Recently in Tech Policy Summit Category
Posted to Capitol Valley Media | Tech Policy Summit
Natalie Fonseca at Tech Policy Summit passed along this photo of National Journal's Andrew Noyes and I blogging furiously in LA last week. Andrew rocks, his blog is a must-read, and to top it off he's an R.E.M. fan.
Back safely ensconced in the Eastern Time Zone, I can finally say a few things and "exhale."
- Do not Red-Eye if you can help it. If you must, follow Andrew Noyes' lead and take VirginAmerica. I know I'm going to check it out.
- Conferences are much more fun to cover when they are focused. I enjoyed the networking and atmosphere at SXSW in general, but in terms of things to write about, the guys at Tech Policy Summit put on a great event. Pretty much every issue that I care about and I try to bring to you, the loyal and stalwart readers, was touched on in some way. I can't wait for next year's. Not only is it in the Bay Area and closer to many of the players, it means I can crash on Alex's floor.
- So far the great wireless experiment has been great. All those photos you can see on Flickr have been uploaded without the use of a single cable, in almost real time. The Eye-Fi isn't without problems, but my set-up has allowed for some cool things. I'll do a better write-up on it this weekend since several people asked about it.
A few shout-outs. Natalie Fonseca and Marc Licciardi at TPS arranged my getting there and helped me out while I was covering their great event, along with Cathy Rought from Dittus Communications, who was invaluable in putting me in touch with some great people to talk to. Mozelle Thompson and Alec Ross were great sports about getting back-to-back questioning in panels, and Jon Taplin was his usual fantastic self.
Special thanks go to my interview subjects, including Jim Williams, Brian Knapp, Prith Banerjee and Gary Fazzino, as well as the incredible Craig Newmark.
Andrew Noyes gave some good placement to our photo coverage at Tech Daily Dose, and Adam Theirer was so impressed with our coverage he didn't even bother to do any blogging himself. Plus, he had possibly the best, brightest green sport jacket I've ever seen yesterday. We have proof!
If I missed you, yell at me appropriately. Back to work.
Tonight we'll recap Day 2 of the Tech Policy Summit over at Blog Talk Radio.
So head on over to www.blogtalkradio.com/Capitol-Valley at 9pm Pacific/ 12am Eastern and listen live.
Even better idea? Call us at 347-945-5989 and let us know what's up.
So head on over to www.blogtalkradio.com/Capitol-Valley at 9pm Pacific/ 12am Eastern and listen live.
Even better idea? Call us at 347-945-5989 and let us know what's up.
Andrew Keen, Author of Cult of the Amateur
Gregg Spiridellis, JibJab CEO
Jonathan Taplin, USC
There is some discussion of a "Copyright tax" to allow more free trade of content and compensate copyright holders.
I've missed a whole bunch of this, but I walked in to hear Jonathan Taplin talk about the DMCA as the "Lawyer's Preservation Act."
Keen thinks there would be a massive user rebellion over the tax. Spiradellis thinks that content is a communications tool, and that they won't pay for "linear content" like TV shows but they will pay for things like e-cards.
Keen: Most blogs suck, the vast majority of content is awful. We have less time and more things to do.
Taplin says that the current content model is monetizing based on directed and CPM, and that may work and may not work.
I'm sorry, but I can't keep up. That's it for TPS 2008. I'll be in DC in the morning, possibly a podcast with Alex tonight.
Even Andrew Noyes has checked out. I'm hanging in there.
"Leading the Way in Broadband Innovation: What Should the US Strategy Be?"
Ambassador Richard Russell, President's office on Science and Technology Policy
Milo Medin - CTO, M2Z Networks
Susan Crawford, Visiting Professor, Yale Law School
Joe Waz, VP of External Affairs and Public Policy, Comcast
Quick hit and run liveblogging:
Crawford - Broadband is not Internet Access. We've failed to have an industrial policy pushing access, we have no competition, and that "Shamu and Godzilla" are battling with bundles. Internet Access is a utility like electricity, sewers, etc.
Waz - Cable is a historical accident: CATV was originally built to bring TV signals to people who couldn't get it. He thinks wireless will lead to competition, and that we're gonna have multiple wireline providers "trying to beat the tar out of each other." Docsis 3.0 is being spurred by Verizon FiOS. Bundles are pushing adoption (cites Triple Play).
Moderator Wildstrom asks if there is a contradiction between the idea of competition and the idea of Internet as a monopoly. Punts to Crawford, who believes that this is a natural monopoly, and that 700mhz as a "third pipe" is a pipe dream (my words, not hers). She believes whoever provides access should be considered a utility. Calls Comcast a bandwidth hog for using their bandwidth for TV.
Medin calls her idea "a travesty."
Russell also disagrees. Two ways to look at problem: a) one heavily regulated carrier or b) multiple providers and have marketplace competing at multiple levels in different ways. Right now? We have the worst of both worlds in competition between cable and telcos, but not alot. All networks, except FiOS are retrofitted to carry the Internet. Hard to hit a Gigabit with Wireless, but some people would rather have ubiquity than higher speeds (like me!).
Russell wants a 4th and 5th pipe somehow, and believes that would drive prices down dramatically.
Crawford says by a utility, she means non-discrimination.
Waz responds to the "bandwidth hog" comment by saying that must-carry is a bandwidth hog. DOCSIS 3.0 will allow more channel bonding. Crawford agrees, but as an Internet provider, TV is still a bandwidth hog (she says).
