahoo-AOL merger announcement, perhaps as early as next week. (YHOO) (TWX)

Not sure how to handle this one...but the FTC will have a real good time.

Just over a month ago, we put up a post wondering aloud if text messages could be used to help keep us safe.  To summarize, we all know that you can receive a text message from Twitter when your buddies post something and get notified if your favorite got booted from American Idol, but I wanted to know about the feasibility of being warned about natural disasters or other emergency situations.

 

We found that some carriers (most notably and for the longest time Sprint/Nextel) can send you a text message if there's an AMBER Alert in your area and we even found that some NBC affiliates (like mine here in the Bay Area and Andrew's in DC) can alert you to things like severe weather.

 

So, despite having to hunt for someone to provide the alerts, the answer to the question - Can text messages help keep us safe? - seemed to be "Yes."  According to CNN.com, the FCC agrees.

 

An FCC representative let them know that either today or tomorrow the FCC will announce plans for a nationwide SMS (fancy-pants industry term for Text message) system to relay information about natural disasters, AMBER Alerts, and even warning about possible terrorist attacks and other national security issues.  The last set of messages coming directly from Barack Obama.  Why Barack?  Because I'm personally willing him into the Oval Office.  But getting back to the story, the alerts regarding terrorism would come directly from the President.

 

AT&T pretty much said that they'd offer the alerts to their customers, but left themselves an out by saying that they'd need to review the details.  Sprint/Nextel offered a pretty resounding yes - remember that they're the guys (well, on the pre-merger Nextel side) who have had AMBER Alerts available for longer than any other carrier.

 

I said it before, but I think that this application of text messages is amazing.  A technology that started as a very niche, very "fun" service is now evolving into something that can enhance public safety to the point now that the Federal Government has taken notice. 

 

Is there anyone reading who would be interested in receiving messages like that?  Is there something else that you'd like to be notified of?  Don't be afraid to comment or email.

 

Full source article at CNN.com

Our Original post here

"It's official: Congress has given up on the actual world."

Note: We Live Blogged this hearing when it actually happened.