The 463: Inside Tech Policy

"Dumbest Tech Bill So Far This Year?"

The good Charlie Cooper of CNET asks this question today about a California bill that bans the forced implant of RFID chips on humans...

From my vantage point in the peanut gallery, it's oh so tempting to hold our elected officials up to ridicule. But truth be told, it's sometimes impossible to resist. And when it comes to that increasingly busy intersection between the worlds of politics and technology, it seems the hits just keep on coming.

So it is that California State Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) introduced a bill that would "prohibit any person from forcing any other person to undergo an implant in their body of a radio frequency identification device."

I kid thee not...

Well, Charlie, do you feel better or worse that the Simitian bill isn't exactly original? For example, let me introduce you to a sponsor of a similar bill: Wisconsin State Rep. Marlin Schneider. He enters the dumb contest with this added flair...

"Members of Congress better wake up to the fact that the biggest threat to our liberty isn't Al-Qaeda, but technology."

Muni Wi-Fi's Obituary

Cynthia Brumfield writes it up...

One big reason why EarthLink and others failed to get a good grip on the bottom-line business calculus of muni-Wi-Fi is that the subject became a partisan one, and symbolized the idea that “the people” have a right to broadband connectivity, free of control by big communications companies. City governments and progressives (PDF) pushed the idea and conservatives and incumbent broadband providers rejected the very notion (PDF).

Whatever the merits of the political arguments for and against muni-Wi-Fi, few people focused on one reality: Wi-Fi technology is a just too limited to work across big geographic areas. For things to work well in a city like San Francisco, thousands of tiny transmitters have to be mounted everywhere and physical impediments, not to mention bad weather, can make running the network a nightmare.

Personally, I come to praise the concept of a third pipe to the home and not to bury it. But, it looks like we'll just have to wait and see what the innovation fairies have in store for us.

Get Ready for the Google Phone

Really.

From a well-argued and potentially prescient post by at last100...

Google is positioning itself for the future. It’s conquered search on the Internet, revolutionized advertising with AdSense, and opened the door for the development and acceptance of Web applications like Gmail and Gcal. At the same time Google is leading a media renaissance with the acquisitions of YouTube, Blogger, Picasa.

Google could sit tight and count its pennies, not unlike what Microsoft did during its heyday, or it could push forward, beyond the desktop and into the mobile world, where content and information are meeting voice communication and the cell phone.

It’s a natural fit. Google takes what it has pioneered on the desktop and through the browser and applies it to mobile lifestyles, providing a seamless transition for people on the go. At the same time it opens up new opportunities for search and advertising, expanding the “Googleverse”.

Stephanie Mehta at Fortune writes that this move would be a big cause of a soon-to-come collision between the tech and telecom worlds...

the biggest and most interesting salvo in the tech v. telecom fight is Google's potential bid for wireless spectrum, and its rumored development of wireless handsets....

Google has acknowledged a strong interest in moving its search applications and other content onto mobile phones, where it hopes to command premium prices for super-targeted advertising. (If you're searching for pizza places on your mobile phone, you're probably hungry right this minute, making you an ideal marketing target for a local restaurateur.) And Google has been working with carriers and handset makers to get Google's maps, mail and other applications on mobile phones.

But by thinking about bidding on licenses - and possibly deploying its own handsets - Google clearly must be thinking about ways to end-run the traditional telecommunications infrastructure. (Consumers without Web browsers in their mobile phones typically access mobile data through a "deck" of services controlled or selected by their phone company.)...

..."All these things - Net neutrality, Google's interest in the 700 Megahertz auctions - these are all examples of the collision of technology and the communications sector," says Scott Cleland, a self-described "tech-com" analyst who clearly is aligned with the communications camp. "If you think of two cars colliding, one car can take the other in a different direction, but sometimes, they both take each other in an entirely new direction."

Some think a Google phone would be a big mistake:

With rumors abound, everyone is getting caught up in the fact that Google may be entering the gadget business. And while it must happen eventually, a cell phone is not the place to start. Like every other cell phone, the GPhone will be derivative, yet useful to many people. But unlike the online business, Google will be met with a significant amount of competition that it wields no advantage over. Cell phones are a different ballgame and if you ask me, Google is ill-equipped to play this game.

Gphone concept sketch by Lorin Wood.

Talent Acquisition

You might have seen that the South Park guys got a sweet deal that will let them share advertising revenue for their online presence.  Cynthia Brumfield writes:

The game-changing part of the deal is that Stone and Parker will get 50% of all ad revenue, an unthinkable concept in the TV industry, where talent has had to resort (think Seinfeld and the cast of “Friends”) to threatened no-shows to reap more profits from their labors.....

...Admittedly Stone and Parker have the swack to demand such revenue splits, while up-and-coming creative types probably still have to settle for what they can get. But the balance of power in the entertainment business is no doubt shifting away from the big studios and networks and toward those who can create.

This got me to thinking (again) about the possibilities of an upcoming writers and actors strike.  The word is that big issues like Internet revenue residuals make the possibility of a work stoppage very real...

The threat of a strike by writers, and next year by actors, is seen as more real than any time in the past two decades, as activist guild leadership take on powerful studios and networks over a string of divisive issues that include compensation for works distributed on new media platforms, an overall pay increase and a controversial proposal by producers to roll back residual payments.  (Hollywood Today)

The connection between South Park and a possible strike are little things called choice and leverage.  In past conflicts between the talent and producers, where could the writers and actors threaten to go?  Community theater? 