Wildstrom: Do we need Universal Service for Broadband?
Russell: Universal Service is good, but can be cautionary tale because it could deter new market entrants who aren't getting subsidy.
Wildstrom: No excuse for huge POTS Universal Service fund.
Medin agrees, and says that we should target infrastructure by geographic need.
Crawford has hope for White Spaces, despite her skepticism on wireless.
Russell: Hybrid systems could be a solution for rural areas. The developing world is going wireless. Poorest slums in Kenya are filled with mobile phones, it's the first thing people buy.
Waz: Why are we talking about Net Neutrality instead of fixing "digital divide?" Net Neutrality and FCC involvement is irrelevant. He wants the "fine minds of Palo Alto" on rural access.
Crawford: Why not make rural access open? Why can't we have both?
Medin: Traffic shaping dates back to NSFNet, not new at all. Question w/ management is "what is the goal?"
Crawford is wary of the network operators having too much control...refers to common carrier system. Medin thinks that's crap. His solution to Net Neutrality is to have more networks! "Competition can discipline the system..." Notes that FCC grants tons of waivers to licensees who don't build out.
Russell: what we want to avoid is anticompetitive behavior, and the FCC is doing a good job of being "the cop on the beat..."
Wildstrom: Authors of '96 Telecommunications Act thought they were creating competion. Why did that fail? Was it killed by anticompetitive behavior?
Waz: You don't expect someone to share something they built that would result in their own demise...put a ten year freeze on voice over cable. Government needs to "clear the way"
Crawford agrees that the protracted litigation around '96 Act killed it, but the separation between the content and the provider was a good idea.
Medin: '96 Act was a compromise, engineers don't like compromise. Compromising on engineering leads "crap for policy...cutting the baby in half."
Russell: Remember the '96 Act took 10 years to write, should have been called the '86 Act. Had way too much to do with Long Distance and wrongly believed that competition could exist by everyone sharing the same 80 year old copper wire.
Crawford: The '96 hardly mentions the 'net except for the defunct CDA.
Russell asks Crawford if because of uncertainty on FCC's interpretation of Title I of '96 Act, people aren't writing code. Crawford segues into a Net Neutrality argument, but Medin cuts her off and notes that lots of business are getting funded that depend on networks, and if someone does something egregious, it'll get dealt with by competition. Medin is still arguing for more pipes..."if you don't like Comcast, jump on FiOS."
That's it for this panel...one more to go, let's see if I can survive.
Talking with Declan McCullough, Ashwin Navin scored a few cool points. He noted that many companies are using BT distribution to distribute legitimate content, and at Declan's prodding, takes issue with the earlier claim that most P2P traffic is pirated.
For the company itself, it's still small. 55 employees, no Washington lobbyists. They want to sell their technology to companies who want to make P2P a higher margin part of their business.
Navin believes that P2P will be adopted by people who need to save money on distributing video, and they're still "working through" the cloud of illegality from Grokster, and that companies like Yahoo can use BT to distribute content.
What does Navin see the role of Congress being? He answers that if Ed Markey called him to ask help in writing a bill, he'd be the wrong guy. He goes back to the fact that they're about the technology. He's not going to hire lobbyists, but will allow Google, etc to work the Government Relations front.
When I asked him if it was irresponsible to allow others to "carry his water" by not hiring lobbyists and letting other companies do the heavy lifting if needed, Navin was actually rather honest in his self-assessment, saying that yes, it could be irresponsible or naive, but the gist of his argument was that he's going to let the product speak for itself, and that it's "breaking down barriers." For instance, kids in China knew who he was when he visited recently. I'm not sure how that fits in, but if he's brave enough to let the software do the talking and not take a proactive approach like say, loopt, (see my interview with Brian Knapp posted earlier) especially in spite of P2P's history, well, more power to him.
Other questions were more technical in nature dealing with the recently settled Comcast issue, and one questioner pointed out the MPAA's idiotic statement that the Comcast settlement was a "step in combatting online piracy," and asked Navin how the agreement would fight privacy. He had no idea.
Navin added that BT plans to work with ISPs, content providers, IETF, and pretty much everyone in the "spirit of openness." He envisions the network as being less asymmetric, and I think that's a pretty optimistic prediction. Other suggestions included hardware-based solutions for bandwidth issues and copyright problems like Akamai's software.
When asked if ISPs could sit on BT streams and identify pirated content, Navin alluded to the fact that if an ISP and a copyright holder had a deal, it is technically feasible for an ISP to watch BT packets.
Jonathan Taplin asked if he's exaggerated the ease that Cable companies could have a symmetrical network. Navin had no idea about the cost and ease (he cites Brian Roberts of Comcast saying it would be done) but emphasizes the importance of open dialogue with ISPs.
Navin did say that identifying infringing torrent content would be quite costly in response to a question from McCullough. What he sees, though, is that rights-holders will embrace content-recognition and P2P technology that will enable new business models, not just takedown notices. In Navin's future, piracy will disappear because the free flow of video we have now will be monetized to the point that it will become a non-issue.
Next, Declan brought up the idea of blanket licenses, and Navin was not adverse to a "Rhapsody-style" license that would not "criminalize the vast majority of people in the United States..."
Good job by both.
Brian Knapp is Chief Privacy Officer for loopt, the "mobile social networking" company recently promoted by Sprint-Nextel and Boost Mobile using those adds with people wearing fat suits floating in swimming pools. Knapp describes loopt as "a mashup of google maps and twitter..." (a thousand web 2.0 marketers heads just exploded, but he's pretty spot on, actually).
