Republicans and Democrats join together to pursue a more balanced legislation toward piracy.
by Brian Leubitz
They say that even broken clocks are right twice a day, and perhaps that is what this is about. However, Rep. Issa managed to hit upon a topic that is near and dear to my heart to be on the right side of the issue. Who knows, maybe there is something pecuniary in it for him, but I'll just go with the fact that he is right on the issue and move along.
So, what exactly is Rep. Issa, a target for much scorn around here, being a solid leader for? Well, that would be the legislative question surrounding copyright and the Internet. Specifically, a Senate bill called the "Stop Online Piracy Act" (SOPA) and its House counterpart, the PROTECT IP Act. Here's a quick summary about the Internet Blacklist legislation from the Electronic Frontier Foundation:
The "Stop Online Piracy Act"/"E-PARASITE Act" (SOPA) and "The PROTECT IP Act" (PIPA) are the latest in a series of bills which would create a procedure for creating (and censoring) a blacklist of websites. These bills are updated versions of the "Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Act" (COICA), which was previously blocked in the Senate. Although the bills are ostensibly aimed at reaching foreign websites dedicated to providing illegal content, their provisions would allow for removal of enormous amounts of non-infringing content including political and other speech from the Web.
The various bills define different techniques for blocking "blacklisted" sites. Each would interfere with the Internet's domain name system (DNS), which translates names like "www.eff.org" or "www.nytimes.com" into the IP addresses that computers use to communicate. SOPA would also allow rightsholders to force payment processors to cut off payments and advertising networks to cut ties with a site simply by sending a notice.
In the end, these bills could mean that America will have, much like China, a different internet than the rest of the world. Each of these two bills would endanger sites like DropBox or Box.net and even artist sites like Etsy. Innovating new companies are likely to meet massive resistance from the oligopolies that run the copyright industries, and there is very little due process. Domain names can simply be turned off at the drop of a hat, and you have to find a way to talk to somebody to get the site turned back on after the fact.
In other words, these two bills are an unworkable solution. So, Rep. Issa and Sen. Wyden worked together to find a concept that would protect innovation while still working to protect rights holders and have released a concept bill called OPEN. The bill might not be perfect, but it is a pretty good start. Basically, the International Trade Commission would serve as a clearinghouse to review claims under OPEN. Under SOPA, well, that would be banks and ISPs, large corporations that are entirely unaccountable to the people.
However, rather than dealing with OPEN honestly, the backers of SOPA resort to saying that OPEN "goes easy" on piracy. In response, Issa and Wyden launched KeepTheWebOPEN.com to solicit comments from the public, and in fact even invited the MPAA to mark up the bill.
"I've heard MPAA's response to the #OPEN Act. I believe American artists and innovators - not to mention you, the digital citizen - deserve better than soundbites," Issa said after the movie industry lobbying group argued the bill "goes easy on Internet piracy." (The Hill)
DNS is too important to the Internet to monkey with, and the Internet is too important to our economy to rush into something before we know the consequences of those actions. We have a lot of legislation on online piracy already on the books, much of which was placed there in a pretty one-sided process. This time, let's be sure to bring in all stakeholders in the issue to get a piece of balanced legislation that doesn't "break the internet."
The fun never stops with infographics... this one is particularly interesting for those of us obsessed with politics - whether it's local, state or national, voters are using the Internet to learn about candidates and issues. We're beginning to see a solid link between voters clicking "Like" and filling out their ballots. Data release yesterday by local news aggregation site Topix makes a compelling case for new media as a medium for engaging, persuading and then - closing the deal.
There's been a lot of talk in the wake of Steve Jobs' passing about the future of innovation and the status of tech ingenuity in a post-Jobs world. It got us to thinking about what are the drivers of invention and innovation. Clearly, when it comes to technology, a single person's brilliance has proven strong enough to shape and reshape, our cultural, social and tech landscape.
But what about for the other 99.9999% of us, the not-geniuses - what will we rely on to shape and reshape our own world and future - to change careers, start a business or connect with like-minded people? And what about those of us living in rural areas?
We found the beginnings of an answer in a recent post by Rick Boucher of the Internet Innovation Alliance, which makes the simple but profound point that: "This generation's light bulb is broadband." In short, with broadband access, all of us have the power to invent and innovate. Boucher uses telemedicine to make his case that
"high-speed Internet connectivity overcomes distance and enables transformative changes in the economy and quality of life for rural areas."
