The 463: Inside Tech Policy

The Sound of One Hand Smacking

Apparently that "Tech Policy Smackdown" between the Obama and McCain camps that we promoted earlier this week was a little bit a lot bit one sided.

The McCain representative had a scheduling conflict. Which, one week before election day is entirely plausible. However, some weren't so happy about it and noted that said representative appeared on MSNBC at the same time that the event was scheduled (recalling the Letterman/Katie Couric episode). From ThinkProgress:

ThinkProgress spoke with Troy Schneider, new media editor at the New America Foundation, who said that the McCain campaign contacted them and canceled at 9 a.m. today. “I do think that this was just an honest scheduling conflict,” said Schneider. “He got pulled into meetings he had to do with the campaign today.” An aide in the McCain campaign press office said that he believed Holtz-Eakin simply had “campaign stuff” to do, but our call to Holtz-Eakin’s office has not yet been returned.

However, Holtz-Eakin appeared on MSNBC today, raising questions about whether there really was a true “scheduling conflict.” Holtz-Eakin’s appearance was at 1:00 p.m., right during the middle of the New America event.

The moderator of the debate, Wired's Nicholas Thompson wasn't happy, either, and gives more backstory to the process of getting participation from the McCain team:

I’ve been wrangling with the McCain campaign, trying to get someone to defend his tech record and platform in a debate. There are enough Obama surrogates to fill the Queen Mary and the first one I called, former FCC chair Reed Hundt, was eager and willing to find a time.

But finding a campaign surrogate for McCain was not easy.

Carly Fiorina? Alas, she was vetoed by the campaign, ostensibly because she’s not a policy person; but almost certainly because she made a gaffe earlier in the election cycle. Former FCC chair Michael Powell? Supposedly traveling until election day --- and, according to one friend of his who I spoke with, wavering in his support for McCain, just as his father, Colin, did. Meg Whitman? According to the McCain people she couldn’t possibly fly east for a debate in Washington. Funny then that she spoke at a conference in Virginia earlier this week.

Finally, the McCain camp offered economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Excellent! We started planning and everything went well. Technology has been the ignored step-child of this campaign. No issue that matters more has been discussed less. The event sold out immediately.

Then, oops, yesterday morning, a couple hours before the event began, the McCain camp emailed to say that, actually, no, sorry, Holtz-Eakin can't make it for the 12:30 debate. Apparently he had very important meetings to attend. Right. Apparently, though, he stepped out in the middle. At 1pm he was on MSNBC attacking Obama, trying to tie him to George Bush's economic policies. Meanwhile, Reed Hundt ended up talking about complicated tech issues alone. The event was still fascinating (and you can see video here) but a huge opportunity was lost.

I can't fault the McCain team for pulling their top economic guy for either a "meeting" or a MSNBC opp in front of many, many more of voters than in the room for the tech policy event. But, given the obviousness of busy campaigns, it would have obviously been nice if had a back-up ready.

The Lost Elephant

Venture Capitalist Tim Draper supporting Barack Obama (and contributing to his campaign) wouldn't be unlike John Doerr appearing on Bill O'Reilly's show to endorse John McCain.

That's to say, it's a pretty big deal for someone who has watched Valley politics since its diaper days.

Declan McCullugh has the story:

Salon once dubbed him "George W.'s point man in Silicon Valley." The Draper, Fisher Jurvetson managing partner is a longtime proponent of limited government, free markets, and libertarian concepts like school vouchers, making him a natural fit for a political party whose platform lauds "lower taxes, reasonable regulation, and smaller, smarter government."

This year, though, something odd happened. Draper gave $2,300 -- the legal maximum -- to Barack Obama and zero to John McCain. Draper also did something that would have been unthinkable in the days when Bush was touting laissez-faire principles: he disclosed publicly that he will vote for a Democrat.

VC Tim Draper, once George W. Bush's point man in Silicon Valley, is now voting for Barack Obama.
(Credit: Draper Fisher Jurvetson)

"It's good to have a fresh face," Draper told CNET News on Thursday. "At least from the press, we've seen about six years of fear. I'd like to see six years of opportunity and what that could do for our country, and I think that might happen with Obama."