We took advantage of some downtime here at TPS to talk about his service, why it's cool, semantic games like "tracking" versus "location sharing", and, most importantly, how entreprenerus and innovators with potentially controversial technologies can get out in front of the doomsayers, horror stories and local news anchors. I'm very impressed by "where he's at" on how tech entrepreneurs can deal with Washington. Finally, a company that has the right idea.
I feel bad because I still haven't written up the SXSW Child Protection panel, but here I am again at a great panel on the same subject.
Moderated by CBS' Larry Magid (who wrote a book on Prodigy that I read when I was 7 years old and using my parents computer), this one features (Left to Right in the above picture) Rachel O'Connell of Bebo, Hemanshu Nigam, Chief Security Officer of MySpace, Joan Irvine, CEO of the Association of Sites Advocating the Protection of Children, and Adam Theirer, Senior Fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation (and one of our loyal, awesome CV readers).
One of the first topic to come up was how many child protection issues come up across borders in Web 2.0. Ms. O'Connell pointed out that the distinction between the online and offline world has blurred significantly in social media, and we need to stay up to speed on how young people use these technologies and make sure they are used in a positive way. She wants to mitigate risk, instead of taking the attitude that risks can be eliminated. Very smart.
One concern she brought up (keep in mind she's from the UK) is cyber-bullying and social exploitation using offline information, and used a triangle metaphor for securing information:
Location - What are the laws and social circumstances?
Users - emotional and mental health support for some
Mitigation of Misuse - get the message across to ill-doers that they are not anonymous.
Magid segued into while Web 1.0 was about protecting kids from bad adults, Web 2.0 has young people as the bad guys. Examples - Cyber Bullying, "Child created child pornography," etc. How do we deal with this?
Nigam (MySpace) said that "we don't want to compete on safety" and are working with everyone. He said that users need to be educated, and in a way that matters to them. Also, they want to educate non-users (parents). Right now, MySpace is running a campaign to get parents to talk to kids about online safety. It drives traffic to experts on these issues, such as their MySpace Safety website, which educates about things like what to post and what not to post (and that it's forever), Cyber bullying, etc.
"Education has to be relevant to the users you are trying to reach" -- Hemanshu Nigam
Adam Thierer pointed out that a vast majority of "solication" is "teen-on-teen" and that we shouldn't be so shocked. Adam suggests developing methods for intervention when it escalates from what used to be in the hallway to being full-fledged bullying and harassment.
Magid revisited the idea of Government regulation, and asked the panel what the role of Government should be in protecting children.
Ms. O'Connell (Bebo) pointed out that Gordon Brown (PM of Great Britain) has commissioned a psychologist to figure out what the real risks are, if the media is exaggerating the risks, and finding out if there is even a need of intervention. Her report came back (possibly today) and said that many of the doomsday scenarios are propagated by media, and that private industry's solutions are working. The role of the government should be to monitor and to possibly set standards for educating certain professionals, like teachers.
"If we are to educate young people...the department of education has a duty of care to...educate teachers...there is a positive role for government..."
Magid again plays devils advocate and asks what the response is to the constant calls for more regulation. Mr. Nigam hits back and says that the most important role the Government can play is to enforce the laws that already exist. Some money quotes/excerpts:
"A crime is a crime is a crime...enforce the laws against the criminals."
"It is easy...to create fear...it is a much more honourable task to inspire dialogue..."
He points out that one law that is needed is mandatory online education, and that only two states have mandatory online education laws.
When Mr. Nigam was questioned by a father about an incident when a "friend" copied his daughter's information and gave it to a predator after his daughter had taken her site down. He claims the FBI believes he should be suing MySpace, and asked what MySpace is doing to prevent this kind of "mirroring" or "identify theft." Nigam noted that MySpace has options to prevent some copying and privacy settings, and that the legal responsibility probably lies with the third party. He also (correctly) stressed that this another example of a need for education. Nigam is totally on top of this. "If someone calls you and tries to kill you, you call the police, not sue the phone company."
Magid wrapped things up by pointing out that there is information that maybe he wouldn't put online himself, and education is definitely a solution.
Great panel. Hopefully more from some of the panelists later.
Another artfully moderated Steve Wildstrom panel.
L-R: Jim Davis (CIO, UCLA), Zahavah Levine (Chief Counsel, Youtube), Vance Ikezoye (CEO, Audible Magic), Jim Williams (SVP/CTO, MPAA)
This panel on the DMCA looked to be an angry one, but turned out to be pretty civil.
Interesting fact, YouTube has proprietary technology for identifying copyrighted works.
Everyone seemed to agree that on the whole, the DMCA has been good, but the trend towards "pre-litigation litgation" has been frustrating, but irrelevant from a consumer standpoint. Interestingly, it has pulled Universities (as ISPs) into the middle, but allowed them to influence a new aspect of education on copyrights and IP.
Wildstrom brought up the anti-circumvention rules, and noted that as a consumer, if he buys a DVD, he wants to watch it how he wants to (not reproduce it), and mentioned the common law right of first sale. If he wants to watch a DVD on his MacBook Air without an optical drive, how can he do that without breaking the DMCA?
Jim Williams from the MPAA said that the problem wasn't DRM or DMCA, but the lack of foresight on the part of those who created the DVD standard over ten years ago. He pointed out that Blu-Ray's encryption (AACS) lets you make "managed copies" and should fix this problem.