Another great infographic. Remember 1996, when doing research meant going to the library? When the Internet seemed like something super techy, reserved for the science geeks and math nerds? We sure do. And we're really glad that it's 2011.
Health IT is one of the most interesting and timely places where broadband will make the difference. Check out this simple but compelling info graphic from the Internet Innovation Alliance on Health IT. Super interesting stuff.
OK, we'll admit it - we love a great infographic. And this one from the Internet Innovation Alliance is one of the best we've seen in a while. It makes the connection between broadband and jobs - the fact that more Americans than ever before rely on a fast, reliable connection to do their jobs. That more investment in broadband will yield hundeds of thousands of jobs. That... well, we could go on, but really you should just check it out for yourself.
Special interests are trying to distract attention from the facts.
For eight years, LightSquared has navigated the regulatory process to win approvals to build America's first privately funded coast-to-coast wireless broadband service. LightSquared's plan to invest billions of dollars to use its frequencies for an integrated ground-space network has been supported by both Republican and Democratic regulators --Michael Powell and Kevin Martin, FCC Chairmen appointed by President Bush,and Julius Genachowski, the FCC Chairman appointed by President Obama. In fact, the regulatory approvals that paved our way came in the mid-2000's, during the Bush administration under Powell and Martin.
Regulators from both parties understand LightSquared's approach will create more competition in the marketplace, put downward pressure on the prices paid by consumers, create good paying jobs in the tech sector, and give Americans access to the most modern cellular technology. LightSquared's plan has drawn bipartisan support because it's right for the country.
There are a lot of opinions being debated about the proposed AT&T/T-Mobile USA merger. From where we stand here in California, it really boils down to two things: jobs and access. Bill Burrato in a Guest Op-Ed in the Pacific Coast Business Times got it right. Whether you live in Ventana or Ventura,
"AT&T's recently announced plan to acquire T-Mobile is great news for the Central Coast."
Pointing to the increase of telecommuting, Buratto goes on to say:
"Businesses today are becoming more and more dependent on effective and reliable broadband speeds and seamless coverage throughout the community. Now, it is more common for business to be done by using virtual and electronic communications services. The use of state-of-the-art information technology to conduct business is no longer a competitive advantage, it is a necessity.
The good news is that we no longer have to be tied to our offices. However, we need to make sure that small and large businesses are able to be flexible and mobile when it comes to conducting business wirelessly. Two major technology providers like these coming together would mean that the communications that are at the very core of success for all of our businesses will be more reliable, faster and effective."
It's incredible, when you stop to think about it, just how much we rely on the Internet for work. For fun. For pretty much darn near everything we do. And what's most remarkable is the strength and ever-growing role of social networking sites that make it all possible.
One of the more interesting discussions of this came from Brdoerick Johnson blogging for the Internet Innovation Alliance's "The Podium." Keying off a new Pew study released last month, Johnson points out that 65% of adult Internet users are connected via social networking sites. And most interestingly, he points out,
"it's not those just past the threshold into adulthood who are jumping in the online social world the most, but rather the Boomers, whose usage on a typical day jumped a whopping 60% in the last year."
Johnson then goes on to make the point that it's broadband in conjunction with social networking that is changing the face of business and really, every day life, as we know it, writing that firstly
"social networks are now a major means of communication in today's business and social economies. And secondly, the expansion of broadband technology has made the social web faster, increasingly interconnected, and more valuable to its users. Gone are the days when online interaction seemed like a trek into the wild and unruly frontier. The rise of the social web also points to our increasing reliance on digital communication in the economy and thus to job creation and economic growth and opportunity."
This editorial in The Detroit News by Orjiakor N. Isiogu, chairman of the Michigan Public Service Commission, very nearly perfectly sums up our argument.
Like HDTV before it, 4G-LTE wireless holds incredible promise for consumers and device manufacturers alike. But today there is insufficient wireless capacity to support millions of 4G-LTE devices, and demand is rising ever faster. According to Cisco Systems, mobile traffic is expected to increase 26-fold by 2015. By 2015 the majority of Internet traffic will be via mobile devices - a reality unthinkable just two years ago.