Declan continues:

He's not alone. A review of 2008 campaign contributions show what amounts to a startling number of defections by Silicon Valley leaders well-known for their support of Republican candidates in the past.

Intel Chairman Craig Barrett wrote checks to Bush during the last two presidential elections. He's handed $2,300 to onetime candidate Mitt Romney, but nothing to McCain. Neither have usual party loyalists Floyd Kvamme or Michael Kim of Rustic Canyon Partners. Lead21, a once-thriving outpost of free-market Republicanism in Silicon Valley, has not updated its blog since April 2007 (though it is holding an election party in San Francisco next Tuesday).

Declan then goes on to to quote a handful of smart people about why the shift has been made away from what used to be a pretty even split in the Valley (where money is concerned).... Republicans have spent too much... Wiretapping... McCain's mixed record on tech.... Obama promising tax break and spending goodies for tech projects.... And, Bush's lack of action on tech issues.

Personally, while all of these aspects are factors, my sense in this presidential election and in most others is that the vast majority of Valley money is driven by individuals' full belief systems that extend far beyond their selfish tech policy tech interests. Action oriented money is what the company PAC and giving to random congresspeeps that you have barely heard of is for.

Although, the pervasive feeling among many influentials that Bush froze the tech clock for eight years can't help McCain.

This Dem-friendly movement apparently extends to IT workers who aren't big name VCs and CEOs. CompTIA today released a study that found:

53% of IT workers favor Obama. Thirty-eight percent said they would vote for his Republican rival, John McCain. Four percent said they would choose another candidate, and 6% said they were undecided.

It also found that:

In terms of technology policy, 79% of respondents said the government should not regulate the Internet the way it regulates telephone service providers and television broadcasts. Fifty-nine percent said free trade aids the U.S. economy, and 57% said the government should do more to protect the environment.

(photo by iamquentin)

Aussie Aussie Aussie Oye Oye.... Oy Vey

As we warned on the second day of this year, even a change in government was unlikely to stem the Australian momentum for a national Web filtering implementation. Though, back then, it seemed as if it may be easy to opt-out. A story today from the Herald Sun suggests otherwise:

Australia will join China in implementing mandatory censoring of the internet under plans put forward by the Federal Government....

The government has declared it will not let internet users opt out of the proposed national internet filter.

The plan was first created as a way to combat child pronography and adult content, but could be extended to include controversial websites on euthanasia or anorexia.

Communications minister Stephen Conroy revealed the mandatory censorship to the Senate estimates committee as the Global Network Initiative, bringing together leading companies, human rights organisations, academics and investors, committed the technology firms to "protect the freedom of expression and privacy rights of their users".

Mr Conroy said trials were yet to be carried out, but 'we are talking about mandatory blocking, where possible, of illegal material.'

The Australian reports on the technical hurdles to this plan...

But System Administrators Guild of Australia president Donna Ashelford said the plan was deeply flawed and would slow internet access down by about 30 per cent according to the Government's own laboratory trials.

Despite this, the national web filter would only censor web content, Ms Ashelford said, and could not deal with the remaining 60 per cent of internet traffic, much of which occurred over peer-to-peer networks such as BitTorrent and LimeWire.

"The bulk of internet traffic is over peer-to-peer networks and the bulk of illegal content is trafficked is over peer-to-peer networks," she said. "There is no choke point at which they can block that material. I do not believe this is an issue that has a technical solution."

Then you get into the ethical issues. From one ISP CEO....

Malone is concerned both of the last two Federal Government's posturing on 'making the internet safe' might be the first step in a path towards censorship.

"I do worry that this is the thin edge of the wedge," he said. "That the Government will come in with a small list of sites for the ISP to block, and that just includes the real stuff that everyone agrees on like child porn and bestiality. So we say, OK we are willing to comply with that. But it becomes an area then that can be used for so much more. So you might see the next step is an attempt to block out XXX sites or hate speech sites, and you think, OK maybe we can live with that [too]."