DMCA is ten years old. Wildstrom asked what the panel would change in copyright law.
Levine (YouTube) would allow for easier grants of blanket licenses on a mass scale due to the structure of the music rights in the U.S. You need recording rights, the composition rights which is almost impossible and the way the publishing industry developed (performing versus reproducing versus distributing). She noted that a webcaster needs a license for the streamed copy, publishing rights, and a performance license for the streaming. There is also no database of who owns what music. In contrast, Radio broadcasters have compulsory licenses for mechanical royalties, and zero performance royalties. Levine thinks compulsory licenses would be a good idea, and let more musicians get paid.
Williams (MPAA) said they don't want any more compulsory licenses and want to roll back a few by systems by which people can do business depending on the content. He'd also like to see more legal incentive for ISPs to do more about "massive, large-scale infringement" and seemed to call out Jim Davis from UCLA, asking how much of his network was used for P2P sharing. He also claimed that if you filter out copyrighted works, almost all P2P network traffic disappears, and the internet is "clogged with stolen goods....with free riders that are hogging bandwidth and taking it away from legitimate consumers." He also appeared to criticize Richard Lynch from Verizon for screening out Child Porn but not policing P2P traffic for infringing content, and called for ISPs to "unclog the internet." When I challenged him on this comparison, he backed up and said that there were good uses for P2P, and efforts should be made to stop the illegal uses. I'm not sure that I was entirely fair because the issue is one that got me rather annoyed, and my question may have been a bit too pointed (I quoted Joseph Welch. Maybe that was a bit over the line.) Mr Williams later asked if we could speak later on the subject, and I agreed because I want to be fair, so we should have an interview with him up soon. He was very eager to get his message across, and I suspect that we'll have a much more productive conversation outside of a "sound-byte" environment.
Wildstrom noted that many TV shows can't get onto DVD because of problems with music rights (I want the Wonder Years! Now!). This is a problem, and he noted that only a tiny fraction of movies are available because of this. He said that "less would get stolen if more were available legally." Applause line.
With regard to the TV Music problem, after Wildstrom pointed out that rights to a ton of music from the 60's is still in litigation, Vance Ikezoye from Audible Magic chimed in and said that there are efforts in place to develop technology to create and maintain a database of rights ownership, since records of publishing rights are scattered to the winds.
Jim Davis added that a reason that many Universities don't block content is because they can educate rather than enforce, and that a lot of P2P content is both legal and useful. Ms. Levine pointed out that after they remove videos they get lots of angry users who don't understand copyright law, and that citizens aren't being trained in copyright law in a social media age. With their filtering technology, they don't use it to just block videos blindly, because they need to collaborate with content owners to find out who owns what and what rights the owners will give users. Many users of their identification technology let them monetize their content, not blocking it. Very cool, and very Web 2.0
I arrived late to this talk because I was finishing out an interview, but as I walked in Mr. Lynch is noting (correctly) that Verizon's mission is to be "at the forefront of customer demand." This, he says, is the reason behind Verizon's Open Access initiative.
He says that customers want the devices they are going to want, and that the focus is going to be on building the best network possible for those devices, and simply certifying that the device will be compatible on a minimal level.
Lynch said that the requirements are not so different from the model they use to certify devices sold in stores, but without subsidies. The subsidies will not go away, and the consumer will be able to choose. On the other hand, Verizon and their subsidized phones will continue to provide another level of user experience.
When asked by interviewer Steven Wildstrom if this was genuine, or just getting in front of the FCC, he said that while people are cynical and those minds can't be changed, Verizon's ODI initiative has been on the drawing board for over a year, in response to customer demand.
When asked about P2P and Comcast, he said that they recognized that P2P providers and customers can either fight with ISPs, or live together in a productive way. He announced that a large problem is how large a resource simply finding the files is. Lynch said that if he can work with P2P providers to develop search algorithms that work better with networks, both can improve effectiveness and speed...in trials, this concept has increased performance by 60% and it's in the works.
In response to a question, Lynch noted that bring-your-own-phone users would not need contracts.
Moving over to FiOS, Wildstrom asked how it was ging and when it would go rural. Lynch noted that it would be reaching 60% of Verizon households, and that they can project getting it out to more than 60%, but want to hit that customer base over time in order to provide quality service.
He noted that FiOS is "future-proof" because it's a passive fiber service and that they can increase the capacity by improving the electronics, and they'd be able to keep ramping it up as technology improves. Also, he pointed out that FiOS is symmetrical, and that the bottleneck is in terms of their inter-office connectivity, not to the home.
Also, he announced that Verizon would be moving to IPTV for FiOS-TV distribution.
In response to a question about the role of ISPs in combatting botnets, he replied that it's a matter of network control and management. They aren't doing alot and letting the end links to protect themselves.
He also noted that the only thing that Verizon blocks at the network level is Child Pornography. No complaints here.
Newmark opened by talking about all the good things on Craigslist and people in general, and that the percentage of "bad people" out there is very small and disproportionate to the press they get. "People are ok."
Newmark really didn't talk much about Craigslist, and preferred to mention that most of his work is with "customer service" and that he wants to speak up on behalf of people that are doing good things, such as the Sunlight foundation. He pointed out that last night he thanked Howard Berman for his support of the new GI bill.
When asked why he doesn't run Craigislist, he said "frankly, as a manager, I suck...it's important in many aspects of out lives to get out of the way..."