That's why LightSquared's venture is significant. It would substantially increase America's broadband wireless capacity while providing next-generation high-speed wireless data and voice to areas previously underserved. In addition, the company plans to market its nationwide network on a wholesale model, allowing any number of new competitors to enter the market. Many observers have hailed this proposal as a key part of President Obama's plan to increase high-speed Internet adoption nationwide, while also increasing competition in a consolidating wireless industry, all at zero cost to taxpayers, thanks to a planned $25 billion investment by the company.
More competitors in the market will mean lower prices and better service for consumers, along with expanded wireless broadband options. Another key benefit will be the economic benefit associated with building out a national network, including the creation of an estimated 15,000 jobs per year. Public safety could be enhanced by this network as well.
Simply put, whether you're somewhere in urban Michigan or rural California, an expanded wireless network means more competition, lower prices, and better service. And we're doing it all at zero cost to taxpayers.
For real - it is. And the truth is, that while all of this debate about the AT&T/T-Mobile merger is important, worthwhile and necessary, it's also something of a red herring. Because at the end of the day the problem that the merger was initiated in part to address, the problem that will ultimately prevent new competition, stifle innovation and shut down the incredible potential to create jobs and grow the economy through broadband investment remains.
And that problem is SPECTRUM.
And if there's something we know a little bit about, it's the need for more spectrum.
Check out this very excellent article written by Jeff Kagen at E-Commerce Times, "Let's Solve the Real Wireless Problem: Spectrum Shortage" http://www.technewsworld.com/s...
Few topics today are generating as much discussion as the seemingly insatiable demand for mobile data and how our country is going to keep pace with it. The United States has set a national goal to provide 98 percent of Americans with broadband access within the next five years. LightSquared is stepping up to help make this a reality. We are contributing $14 billion in private investment over the next eight years to build a nationwide wireless broadband network using 4G-LTE technology integrated with satellite coverage. This represents a $14 billion private sector-not government-investment in America's infrastructure.
The deployment and management of the LightSquared network will, in turn, create new jobs. We expect to generate more than 15,000 direct and indirect jobs in each of the next five years. And that's just the beginning of what the LightSquared network will help bring to California and across the country.
LightSquared will offer network capacity on a wholesale-only basis. This is a dramatic departure from the current vertically integrated model in the wireless industry, and it will open the broadband market to new players such as retailers, cable companies, and device manufacturers, to name a few. This means that end users - consumers like you - will enjoy the benefits of innovation, increased competition, and choice.
Senator Amy Klobuchar's "10 Strikes Bill" is dangerously close to turning most Americans into criminals. The Bill would classify streaming content 10 times or more as a felony, punishable with up to five years in prison. So, a teenager who uploads 10 or more videos of him or herself lip-syncing is committing a felony. So is anyone who uploads a video of themselves doing karaoke, ten times or more. And parties that include background music. And videos of public performances. We need to stop this madness! http://bit.ly/ikg2ZZ
David Segal, Demand Progress' Campaign Director, explains that the Bill "has the potential for innumerable unintended consequences that would stifle innovation and personal expression on the Internet." Again, our lawmakers have shown a drastic lack of understanding of the fundamentals of the Internet.
The Bill claims to target only companies that profit from video streaming, and that it will not be used to prosecute individuals and families-- but there is no wording protecting them beyond the label "profitable." The Bill has already passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We must act before it sneaks its way into our laws!
Join thousands of Demand Progress members in fighting to prevent this travesty: http://bit.ly/ikg2ZZ
This week, a bill could pass that would alter Internet freedom forever. The 10 Strikes Bill, put forth by Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MI), classifies streaming copyright infringing music or movies over the Internet a felony, and after 10 strikes, you could face jail time. Sign our petition to stop this madness:
http://bit.ly/ikg2ZZ
Techdirt asserts that you could face five years in jail for simply embedding a youtube video, and that the laws apply to children who put videos of themselves lip syncing to popular songs on youtube.
Once again, the government shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the Internet and Internet freedom. Instead of writing a set of laws that would be quickly evaded, we should be working towards a new set of standards to protect Intellectual Property while accommodating the freedom of information the Internet provides. The force behind the bill, the Motion Picture Association of America, acts solely in Hollywood's interest.
Protect your own interests and sign our petition to keep the Internet free!
http://bit.ly/ikg2ZZ
Down below, Robert Cruickshank does a brilliant job of taking down Michael Arrington's hypocritical anti-government screed on TechCrunch, arguing that what Arrington should really be complaining about is corporate domination of American politics, not big scary government regulation. Cruickshank also implies, in passing, that the high-tech industry should be the last to complain about government meddling, given that it was the Defense Department that created the internet in the first place.