"But then after that it could be to block out competing political positions or to block out sites about religion or sexual orientation that the Government says is no longer suitable for children in Australia."

All this negativity (commons sense?) is seemingly having an impact. While one wonders where they were when this plan was being talked about last year and into this year, some opposition politicians are beginning to publicly come out against it. Today, the Australian wrote:

A headline-grabbing election promise to crack down on internet nasties looks to be in trouble as Senate opposition grows.

As part of its election-winning pitch, the Rudd Government promised families far-reaching measures to block prohibited content at the internet server level. It now faces a concerted backlash against the proposal by the internet industry.

The Greens have added their voice to Coalition concerns about the plan, with the Greens' communications spokesman calling the proposal "daft".

If the Liberals block legislation imposing server-level filtering, the Government will need the support of the Greens, Family First senator Steve Fielding and South Australian senator Nick Xenophon.

And, when your best defense is that you are NOT China or Saudi Arabia, you perhaps don't have the best political footing. From the same Australian piece:

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has launched a strong defence of the policy, hitting back at claims by the internet industry that the Government wants a sweeping ban on controversial content.

"I will accept some debate around what should and should not be on the internet - I am not a wowser," Senator Conroy told The Age. "I am not looking to blanket-ban some of the material that it is being claimed I want to blanket-ban, but some material online, such as child pornography, is illegal."

In response to arguments that the proposal would affect basic civil liberties and the principle that households should be able to be their own internet policeman, he said: "We are not trying to build the Great Wall of China.

"We are not trying to be Saudi Arabia, and to say that is to simply misrepresent the Government's position.

Cord Blomquist at TLF wonders if the US in line to have this debate. But, in my opinion, the post makes some pretty big, tangential leaps on what a potential Obama or McCain administration would do. The potential slippery slope of the Child Safe Viewing Act seems like a more apt point to raise eyebrows at.

Tech CEOs Say Vote

The Vote Hour is a project designed to get employees to feel comfortable taking a 60 minute break to vote. Several tech CEOs are participating. Below are videos from Cisco's John Chambers, Symantec's John Thompson and eBay's John Donahoe that give the bosses permission cast a ballot on company time. (hat tip to Stephanie Condon).

Arts+Labs on Google Book Settlement

One of the more interesting coalitions to recently pop up on the tech policy scene is the cleverly named Arts+Labs. Launching a month ago, the group includes AT&T, Viacom, NBC Universal, Cisco, Microsoft and the Songwriters Guild of America as members. Support them or not, all involved are currently among the savvier players in DC. And, the folks running Arts+Labs aren't too shabby themselves.

Most of the focus around the launch of the coalition was centered on its stated intent to clean up "net pollution" -- a scorn that includes illegal file sharing.

No doubt that this priority will remain, but I am mostly interested in watching how their policy positions will evolve and what this will mean for who else comes on board. I do find the old yarn about the simplified Silicon Valley vs. Hollywood battle tired and usually false and will be curious what Arts+Labs can do to replace the "vs." with the "+" and demonstrate that most of us have moved on from the black and white days of the original Napster battle.

This is why I took interest in Arts+Labs statement on the Google book search settlement with publishers today. Normally, something like this would bore me to tears (and not just because I write these types of thing all of the time). But, it was interesting to see how Arts+Labs used the statement to represent itself in a way that softens how the content players usually speak in stark, tough lawyerly statements. An excerpt:

This settlement shows that creators' rights and consumer benefit can go hand-in-hand in the Internet age. It is a victory for consumers and creators alike...

...The framework established by this agreement, if approved by the Court, should open the door to additional innovation and may potentially provide a model for legal access to other types of artistic content. This type of collaborative problem-solving is part of Arts+Labs' vision and is far preferable to years of litigation that would delay a future for the Internet that is safer, faster, more reliable and more beneficial for every consumer.

Ironically (or not), Arts+Labs member Viacom, who is, of course, involved in a little suit regarding YouTube was a little more harsh in a separate statement:

"Copyright laws provide creators with the incentive to create the works consumers crave. It is unfortunate that the publishers had to spend years, and millions of dollars, for Google to honor that principle. We hope that Google avoids the wasted effort and comes more quickly to respect movies and television programming."