He considers all the attention he gets to be a bit surreal, but is considerably humble and low-key. I note that his business card says "Customer Service Representative and Founder." That's it.
When asked if he had to pick his top two internet issues, here is what he said:
First off, he mentioned the Sunlight Foundation and Larry Lessig and their efforts to change Congress, but also took the time to defend lobbyists, who for the most part are just trying to do their job for their clients, as opposed to those who give the industry a bad name via astroturfing and whatnot, and called for more transparency. He doesn't want to tar the entire Lobbying industry. When asked where he puts telecom lobbyists, he talked about his efforts to deal with them on abuse support issues for customer service, and that alot of these companies are "trying to do the right thing" and that the "big problem...is the lobbyists who have dine astroturf work have confused the discussion and pissed off a lot of people...and it's hard to discuss the issues in a way that can solve problems."
On Net Neutrality, Newmark realized that both sides know they need to do things differently, and that if people on both sides sit down and talk "without people who try to set up arguments" than things could get done. His pet issue is the handling of abusers by ISPs and "how they deal with bad guys." Newmark says that many telecoms and corporations have understaffed abuse departments, that they know it, and want to do more to protect people and help the good guy.
When asked why he just doesn't walk into the CEO's office, he said that he's still trying to learn corporate culture, and by dealing with the workers, he learns things that are more important.
He doesn't have a personal assistant, but has a travel agent. Wow, this guy is humble, and great. (I'm hoping he'll give me a few minutes later today).
If he wasn't doing craiglist, he has no idea what he would do, but he believes the company would do just fine. He'd simply spend his time on his other personal efforts.
When asked what the role for government regulation of the 'net, he said that the goal should be to "maintain a level playing field..."
He pointed out that despite his libertarian leanings, there are areas (like roads and health care) that Government should play a role, especially when companies make profits using public resources (i.e. airwaves). He noted is that the telecoms realize they are using the public airwaves, and know they need to do right by the public. Newmark is "all for them making a profit in a non-abusive manner."
When talking about corporate culture, he cited Scott Adams as one of the most important corporate psychologists of our time. Genius.
Also, Newmark noted that despite eBay's ownership of a stake in Craigslist, the two companies don't interact much and they get along. With regard to his effect on newspaper classified revenues, the myth that Craigslist is killing them is just that, a myth, says Newmark. In a tip of the hat to my favorite TV show, ever, he pointed to David Simon's portrayal of newspaper life on The Wire as accurate.
Craigslist, to him, is about "doing what's right" and while that may be boring, looks to be doing quite well doing right and helping to do right.
One thing that really strikes me as great about Newmark is that he's so damn optimistic about people. When asked if he's naive, he said that his exposure to "the bad stuff' has made him aware of more of the good stuff and made him more optimistic about the vast majority in people.
"I wouldn't give my troubles to a monkey on a rock."
Bonus Round! Craig was nice enough to talk to me for a few minutes, and here he is...
(panel L-R: Calabrese, Knapp, Brandon, Wilkie with moderator Chong at podium)
Caroyn Brandon of CTIA started off by nothing that the market will figure out problems and the settlement is "fantastic."
Michael Calabrese of the Wireless Future Program pointed out that protocol-agnostic management is a good thing, and was quite happy to hear that Comcast will be working with the IETF, but it remains to be seen "whether it will go far enough."
Brandon asked him what that meant, to which he replied a "common sense non-discrimination principle."
Brian Knapp from Loopt noted that collaborative efforts were the only solution. Of course, Chong correctly noted that the "devil is in the details." There's a meeting next month at Stanford, we'll see if it happens.
With regard to wireless open access, Chong asked of the panel agreed with McD's assertion that Open Access discouraged bidders.
Calabrese immediately disagreed, noting that his organization asked for wholesale access, not the "wireless carterphone" and that wholesale would have helped those smaller providers. (note, Google originally wanted wholesale, not Carterphone-style regs). Calebrese said that Verizon or AT&T would have won regardless, and that Open Access was a "nice regulatory nudge" as noted by Verizon's "preemptive strike."
Ms. Brandon jumped back in on open access and said that it defeated the FCC's own objectives, and that the market demonstrated that the requirements were irrelevant.
Chong asked Mr. Knapp about loopt, where they allow people to "share their location." and what difficulties they had getting adopted by carriers, and if they expected regulatory problems. He responded that he didn't want to have all six carriers rolling out at once, and that they are still very much a "start-up." They're on Sprint-Nextel and Boost, and their cooperative partnership has been beneficial, regardless of Open Access because it allows them to hold each other to high standards.
Next question from Chong: does Wireless have enough spectrum? She brings up White Spaces, and that Sprint and AT&T wanted White Spaces licensed, while others want them to be left open on an unlicensed basis. What is better? Unlicensed, or auctions?
Simon Wilkie responded to the previous question that he isn't allowed to express his opinion on it. On White Spaces, he thinks we should "Split the Baby" and that in response to NAB opposition, we should make use of it. He also noted that licensing it would lead to less use based on economic principles, and pointed to the 700mhz auction as an example. It would be a bad idea to allocate all that spectrum to one provider, especially considering how useful it is.
Calabrese agreed, saying that "the greatest innovation and consumer welfare results from diversity in technology and business models" and that he believes that a mixture of licensed and unlicensed spectrum will lead to the best space for innovation. He says that we need good spectrum available for multiple uses.