Seemingly, they now have an unprecedented platform to display their skills and get paid for them in new ways via the Web.  They could also have opportunistic Internet companies sniffing a rare chance to pick off talent from the Hollywood structure.

What is less clear is whether SAG or the WGA would embrace the new media world as a collective body (as opposed to individual writers or actors) and, even if they did, whether this would be reciprocated.  Union rules and Internet company mindsets couldn't be less aligned.

Following the Valley Money

Day in and day out.... Errr, occasionally, I bust my tail to write on a company blog that gets a few hundred readers.

My 463 partner Jim Hock sits around with his feet up on his desk, smokes a corn cob pipe and occasionally pontificates to reporters.  In turn, he gets quoted in newspapers with many more readers than this spell-binding piece of creative genius.

Jim is quoted in a Frank Davies Mercury News piece about the shifting winds of dollars toward Democrats from Silicon Valley power brokers.  The lead...

In a dramatic shift that reflects the change of power in Congress, tech companies and venture capitalists are now contributing heavily to the Democrats who took control of Capitol Hill after years of favoring congressional Republicans.

So far this year, almost two-thirds of the contributions from the political action committees of Microsoft, Intel, Hewlett-Packard, Google and other tech companies went to Democrats and Democratic committees, according to reports for the first six months of 2007. Just a year ago, those companies were directing more than 60 percent of their donations to Republicans.

Jim's bit...

In recent years, Silicon Valley has been known for tech executives who gave large individual contributions to Democrats. In part to counter that image, corporate PACs - usually funded by contributions from executives and employees - favored Republicans. Google, whose top leaders gave overwhelming to Democrats, launched its PAC in fall 2006 with 61 percent of its money going to Republicans.

Jim Hock, a technology public relations executive in Washington who has tracked the valley's political involvement, said, "The importance of individual relationships and individual contributions has played a bigger role than PACs."

In the last election, Hock estimated that PAC contributions accounted for about one-third of political donations from the valley, with individual contributions accounting for the rest.

And...

Gauging the clout of the tech sector is difficult because the companies don't always have a lot in common. Computer manufacturers have different issues than software makers and Internet service companies. Google and Microsoft are allies on some issues while competing fiercely over new services and applications.

"There's a lot of diversity of companies and interests, and technology issues on the Hill get very complicated," said Hock, a former staffer for Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat.

The Merc also has a helpful chart that breaks down the giving by companies...

Lawyers Who Hate Puppies and the Internet

Evidence A. "MySpace nukes Cubbies Baseball's page at MLB's request" -- Salon

Evidence B. "Lawyers Create Unintentionally Hilarious Firm Song: Go Mental When it is Unleashed on the Unsuspecting Public" -- Above the Law (click here for the most awesome track).

The 463 Show: Jim Harper on Valuing Open Source

Jim Harper, Cato's director of information policy studies, is a man with a million opinions and a fondness for offering them. Fortunately, he does so in an understated, inquisitive way that takes you along with him as he explores ideas. Plus, he's a simply a good guy to have a beer with.

We sat down with Jim during the unofficial PFF Aspen Summit evening hours that are so treasured by the attendees. This clip below is expounds on a post that Jim filed from the event on the value of open source software and how this measurement can impact government policy...

The 463 Show on Online Kid Safety and Content Regulation

Lesson One of video blogging: If you are using an external mic, make sure it is on.

Whoops. Rookie mistake.

But, thank goodness, I did catch a decent portion of my chat at the Aspen Summit with PFF's Adam Thierer and Internet Education Foundation executive director Tim Lordan. In the video below, we talk about online safety efforts to protect kids and empower parents. I also ask Adam and Tim what they think will be the big Internet issue in coming months, and they agree on the answer....

If you're interested in this subject, check out a powerpoint that Adam created to for his online safety panel. It's a snapshot of a pretty remarkable number of kid safety efforts with numerous screenshots and links.

Thank you, Tim and Adam...

In Aspen

I'm back in Aspen for what I think is my fifth PFF Aspen summit in a row. The last two were well documented on this blog. But, really, why should I even try to blog from here when I have to compete with Cato's Jim Harper? His musings this morning:

Liveblogging from the PFF Aspen Summit

8:09 am - Seems that Cord forgot to bring toothpaste. They sell it in the St. Regis, but at a price!

8:17 am - Bacon! And there’s sausage patties too, but bacon is what really excites people.

8:25 am - Am I the only one wearing sneakers?

8:35 - A little chilly here in the conference room.

Jim did make up for this with a thoughtful post on this morning's keynote that also includes a pointer to presentation made by Harvard Economics Professor Dale Jorgensen.

Heather Greenfield is also here blogging for Tech Daily.

How about me, you ask? Um... I'll give you one reason. I'm hoping to do some video stuff here. It will be forthcoming.

Plus, the real interesting stuff happens here outside of the panels. Like watching DC-types jump over fountains of water at 2:00 a.m..... (bad camera phone photo, but, it's best that way...)

Tech and the Candidates

National Journal Tech Daily has a nice set of stories about the presidential candidates and their intersection with technology and the innovation industries. Even nicer, Tech Daily busted out the very rare move of making this content available to non-subscribers today....

So go eat up the free grub here.

A snip:

David All, a Republican media consultant, said candidates' tech savvy is being tested and critiqued more than ever. Unfortunately, he added, candidates in both parties are "pretty pitiful" in proving that they are knowledgeable about tech-related topics.

All said their failure to address important technology matters is largely due to the campaign staffs thinking the issues do not need to be addressed. "You're not going to find network neutrality on any poll," he said in a reference to one hot-button Internet policy topic of the past two years. "But they are issues that influential people care about."