I'm all for the "collaborative problem-solving" that the Arts+Labs quote references. It will be interesting to watch how this manifests itself in the next year or so.

McCain v. Obama: The Technology Policy "Smackdown"

And, (sans quotations) that is literally how the normally wonky New America Foundation describes this Thursday's debate between McCain campaign's chief economic policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Obama surrogate, former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt.

Here are all the details. This is also place to go to on Thursday at 12:30 pm ET for the event's Webcast.

It must be tech policy debate day in DC on Thursday. Just prior to the New America Foundation event, The Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA) is hosting a National Press Club event with "representatives/surrogates for the Obama and McCain campaigns discussing/debating their technology policy platforms."

(photo by El Buen Matador)

Intel Insiders Talk Change

I recently wrote about Intel's new policy lead in DC, Peter Cleveland. He joins Intel general counsel Bruce Sewell in an interview with the National Journal's Winter Casey and talk about Intel's current state of policy play, the eternal trade association merger question and what to expect post-election. Some excerpts....

Q: It doesn't seem like any of the tech industry's policy desires -- such as the push for more H1-B visas for skilled workers, the research and development tax credit, trade authority, or broadband access -- are going to be a high priority in either a John McCain or Obama administration. Do you agree?

Sewell: Nothing is going to happen for the first -- I don't know how long -- while people sort out the financial crisis. We are going to be mired in this for some period of time when the new administration, whomever it is, takes over. Getting things on the agenda is going to be a challenge.... If you accept the picture you have just painted for us, there are two things you can do. We can take our marbles, go back to California, stick our head in the sand and hope that everything is going to be all right someday, or we can try to make a bigger investment -- both in terms of time, money, resources -- in telling the story.

Q: As companies are looking to tighten up financially in this weakening economy, will more technology associations merge? And will trade associations lower their fees?

Cleveland: You have heard about talks between [the American Electronics Association] and [the Information Technology Association of America] -- I am not sure where they stand. [The Information Technology Industry Council] has just put a big person in place. I would expect these types of discussions to continue given the overlap between TechNet, CEO Technology Council, and ITAA and AEA and ITI -- there are a lot of acronyms out there -- and Intel is involved in a lot of these trade associations.

Sewell: I think it is different for each trade association. I think we have already seen trade associations that are willing to negotiate in their fees at this point and are willing to say, "We would like to keep you on board, but if you want to drop to a lower membership level that's OK." So there is more ability to negotiate, there's more flexibility in fees, but I don't think there is a common policy across the trade associations to either drop their fees or to change the way in which they charge the fees.... There is consolidation in the tech industry, so not surprisingly there will be consolidation in tech associations. I think it is likely to be the case that we will see some consolidation.

Q: Are you funding anything in Washington to support new growth areas for Intel?

Cleveland: Because the playing field here is going to change a little bit, we want to be able to pounce in terms of adjustments in what happens in the House, Senate and the new administration. John McCain might have a different view on immigration, something that's more moderate than his Republican Party counterparts, as is the case with Obama and his innovation agenda as well.

There is going to be a change in the players. And the fact that, let's say hypothetically Democrats prevailed and there was a Democratic administration. You won't have had that since '92 -- 16 years -- that might cause some adjustments in some of the issues that we cite. You have to be ready.

Dog Bites Man: Eric Schmidt Endorses Obama

Usually, political endorsements that follow conventional wisdom get little attention ("Gee! The NRA endorsed a Republican?!" -- "A Democrat just got the nod from the AFL-CIO?! OMG!).

It's the (somewhat) surprise factor (not to mention gravitas) that made people sit-up and pay attention to yesterday's Colin Powell news.

So, today's WSJ story on Google CEO Eric Schmidt "endorsing" Obama managed to raise my jet-lagged eyebrows. As the story notes, Schmidt has been involved with the campaign as an advisor on Internet and clean tech policy for a good while. He also has participated in at least one advisory meeting with the candidate regarding the economy. And, it is a relatively well known fact that the several on the Google team played a key role in consultations that led to Obama's tech policy plan that was not so coincidentally announced at Google last November.