Chong moved onto municipal Wi-Fi, noting that Earthlink has killed its' municipal Wi-Fi operations, but Comcast might invest in that sector. She asks if the movement will survive.
Brandon (CTIA) jumped in quickly and noted that the problem is not technological, but a failure in business models.
Another question concerned "all you can eat programs" and whether they would take over for voice and replace "minute" charges and many wired services. The panel seemed to agree that this would be a positive movement. On the other hand, Wilkie asked if wireline services could respond and innovate and converge more.
One question from the audience was on mobile advertising, and was is the "holy grail" in that regard. Brandon said that many advertisers want mobile eyeballs, and advertisers' frustration is with purposing the ads to be consistent across platforms, and what is the right revenue model? She noted that it's important that customers not pay for ads.
Knapp said that ads could be a fantastic development allowing for lower cost service. He expressed sympathy for Facebook's Beacon, and noted that advertising to phones are coming, but they have to be provided as part of a service and that user experience with the ads is key. He's very excited about the potential for mobile advertising.
When a Tony Wasserman from CMU described the U.S. as a "third world country" wirelessly w/r/t location based services, Loopt's Knapp replied that location based services were coming. Brandon blamed the problem on the FCC's E911 rules. Simon Wilkie noted that much of the 3G spectrum is still tied up in Government users who won't say when they're giving up the spectrum they've been required to have vacated for years.
Robert Pepper from Cisco jumped in to quickly note that despite the lack of a D block auction success, there is a large block reserved for public safety.
Larry Magid asked why people should trust companies to make agreements vis-a-vis Comcast-Vuze, and Brandon noted that FCC should be a last resort, and there are not just two companies involved, that there would be a whole consortium. Calabrese pointed out that the complaint is still before the FCC, and that they still may act.
"We are privileged to live in the most exciting time ever in the history of communications..."
1/2 of the worlds population has a mobile phone. 3.3 billion phones, 6.6 billion people. Many of those phones have more computing power than an Apollo spacecraft. WIth Moore's law and better spectrum use (which doubles every 2.5 years), we can improve.
Internet usage increases...Yahoo! uses more bandwidth than the entire 'net did alone a few years ago. CBS' March Madness site has grown 109% since last year.
McDowell presumes that no one can keep track of the chaos in the marketplace...especially not 5 unelected bureaucrats.
"Regulation should be saved for market failure..."
McDowell presented the WGA strike as an example of how the New Media market has become ubiquitous, citing how they shut down television over royalties from online downloads, and that the market has provided "a la carte" programming through sides like Hulu.
He sees this trend moving to mobile, also.
Regarding an a la carte mandate, McDowell believes that consumers would pay more and get less, and that according to one analyst, ESPN could cost $25/month under a la carte.
Why was this a question? Why didn't it happen?
First, he believes a la carte violates the first amendment. Also, consumers need big pipes of content is to be ubiquitous, because 5% of users consume 90% of bandwidth. This isn't just an American problem. 1% of Japanese users consume 50% of broadband. McDowell observed that pirated content is a big part of that bandwidth. (he referred to the Comcast-Bittorrent settlement announced today.)
(more on that later)
McDowell said he's not convinced that the BitTorrent matter is moot, but that Net Neutrality advocates should "be careful what they wish for"
He asked if now is the time to "discard the Wiki model" of the Internet that has led to its' success? He believes that success has come through market forces. He speculates that if government had regulated broadband, we'd be using ISDN.
With regard to content provider and broadband disclosure, he believes that the private sector should take the lead, and cites the Comcast settlement as an example.
McDowell thinks that the best way to help is competition. Example? 700mhz auction. While he said the goal was to bring "new blood" into the market (Verizon? AT&T? nice job.) he feels that the Open Access requirement hampered the bidding and kept more companies out because it's a "government mandate."
McDowell wonders if the Open Access requirement pushed small companies out, and points out the C block and B block prices per population in a DMA were very different.
His concern was that it traded smaller and rural providers for the "speculative gains" of an open access network. He also says open access was coming anyway, pointing to T-Mobile's Wi-FI/GSM phones, and Android. What he's ignoring is that without Open Access, providers could just ban them. Also, was Verizon going to do "any app, any device" before the Open Access requirement? That's a chicken and egg scenario.
He says that the Open Access was to bring in a new party, and it never happened. However, with spectral efficiency doubling, he thinks a future FCC will allow entrepreneurs to enter the wireless broadband market. Example: TV White Spaces. He thinks we should let "science and science alone" resolve the issue. McDowell is very, very optimistic about White Spaces. Good.
"We are living in a market-driven, on-demand world..."
"We should resist the temptation to think government can outsmart a market...and be mindful of the law of unintended consequences."
When asked if given authority for 3 changes he'd make, he said that he believes the FCC is "well functioning." One change he would make is with regard to the sunshine in government act, and he would allow more than 2 Commissioners to meet with each other to discuss issues. He believes the requirement breaks down collegiality and information flow, and that their advisors can meet, but the Commissioners cannot. He'd also like private parties to speak to each other more before asking the FCC to intervene. Not bad.
In response to questioning, McDowell does not believe that broadband providers are not inherently anticompetitive w/r/t network management. He's not sure that the FCC governing the Internet is not the right way to go.
When challenged on the fact that the telecoms were going to open access and only embraced it after the ruling, he responded that the telecoms were not opposed to the "concept, only the mandate." He'd rather let the telecoms speak for themselves.
