Recently in Lobbying Category

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. 

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.

This panel (a good one) is about how much tech policy will influence the next President. Panelists include:

It's been less than a week since the 700mhz auction winners were revealed, but already Google is making its' next move, and treading close to territory that Microsoft has stepped in before and failed: that of so-called White Spaces, the signal "between" the new DTV channels. 

The focus of Google's latest lobbying effort is the so-called "white spaces" portion of the TV spectrum, the unused slivers that lie between regulated TV signals. A coalition of US technology companies, including Google, has argued for some time that those pieces of spectrum could be assembled to support a new high-speed wireless service.

Technical challenges have hindered that effort and reinforced claims by US broadcasters that a new service would interfere with the surrounding TV signals.

Most embarrassingly, a Microsoft device failed FCC tests last year, although the software company said later that part of the machine had been broken and a repaired version had operated adequately.

Google proposed Monday what Mr Whitt called a "belt and suspenders" approach to the technology. Along with the controversial "spectrum sensing" approach used by Microsoft and others, which tries to identify which parts of the spectrum are in use to avoid interference, it backed a Motorola plan that would prevent a device from transmitting on a particular wave length until it had received a specific "all clear" signal from a local transmitter.

Google also went further in suggesting that parts of the spectrum should be off-limits entirely.

Could the two giants get along on this issue? We'll see...

It's Larry Lessig's Change Congress badge. I support his overall effort, and three of the four specific points of his campaign, except one.

I start law school this August, in the evenings. If I can end up as 1/10th the lawyer, or 1/100th the person this man is, it will be worth it.

and they've got their one long ball hitter...the news has already been reported, and the press release is out. Facebook has hired a COO, and not just any executive, it's Shoeless Joe Hardy Google's Sheryl Sandberg.

As COO, Sandberg will be responsible for helping Facebook scale its operations and expand its presence globally. Sandberg will manage sales, marketing, business development, human resources, public policy, privacy and communications and will report directly to Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

Note the last three in her portfolio...Sean Garrett has some idea of what that means.

First off, before she was at Google, she was Chief of Staff to the U.S. Treasury Secretary under President Bill Clinton. She carried this DC experience to Google where she was one of the few executives there openly and actively involved in politics. 

We've had a string of posts on Comcast's repeated anti-consumer actions regarding "reasonable network management" and their throttling of BitTorrent downloads.  We also covered the fact that they hired people to take up space at an open FCC hearing on the subject to keep out people who might not have been there to cheer for Comcast.  Now their shenanigans have brought Net Neutrality into the spotlight and FCC Chairman Kevin Martin may be ready to make his move.

The scoop from Broadcasting & Cable

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 3/3/2008

The issue of network neutrality was back with a vengeance last week, with Comcast in the hot seat and FCC Chairman Kevin Martin leading the interrogation.

Network neutrality is an umbrella term for the debate over whether the FCC or Congress needs to spell out what broadband networks--essentially, an entity like Comcast.net that provides an Internet connection to customers--can and can't do in managing Internet traffic to their customers.

Martin said last week he thought the FCC had the authority to fine or otherwise penalize Comcast if allegations of blocking peer-to-peer file-sharing services are true. Comcast says the allegations aren't true, but according to Martin, the FCC is taking the matter very seriously.

It certainly seemed that way. At a day-long open meeting on network management practices last week, Martin repeatedly grilled pro-network-neutrality advocates about the allegations against Comcast, which was represented at the meeting by Executive VP David Cohen.

More fuel was added to the fire after activists accused Comcast of packing the meeting with its own executives. Comcast denied that but admitted to hiring line-sitters, not to keep out the public, but rather to accommodate its interested employees.

...

And while trying to define "network neutrality" was the seemingly impossible quest when the issue dominated the telecom agenda in the last Congress, "What is 'reasonable network management?'" appears to be the $64,000 question this time around.

The issue is more than an academic question for content companies. Much of the bandwidth-heavy content in question is the sort of high-resolution video that studios and networks are increasingly putting on the Web.

Indeed, the other company complaining about Comcast, online content distributor VUSE, pointed out during the hearing that the content it is distributing using the peer-to-peer application includes programming from CBS, Showtime, A&E and others.

Mike McCurry, co-chair of Hands Off the Internet Coalition, the anti-regulation net-neutrality group, contends that legislation, rather than FCC enforcement of its own guidelines, could be a big problem. "[Content providers] really need to watch this debate because regulated network neutrality is a killer for them," McCurry says. "It basically makes it impossible for network providers to manage data flow that would give the consumer a satisfactory experience."

McCurry says that Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass), House Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee chairman, is clearly signaling that this will be the year for the debate because the U.S. will have a new president, a new commission and a new Congress in 2009. "It is a good time right now for people concerned, particularly the content providers, to think about what kind of universe they want to live in," he says.

So Comcast's actions have brought it to the forefront, but now what?  The content providers are sure to argue (probably on their own, sadly) that there should be true neutrality and that the ISPs should just provide the gateway to the content and call it a day.  I'm sorry, but that won't happen.  Do you really think that multi-billion dollar companies are going to accept legislation that effectively says that they have no control over their own network?  I'm sorry, but no.