Is it possible to advise a campaign without endorsing it?

(BTW, I do get how this is really about packaging tech and business leader endorsements).

Oh, and since Google is a place that is so proud of doing things unconventionally, perhaps I also shouldn't be surprised by the following related tidbits that were found in a few minutes of searching:

--As the WSJ briefly notes, Schmidt hasn't given any money to Obama. This means that, according to the campaign, 3.1 million people have given more money to support Obama than the CEO of Google who will be traveling with said candidate. A 58-year-old massage therapist in Anchorage has given $2000 more than Eric Schmidt. This is made stranger by the fact that Schmidt is no political babe in the woods. He got politically active when at Novell and battling Microsoft. And, he has been involved in plenty of Valley/DC money activities in prior cycles. In 2004, he gave money to Kerry, Lieberman, Dean and Gephardt. Perhaps he didn't find it money well spent. This cycle he has maxed-out contributions to Google's PAC (for mostly Congressional candidates) and the DNC ($25,000).

--Despite recently getting quite smart and engaged on FCC issues, Larry Page hasn't given any money to a candidate this cycle (at least he hasn't made any contributions that qualify for FEC recording). He has made requisite $5,000 contribution to the Google PAC.

--And, likewise, Sergey Brin has only made the Google PAC give. This surprises me only because I was at an election party in 2004 with Brin and happened to be the only person there with a computer. Predictably, Brin and others gathered around the light of the laptop and were much more interested in tracking the moment by moment mathematical swings in key Ohio counties than wait for some suit with a TelePrompTer tell them that the election was over. And, when it was over, I got a sense of genuine wistfulness from Brin that he didn't get involved in one way, shape or form.

Off Topic: All You Need to Know About Our Great Nation's State of Mind

Beverly Hills Chihuahua is number one at the box office for the second week in a row. This chart from the Indexed blog explains why:

Not the best news for Oliver Stone's new flick.

Big Changes Afoot

While rumor has it that the economy may not be doing so hot, for the time being, at least, plenty of good people continue to get good jobs in our little happy niche.

The big inside baseball gossip item of the week was that Dean Garfield, the MPAA's chief strategic officer, grabbed the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) top gig. Garfield is replacing the well-respected Rhett Dawson, who helped make ITI a strong DC lobbying force for the industry.

Andrew Noyes asks Garfield the obvious question:

Q: What do you say to those who question a content industry executive's appointment to a leadership post at a high-tech trade group?

A: I spend lot of time being creative and one thing I know is that in a time of change, the old rules don’t always work and the old alliances don’t always work. They remain valuable but you have to work hard at building new relationships. Sure, we may have had our policy differences on various issues but I've tried to instill a belief in being pragmatic and not making it personal. As time goes on, trust that my interest will be consistent with stakeholders at ITI.

Also announced this week, was the big move from Senator Diane Feinstein's top aide Peter Cleveland to Intel as their new VP of global public policy. Politico notes:

A 17-year Hill veteran, Cleveland has worked for the Democratic senator from California for four years, two as legislative director and two as chief of staff.

He’ll be joining a company working to raise its Washington profile.

Since May, Intel has been running an inside-the-Beltway ad campaign, highlighting its $40 billion investment in stateside capital and research and development projects. The company has also been touting the fact that it manufacturers three-fourths of its chips domestically even though it earns 80 percent of its revenue outside the country.

Joining Cleveland in the DC office is former FTC chair Deborah Majoras' Chief of Staff Brian Huseman. I got to know Brian when he was at the FCC and was always impressed by his boss's tech savvyness. I'm sure some credit should go to Brian. He is also a nice guy that I like even more because he acknowledged that this little blog tipped him to the fact that Intel might be hiring.

Last but absolutely not least is the move by Jamie Hedlund from Yahoo! to the Consumer Electronics Association as their new VP of regulatory affairs responsible for all things FCC. Jamie is a great guy who will be very successful at CEA. We at 463 wish him well in his new gig.

Congrats all.

(photo by subliculous)