Link Hoswing from Verizon got up and did say that Verizon had been looking at open access for more than a year because they saw it as a growth opportunity.
I'm going to try and get some time with the Commissioner later, but he seems quite reasonable. Very impressive.
Well, no live video, but we're about to get going. Leading off is FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell (R). On deck are some luminaries in Wireless like Loopt's Brian Knapp, Former FCC Commissioner Rachelle Chong, "The" Craig Newmark of Craigslist, Verizon's Richard Lynch, and more.
Of course, we'll have some live reports, and the ubiquitous Flickr feed.
You're free to link or use my photos if you provide attribution to Andrew Feinberg and Capitol Valley, and a link back to the site if you're feeling generous. I hope you enjoy it.
Oh yeah, first off we've got a video from Vivian Redding (EU/ICT). She's espousing the virtues of convergence and inter-European cooperation.
Interesting claim: convergence is defined by the choices that we make as industries, and the winners will be those who listen to their customers, and who innovate.
"Listen and Create...we therefore need to be open, flexible, and keep looking forward."
She correctly notes that the regulations on technology need to gybe with each other, and allow for innovation.
Proposed in EU:
Secures Consumer Rights
Better Regulation (simplify and give better tools for national regulators)
Secure the market by giving power to a central EU authority that doesn't diminish regulator's power.
Example w/ online content - make it possible to license online cntent across countries. Also, excited about the spectrum available as DTV ramps up there.
Good video, on to McDowell!
Scroll through, because we have 3 new shows up -
Coverage of the Future of Wide-Area Public Broadband panle and CongressDaily's Andrew Noyes interviewing Congressman Howard Berman (D-CA). Also, the "Best of" of Andrew' sphoto coverage of the Tech Policy Summit, Day One.
Coverage of the Future of Wide-Area Public Broadband panle and CongressDaily's Andrew Noyes interviewing Congressman Howard Berman (D-CA). Also, the "Best of" of Andrew' sphoto coverage of the Tech Policy Summit, Day One.
We just wrapped up our BlogTalkRadio podcast. We went over a little of the goings on at the Tech Policy Summit. This podcast was special because we were joined by Mark Hopkins of Mashable.com. For those of you who aren't down with Mashable, it's a blog with a focus on all things Web 2.0.
As is the norm with our podcasts we had a wonderful road map of where we were going to take it and then went wildly off course. The most notable and, I think, interesting topic that we talked about was the ability of blogs to target niche audiences as opposed to old media outlets like newspapers and magazines who need to appeal to a lowest common denominator. I mean, when's the last time you picked up a magazine or newspaper and read every article? While most blogs won't attain the sheer number of visitors that a major media outlet site might they tend to generate a higher quality of visitor. They type of visitor who visits the site multiple times per day. The type of visitor who has to has to has to take in all of your content. That also got us talking about how good content is the key.
Another topic we talked about was focus. How, for instance, ads on web sites aren't really as targeted as they'd have you believe. Sure, an ad on Facebook will shove products that you should like because your friends bought them, but if you were really interested in that product you'd seek it out on your own. How often have you seen an ad on a website and actually bought a product that, until seeing that ad, you weren't really aware of. Another focus issue is the direction your site or company takes. Look at Twitter vs Facebook - Twitter does one thing and does it really, really well. Facebook seems to have something new going on every 10 minutes, most of which have an update or a fix coming out the next day.
Tonight's podcast is here.
For all of the Capitol Valley podcasts check out blogtalkradio.com/Capitol-Valley.
As is the norm with our podcasts we had a wonderful road map of where we were going to take it and then went wildly off course. The most notable and, I think, interesting topic that we talked about was the ability of blogs to target niche audiences as opposed to old media outlets like newspapers and magazines who need to appeal to a lowest common denominator. I mean, when's the last time you picked up a magazine or newspaper and read every article? While most blogs won't attain the sheer number of visitors that a major media outlet site might they tend to generate a higher quality of visitor. They type of visitor who visits the site multiple times per day. The type of visitor who has to has to has to take in all of your content. That also got us talking about how good content is the key.
Another topic we talked about was focus. How, for instance, ads on web sites aren't really as targeted as they'd have you believe. Sure, an ad on Facebook will shove products that you should like because your friends bought them, but if you were really interested in that product you'd seek it out on your own. How often have you seen an ad on a website and actually bought a product that, until seeing that ad, you weren't really aware of. Another focus issue is the direction your site or company takes. Look at Twitter vs Facebook - Twitter does one thing and does it really, really well. Facebook seems to have something new going on every 10 minutes, most of which have an update or a fix coming out the next day.
Tonight's podcast is here.
For all of the Capitol Valley podcasts check out blogtalkradio.com/Capitol-Valley.
Host Steve Wildstrom is introducing them, and I'm going to take pictures, but I will liveblog as I can. Here we go:
5:45pm: Noyes is introducing Congressman Berman...talks about his gift for creating bipartisan coalitions. Expert on pretty much everything. Here he is!
Andrew starts with Patent Reform. Berman is concerned about "business method" patents...the system is broken, and they're trying to fix it, along with Rich Boucher (D-VA)
Berman has brought up patent trolls and damages. He's obviously a BlackBerry addict. That's how they got the Damage Apportionment part of the bill...to reduce the financial incentive for trolls.
The bill also harmonizes our law with International Patent law. He thinks the bill has "kept faith" with the goals, and it's in the hands of the Senate now. He has faith in Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) to get it through. Hoping no conference.