One thing Cruickshank leaves out is that not only was Big Government the midwife (if not the mother) of Silicon Valley, but it's also been its bodyguard, protecting online commercial ventures from their rivals on the mean streets of the free market. In 1992, the Supreme Court deemed retailers exempt from having to collect sales taxes on purchases made in states in which the retailer has no physical presence. Since then, online stores have enjoyed a major competitive advantage over their brick-and-mortar competitors, especially those that are local, independent, and without the resources to establish an online or mail order merchandising business.
The Supreme Court, it should be noted, did not rule it unconstitutional to establish a taxation system for interstate electronic commerce; it merely interpreted existing law as granting this exemption. At Silicon Valley's behest, however, state and federal elected officials in the 90s refrained from passing laws to close this loophole and maintained a government-imposed, grossly uneven playing field, quite consciously in order to give preferential treatment to what was then considered a fledgling industry in need of protection.
In other words, politicians used tax subsidies as a tool of centralized economic planning by the government. It may have been smart, forward-thinking economic planning, but it was economic planning nonetheless, and I don't recall Arrington or any other Silicon Valley pundit at that time raising the specter of dangerously misguided government bureaucrats trampling over the delicate free market habitat.
Today, the tax privilege for e-commerce continues, though now it's no longer considered a temporary protectionist measure to help usher in our new economic future, but, like the Bush tax cuts for the rich, an inherent right of these go-it-alone, by-your-bootstraps entrepreneurs who have been subsidized, coddled and protected at every stage of their industry's manic success story, even after the bursting of the tech bubble exposed the hype and dysfunctionality of Silicon Valley business culture. The "Main Street Fairness Act" was introduced in Congress as one solution to the problem, but it died quietly in committee. State governments have tried to fill in for the leadership vacuum in Washington, but e-commerce businesses like Amazon have begun to play hardball with states like Colorado that have tried to devise ways to collect taxes on online purchases in the face of soaring budget deficits.
Arrington might just be libertarian enough to point to repealing all sales taxes as his preferred approach to leveling the playing field between online and brick-and-mortar stores, but unless and until that happens (it won't), Silicon Valley's sales tax subsidy will remain not only a drain on desperately needed public resources, but a government-created obstacle to free and fair competition in the retail sector. If Arrington cares about consistency in his political ideology, he could start by renouncing his own industry's government-subsidized perks.
(An interesting look at some of the data sources around the state. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
It’s almost 2010 and we are deep in the age of technology, but how is this affecting the California political scene? Sure, you can watch Obama on streaming video and you can find raw data on stimulus spending, but where is the governator posting his videos? And where is the discussion about transitioning California State government from a classic model where citizens find public information by culling through paper documents to a government with information open and easily available? Where is (to borrow the phrase) California 2.0? The answer: we're part way there.
San Francisco, as a city, has made huge progress of late toward providing the public with easy access to information in their beta release of the site datasf.org. There you can find city and county data on everything from the useful (election data) to the almost useless (species names for trees) and everything in between.
The Los Angeles City Council, in a move that is a first of its kind, recently approved a contract with Google to begin using its cloud-based email, spreadsheet and word processor services. While this is not quite Web 2.0, this is a step in that direction. Cloud computing is not only tangentially related to the idea of Web 2.0, there is a key linkage in that they both describe an availability of data. With the new configuration, users of the data are theoretically only a few clicks away from publishing it for the public to view. City policy will dictate how or if data is made available to the public, but the framework will be in place to make public data access an easy and cheap option.
Edit by Brian: See the extended for more on California 2.0!
It has been an amazing week in Iran, and you are no doubt seeing images that would have been unimaginable just a few weeks ago.
For most of us, Iran has been a country about which we know very little...which, obviously, makes it tough to put the limited news we're getting into a proper context.
The goal of today's conversation is to give you a bit more of an "insider look" at today's news; and to do that we'll describe some of the risks Iranian bloggers face as they go about their business, we'll meet a blogging Iranian cleric, we'll address the issue of what tools the Iranians use for Internet censorship and the companies that could potentially be helping it along, and then we'll examine Internet traffic patterns into and out of Iran.
Finally, a few words about, of all things, how certain computer games might be useful as tools of revolution.
