The 463: Inside Tech Policy

Go to Washington or Wither

While some at CNET seem to be having regrets about Silicon Valley involvement in the policymaking process, SiliconBeat is calling for more:

Silicon Valley technologists and entrepreneurs tend to be way to insular, focused tightly on their own ventures and caring little about politics in Washington, DC.

We need to start caring, because the Washington's policy will really impact us. Silicon Valley has the most dynamic economy in the world, and so ensuring an open global economy is in our best interest. We know we can excel on a level playing field.

Since SiliconBeat is largely geared towards the venture and entrepreneur community, this post makes us wonder if there's not a "policy-savvy-divide" being created between the "established" tech players and the emerging Web 2.0 crowd.   While we certainly don't need another trade association to represent them, the 2.0 folks better realize that completely relying on others to do their bidding for them in DC is a recipe for very bad results that won't make any VC or board member happy.

New Tech Policy Think Tank

Tech-savvy, pro-business Democrat Robert Atkinson is opening a new tech policy think tank called the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.  Somewhat oddly, the group's Web site is yet to go live, but we do know that the co-chairs are former Republican congresswoman Jennifer Dunn and former Democratic congressman Cal Dooley. The ITEF was formed in partnership with the Information Technology Industry Council, an effective lobbying group.

Dunn is quotes in Federal Computer Week saying:

“Tech issues have long enjoyed bipartisan support, but their importance and impact on the U.S. economy have not always been well understood."

Amen.  If the ITEF can do the hard work of gathering real stats and facts that can help tell the story of how technology impact all sectors of economy and not just those in Silicon Valley, than we will go a long way in advancing effective innovation policy.  Welcome ITEF.

Common Cause & PFF in Freestyle Rap Battle

The nonprofit advocasy organization Common Cause calls out the Progress & Freedom Foundation for being influenced by a "list of corporate donors (that) reads like a who's who list of the telecommunications industry."

PFF says step off.  Yo, your accusations are "particularly weak in its tendentiousness and selectivity" and explains that all sorts of companies those on the opposite sides of debates like net neutrality support the group.

Meanwhile, CNET busts in with a West Coast flow on PFF and other non-profit tech policy groups (including the MPAA and RIAA(?)) in "Nonprofits Are the True Powerbrokers"  that's part of the "Silicon Money" series.

Tech Industry on the DC Offensive?

We gave a run down on the CNET News.com "Silicon Money" series here. Declan McCullough kicked it off with a historical (however short) overview on the flow of money to Washington from Silicon Valley and how things have quickly changed since the dawn of the Web era.

The piece's perspective:

In the last few years, technology firms have not just opened lobbying shops, but they've also begun to use their growing political muscle for offense. Instead of merely fending off new regulations and taxes, many companies have begun to join in the classic Washington game of pushing for them--as long as someone else is the target.

While this may be true someday, we don't really see a perceptible trend towards this yet.

CNET Silicon Money Series

CNET's News.com is running a series that is described...

Reversing long-held philosophies, the industry has doubled its spending on lobbying in six years, according to CNET News.com research. This special report chronicles the causes of the strategic change while highlighting the big spenders.

The series is halfway done.  This is what is live:

OK, We Give Up -- It's News

Last week the the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Google hired a big name lobbyist and paid the firm $40,000 for roughly a six-month period last year.  And, we had some friendly fun with what we thought was a non-story in a world where $40,000 on lobbying is easily spent in a day by many big companies ($40,000 X 365 = $1,460,000).   We also thought all the Google-goes-to-Washington stuff was a bit played out.

The New York Times disagreed.  Today's paper features a story that says:

(Google) has begun ramping up its lobbying and legislative operations after largely ignoring Washington for years, in a scramble to match bases long established here by competitors like Yahoo and Microsoft, as well as the deeply entrenched telecommunication companies.

In the piece, Esther Dyson is quoted saying:

Caprio to Join PFF

Cheers to Dan Caprio for shortening his title to something that fits on a business card.

Caprio is currently the Chief Privacy Officer and Acting Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy at the U.S. Department of Commerce.  He's joining the Progress & Freedom Foundation as executive vice president.  (PFF press release).

Caprio is not only savvy in the ways of Washington but also brings a palatable enthusiasm for learning about new technologies that contrasts to prevailing late-adopter inside-the-Beltway circles.  PFF is lucky to have him come on board.

Now the question turns to the Department of Commerce...

Lessig Enters the DRM Gray Area

Creative Commons proponent, EFF board member and Stanford professor Lawrence Lessig has this to say about Sun Microsystems Open Media Commons project on his blog...

"Sun has made recent announcements about their openDRM project. In my view, they’ve made some commitments that are important for any DRM project. E.g., as I’ve seen it described, it would be implemented to allow individuals to assert “fair use,” and unlock DRM’d content, with a tag to trace misuse. And they’ve described a platform upon which authors keep the freedom to turn the DRM off, and more the content from the secured platform.

"These are good things. But some confuse praise for better DRM with praise for DRM. So let me be as clear as possible here (though saying the same thing I’ve always said): We should be building a DRM-free world. We should have laws that encouraged a DRM-free world. We should demonstrate practices that make compelling a DRM-free world. All of that should, I thought, be clear. But just as one can hate the Sonny Bono Act, but think, if there’s a Sonny Bono Act, there should also be a Public Domain Enhancement Act, so too can one hate DRM, but think that if there’s DRM, it should be at least as Sun is saying it should be."

California: Clean Tech Battleground

California will likely be the site of what could be an important, seminal election battle over promoting clean energy at the expense of the oil industry (literally).  The initiative campaign is being led by Sun Microsystems co-founder and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla.  The Economist writes this week:

(Khosla's) eyes have now turned towards a new target—the oil industry. He and Stephen Bing, a flamboyant Hollywood producer, are financing a campaign to get Californians to endorse clean energy in a state-wide vote next November. “Californians for Clean Energy” will need to get more than 500,000 signatures just to make it onto the ballot. If it were then passed, its effect would be to increase taxes on Californian oil production by up to $380m a year, eventually raising billions of dollars for investments in clean energy. The plan is to help California cut its oil use by one-quarter within a decade, thereby setting a powerful example for the rest of the world.

The story continues: 

Google Sneezes; News at 11:00

This is a tech policy blog.  The authors work for the industry's only tech policy communications firm.  We clearly care about tech policy and think it deserves a lot of a attention for its growing importance.

Still, this is a bit much.  The Chronicle ran a front of the business section story about Google's relationship with a lobbying firm (gasp!).  Yes, Google is incredibly important, and, yes, Google's moves into public policy are relevant (as we've covered here nearly a year ago), but does what amounts to an $8,000-a-month relationship with a DC firm deserve that kind of coverage?  For context, the telecom and tech industries spent $152 million on federal lobbying help during the first six months of 2005.