If the various content providers would band together, maybe with VUZE, the so-far largest and most vocal, at the helm they'd have a better chance of reaching a compromise that doesn't favor the "big boys"; the ISPs.  This definitely plays into one of Andrew's big things, which is that a lot of tech companies seem to ignore Washington.  If the content providers were represented by one single entity they might have the weight, not to push around, but to bargain on an equal lever with Comcast, AOL Time/Warner and Cox.

Time/Warner mentioned possibly going to a pay-per-use system where, like your electric bill, you would get charged accordingly with your usage.  That way, instead of limiting high-bandwidth users who pay the same flat rate as casual users they would just pay more.  Unfortunately, Comcast's actions have forced the FCC to jump in and probably in a big way.

With all the changes in Washington in the next year everyone will be looking to make their mark - can you really make a bigger mark than the one you'd make by putting a giant like Comcast in their place?

Apple invests $782,000,000 per year  into Research and Development, according to their annual report for 2007. This didn't include $75,000,000 for iPhone software development.

They also spent $467,000,000 on advertising in 2007.

What's missing?

Apple also understands that they need to deal with regulations. Quoth their Annual Report:

The Company is subject to risks associated with laws, regulations and industry-imposed standards related to mobile communications devices.

Laws and regulations related to mobile communications devices in the many jurisdictions in which the Company operates are extensive and subject to change. Such changes, which could include but are not limited to restrictions on production, manufacture, distribution, and use of the device, locking the device to a carrier's network, or mandating the use of the device on more than one carrier's network, may have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition and operating results.

Mobile communication devices, such as iPhone, are subject to certification and regulation by governmental and standardization bodies, as well as by cellular network carriers for use on their networks. These certification processes are extensive and time consuming, and could result in additional testing requirements, product modifications or delays in product shipment dates, which may have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition and operating results.

They also get the whole "DRM" thing:

The Company relies on third-party digital content, which may not be available to the Company on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

The Company contracts with third parties to offer their digital content through the Company's iTunes Store. The Company pays substantial fees to obtain the rights to this content. The Company's licensing arrangements with these third parties are short-term and do not guarantee the continuation or renewal of these arrangements on reasonable terms, if at all. Some third-party content providers currently or may in the future offer competing products and services, and could take action to make it more difficult or impossible for the Company to license their content in the future. Other content owners, providers or distributors may seek to limit the Company's access to, or increase the total cost of, such content. If the Company is unable to continue to offer a wide variety of content at reasonable prices with acceptable usage rules, or continue to expand its geographic reach, the Company's financial condition and operating results may be materially adversely affected.

Many third-party content providers require that the Company provide certain digital rights management ("DRM") and other security solutions. If these requirements change, the Company may have to develop or license new technology to provide these solutions. There is no assurance the Company will be able to develop or license such solutions at a reasonable cost and in a timely manner. In addition, certain countries have passed or may propose legislation that would force the Company to license its DRM, which could lessen the protection of content and subject it to piracy and could also affect arrangements with the Company's content providers.

Notice something missing here? Apple operates the largest music and video download service in the world. Their ability to provide that service is dependent on the willingness of network operators to not interfere with Apple's customers who rent their movies on their AppleTV instead of say, using their Digital Cable or Satellite Set Top Box. 

In other words, while they admit they're dependent on third-party content, they refuse to acknowledge their reliance on "third-party bandwidth."

Meanwhile, tomorrow the FCC will meet to hear about net neutrality issues, again. Apple, and in particular Steve Jobs, has shown an ability to move entire industries to make more consumer-friendly choices. You can get most TV shows and movies on iTunes now. Who would have imagined that even 4 years ago?

Yet, Apple's continued ability to innovate is completely tied to the goodwill of say, Verizon, who may want to save more bandwidth for their own VoD "rental" service, or another network operator using some kind of "reasonable management" when iTunes downloads reach a critical mass, especially once more people start renting or buying HD content.

Which brings me to the most shocking number of all:

$20,000.

That's how little Apple has spent on lobbyists in Washington during the 2nd half of 2007. What's more shocking, is despite launching iPhone, and making preparations to launch the improved AppleTV last month, here's what they spent their $20k on:

H.R. 1908/S.1145, The Patent Reform Act of 2007; Section 115 of the U.S. Copyright Act: Compulsory Licensing of EU Copyright Directive.

That's from their year-end 2007 Lobbying Disclosure Act report. They didn't so much as make a single contact with the FCC during the last half of 2007.

Last January, Apple Computer became just "Apple," because they were starting to sell more than computers. You would think they would be interested in protecting their new revenue streams, and the networks that allow them to be such innovators in content distribution to all consumers.

Time to ante up, Steve.

I just wanted to thank the people out there who've reacted to Scobleizer's remarks from Friday, and point out one person who I should have looked up a while back.

What about all of the rest of the social web/Web 2.0 movement? Facebook now has a single rep in Washington. MySpace has its NewsCorp lobbyists. What about everyone else?

Washington and tech should have hugely mutually beneficial relationship--the internet is what will power the U.S. economy for the coming decades--but so far they're like oil and water. That's bad news for the country and bad news for the economy. And it's terrible news for geeks.

Finally, someone else in this town who gets it. I can't wait to meet this guy. Garrett, let's talk...maybe we can get something done.