The final numbers on the stimulus package are trickling out. Some of the baseline investments are here:
* Investments in Infrastructure and Science - $120 billion
* Investments in Health - $14.2 billion
* Investments in Education and Training - $105.9 billion
* Investments in Energy, including over $30 billion in infrastructure - $37.5 billion
* Helping Americans Hit Hardest by the Economic Crisis - $24.3 billion
* Law Enforcement, Oversight, Other Programs - $7.8 billion
It's unquestionable that the conference report is worse than the House bill but better than the Senate. It costs less than the Senate bill while providing more stimulus. Some bad spending like the clean coal "FutureGen" project is out, along with some of the worst corporate tax breaks. Mass transit spending is up, the child tax credit was partially restored to House levels (now kicking in after $3,000 in income), and the state fiscal stabilization fund gets around $54 million (but that includes funding for school construction). You can find the full summary here.
There are some very solid elements to the bill. White House economists estimate that the package will create or save 396,000 jobs in California and 3.5 million nationwide. This is a down payment on a new generation of investment in America.
However, like with most Congressional sausage-making, there may be some rough patches. The worst is the allegation that Dianne Feinstein is trying to include filtering into the stimulus as part of the program to expand broadband capacity across the country.
The Open Internet Coalition - which includes groups like Public Knowledge, Free Press and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) - is applauding the more than $2 billion expected to be in the stimulus bill for broadband build-out in rural or underserved areas. They say not only will building out high-speed Internet instantly create jobs, but giving people in those areas more access to the Internet will spur small-business creation and other growth [...]
These groups are also over-the-moon about the fact that the Senate bill has a non-discrimination, interconnection requirement that essentially says any provider receiving stimulus funding has to make sure they provide equal access to everyone over their network (part of the so-called "net neutrality" debate). The House version requires the FCC to define "open access," which essentially calls for carriers to share their networks with competitors.
But they're worried Hollywood is still trying to insert a content filtering provision via Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., at the last minute. Feinstein has been trying to add language specifying that Internet service provider (ISPs) may engage in "reasonable network management" ... "such as" efforts to combat illegal activity like "child pornography and copyright infringement." In essence, some argue, ISPs would be able to monitor any content coming to and from your computer, just in case there was some copyrighted material violating fair use, or kiddie porn in there.
But groups like the Motion Picture Association of America stress the "network management" angle of the bill ("filtering" is a nasty word around these parts). After all, it's hard to argue against stopping kiddie porn from being sent over one's pipes. I've left a message with Feinstein's press office to see what the status of her amendment is. It doesn't appear to be in there, but I'll let you know if she plans on trying to stick it in at some point.
"Of course we see huge privacy invasions from this sort of thing," said Cathy Sloan of CCIA.
Now, some caveats. There was a hyperventilating story in the UK Register claiming that this would kill net neutrality. As stated earlier, there are open access provisions in the stimulus, and it doesn't appear that this amendment even made it into the final version. This looks to me to be more of a privacy and anti-competition issue.
In another part of that story, Henry Waxman was implicated. His office has assured multiple constituents, including yours truly, that he has had nothing to do with any filtering amendment.
That's not to say that we shouldn't be concerned. DiFi is allegedly trying to pay back a corporate constituent with a highly invasive amendment that would certainly violate the spirit if not the letter of privacy laws. And of course this kind of monitoring is a slippery slope, as are most IP issues. At the root I agree with John Cole:
As baseball season is getting close, I would like to propose a trade. We give the Republicans Dianne Feinstein and a PTBNL and they give us Olympia Snowe. This is a solid trade for us. With Judd Gregg at commerce, we would almost complete the New England rout, and Feinstein, as a newly minted Republican, will go down to certain defeat in California. Additionally, there is nothing in this agreement that says the PTBNL can't be Nelson or Lieberman.
It is by now an accepted fact of life that the Internet is having some sort of impact upon the political process...after all, if it wasn't, would we even be here?
But we've all wondered exactly how much impact; and now the good folks at the Pew Research Center have taken the time and trouble to do some survey work that seeks to answer that very question
The logical approach would be to "walk through" the data (which is, frankly, good news for Obama) and see what they have to say about it...but let's take a different approach today.
Let's instead look at the data and ask ourselves: who aren't we reaching, why, and what implications might those answers have going forward-and downticket?`
