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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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...
"Sun has made recent announcementsabout 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 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.
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.
The opinions on postings are of individual 463 Communications partners and employees. They do not necessarily represent the opinions of 463 Communications, the firm, or our clients. Comments will remain posted at the sole discretion of 463.