Four Senate Issues:
A) Damages
B) Post-Grant Review
C) Venue - no more Eastern Texas?
D) People who oppose B and C still want changes (doctrine of inequitable conduct, etc)
On Damages: the damages awarded must be related to the value of the component infringed, not withstanding willful infringement. They will not back down on this.
Noyes: Can you handicap the Bill's chances? Is this must-pass for the 110th?
Berman: If it waits, it will wait for someone else because of Tom Lantos (D-CA)'s passing. He won't be the Judiciary Subcommittee Chairman next year. Pelosi wants is done. Reid wants it done. Republicans want it done. The problems will be worked out, because everyone believes there must be reform. "We can sort through these issues."
Now on to the PRO-IP Act. Noyes notes the damages provision was stripped out. Berman maintains that damages were enhanced in other areas, and the bill will move ahead. Bush Administration needs to get more focused on the value of IP in terms of the economy.
"Digital and Hard Copy Piracy of Copyrighted Works is a Very Serious Problem..."
Berman wants the USDOJ more engaged on enforcing IP and Anti-Piracy/Anti-Counterfeiting. Supporting coalition includes unions, various companies, law enforcement, etc. He wants the White House to coordinate enforcement.
Noyes asks if the current group is not meeting expectations. Berman isn't dismissive, but believes the priority should be higher because IP is "essential to our own economic future."
Berman believes it will pass this Congress.
Berman also considers Orphan Works an issue, and will could roll the bill into either the Patent or IP bill.
Noyes asked who will Chair the Subcommittee next year. Berman isn't going to endorse anyone just yet. He's excited about Chairing Foreign Affairs, and notes that there are still IP issues under that Committee and provides him with a whole new arsenal. "We can use force!"
When I asked Congressman Berman if he had advice for start-ups looking to avoid regulation or excessive scrutiny, he said that there can be a "sweet spot" for new technology, and as long as people do "what is right" and don't try and blatantly make money off of other people's IP wthout recompense, there would be room for people to innovate.
Pictures on Flickr.
I walked into this panel expecting a redux of a Politics Online keynote. Instead, some interesting insights from this panel:
The gist of the discussion (more later when I'm not pressed for time) was that the solution will not be 700mhz or White Spaces, and that we need to put more research and effort into developing new ideas and solutions to deploy more network in more places.
Like I said, more later. Next, expect a write-up and live Flickr photos of Andrew Noyes' conversation with Congressman Howard Berman (D-CA)
I've missed too much of the Trade and Protectionism panel to do a good write-up (although I've got a few good photos on Flickr), but my time away from that panel was well spent.
I sat down with Prith Banerjee (a panelist this morning) and Gary Fazzino, VP of Government Affairs at H-P, to talk about the role of Government in "incubating" new innovations with the help of academia and the private sector, as well as how new technology and entrepreneurs can avoid the pitfalls of bad PR that leads to bad legislation.
You can listen to it here:
This is a straight-up keynote speech. He's going to talk about what the threats to both IP and Innovation are.
Big point - mislabeling of IP as an legal asset as opposed to a business asset.
We need to protect both the rights of businesses and individuals, but also figure out what the risks are to the legal community.
USPTO has some initiatives to help:
1) Accelerated examination - hiring 1,200 engineers a year but still not keeping up with the backlog. Can guarantee review within 12 months if applicants meet certain conditions to make the patent easy to review. One case had an approval within 17 days.
Despite pressure to focus on the "important applications," USPTO has to look at each individual one. That's their job, that's the law.
Also, despite working in a global world, patents are not global. It's country to country. USPTO is the best in the world (his words, not mine) and protection isn't as strong or institutions aren't as good in many countries. A "worldwide patent" is a long, long way off, and for good reason. Countries are not ready to give a sovereign grant of a property right away to another country. Remember, USPTO's function is in the Constitution, people.
We do have reciprocal "patent highways" with other countries, ie Japan. 3-4 years knocked down to a few months because Japanese examiners trust U.S. examiners. We can streamline our systems by establishing trust, and we're expanding it to Canada, UK, EU, Korea, etc.
Also working on bringing "large players" into "best practices for IP." Notes that China is a bigger player in patent applications now, and has 3rd largest patent office. Korea has 4th largest. We need to bring China and Korea "into the fold." We want to expand even further.
Can we have a guaranteed time frame in those 5 economies? We can try. One process, high-quality examination by trusted examiners. We're also working with WIPO to make a local process more global and cost effective.
Biggest threat is bad ideas getting into USPTO. Approval rate is around 62%, it's declined from a 72% high to 43% because they're throwing out more junk patents.
Notes the standard is "new, useful, and non-obvious." Executives want patents because Wall Street loves more patent applications. USPTO is not so into that, especially if the applications aren't patentable.
Standards organizations are also wondering how many patents they have to deal with. It's becoming a problem, and not promoting innovation.
One solution: raise the price? We have to subsidize innovation, but do it the right way. Price is $1k, costs $4k. Subsidized by "maintenance fees" paid by patent holders. Less than 50% of patents are approved. So, it's easy to apply for a poor quality patent. Patent reform bill would require further due diligence. They need to justify "why does this need a patent?"
I asked about the Sessions Amendment to the Patent Reform legislation, regarding the "Check 21" patent. Dudas made it clear that the Bush Administration opposes the amendment despite its' benefit to the banking industry (shocking, I know) because they really do want the Patent system to remain technology-neutral and not favor any kind of technology or industry.