The 463: Inside Tech Policy

Regulation Without Tears?

Recall the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction.  Remember the FCC's actions.  Then consider what it would be like if the FCC imposed roughly the same regulations and punitive actions on online video outlets that replayed the malfunction or showed homemade videos from people at the Superbowl?

Impossible?  Nutty? 

What if the FCC simply just proposed creating a more uniform regulatory structure that governed online video like traditional television broadcasts?

How mental would the blogosphere get?

Okay, this isn't happening in the U.S., but what if it were happening in Europe?

Apparently not much. Because, as we mentioned as far back as December and again in March, it is.

Again, this all about the European Commission's "TV Without Frontiers" directive that the EC says is in need of an updating since it was introduced in 1989.  (And, not by Peter Gabriel).  Following is the  objective of the update that is causing the current controversy (albeit the relatively quiet and polite one)...

Big Brother Made Me Do It, Mate

At about 4:30 am the other day, something very bad happened on the Australian Big Brother reality TV show. Yet, the TV show wasn't on TV at the time. It was being streamed live over the Internet and to Australian mobile phones (at least to, presumably, a few dozen insomniacs).

Suddenly, there's a movement afoot to regulate Internet broadcasts like those on TV (from Asia Media News):

Communications Minister Helen Coonan said yesterday that legislation to broaden the authority's regulatory powers would be introduced into Parliament as soon as possible. "This matter has reinforced the need for changes to the act to ensure that these new services being offered over the internet and mobile devices are subject to the same content restrictions that apply to television broadcasts," she said.

This sounds like the similar European attempt to bring all "broadcasts" under one regulatory roof.

Au Revoir, YouTube; Auf Wiedersehen Vlogs

Way back in December -- back in the age before the mainstream media fell in love with all things YouTubey -- we noted that European Commission hatched a plan to regulate all Web and mobile video content just like traditional television.   This means enforcing rules on hate speech, advertising and the kind of content that can be broadcast to children on all video platforms.

Finally, some are getting organized and fighting back.  As AP reports:

an alliance of British-based companies including ITV PLC, Yahoo Inc., Vodafone Group PLC, Intel Corp. and Cisco Systems Inc.'s UK subsidiary said a European Commission proposal to impose rules for traditional broadcasters on new media providers could have "unintended consequences" and hurt investment.

The coalition continues with what should create fear in any Web 2.0 investor's heart...

"Citizen media such as blogs, video-casts and the like are one of the most exciting developments enabled by new technology. This phenomenon has the potential to create new businesses … but this proposed regulation severely risks stunting its growth."

AP notes that the law will need the backing of the European Parliament and 25 European Union governments before it can take effect. The Parliament is likely to vote on it later this year.

Freedom to be Circumspect

The Freedom to Connect conference is in DC today and tomorrow and the topic du jour is Net Neutrality.

Eric Schonfeld at Business 2.0 notes that former FCC Chairman and current speaker-about-town issued a strong warning to the pro-NN crowd about the unintended dangers of legislating a tech mandate:

Set Spectrum Free!

The Technology CEO Council makes a strong and loud call today for the significant expansion of the use and usability of radio spectrum.  The group includes the CEOs of nine leading IT companies and says that spectrum may be the most critical infrastructure element of 21st century economies.

Reuters says:

Wireless companies have been hungry for more airwaves as they deploy new services like high-speed Internet and video content.

The executives also plan to suggest the FCC ease restrictions on wireless licenses so companies have more flexibility to use the airwaves for new services. They also will recommend making more unlicensed spectrum available that could be used for a variety of purposes.

The organization also plans to recommend Congress and regulators ensure that public safety organizations have the airwaves they need. Safety officials have complained about poor communications during disasters like the September 11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina.

For the full report, click here.

Flagging the Spectrum of Neutral Porn...

The Senate Commerce Committee's upcoming tech policy hearing schedule, of course...

Thursday, January 19 2:30 PM
Internet Pornography - LIVE WEBCAST
Full Committee Hearing

Tuesday, January 24 10:00 AM
Broadcast and Audio Flag - LIVE WEBCAST
Full Committee Hearing

Thursday, January 26 10:00 AM
Competition and Convergence - LIVE WEBCAST
Full Committee Hearing

Tuesday, February 7 10:00 AM
Net Neutrality - LIVE WEBCAST
Full Committee Hearing

Wednesday, February 15 10:00 AM
FCC Activities and Policy - LIVE WEBCAST
Full Committee Hearing

Thursday, March 2 10:00 AM
Wireless Issues/Spectrum Reform - LIVE WEBCAST
Full Committee Hearing

[Insert Immature Headline About Analog Hole]

When there's an issue called the analog hole and the MPAA is offering live demos of said hole in its Sin City hotel room (at CES), what's a blog writer to do?

Tech Daily's Sarah Lai Stirland turns us on to the MPAA effort to convince media and Congressional staffers enjoying the new Comdex in Las Vegas.  As Stirland explains, the analog hole is:

...the practice of converting analog content into digital format without embedded copy-protection instructions. Hollywood studios are concerned about the potential for mass online redistribution of entertainment programming via the hole.

And when Hollywood studios are concerned, presto, legislation appears.  House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner and the committee's top Democrat, John Conyers, have introduced a bill (H.R. 4569), that would put locks on analog conversion devices.  As the LA Times editorialized last week,  the  problem with the legislation is that:

To Watch This Movie, Fill Out This Form in Triplicate

From the good people who wanted Big Government to take over the Internet comes a plan to regulate what videos the world can watch. The European Commission proposed new rules this week on content that can be seen over the television, cable or Internet.

In announcing the rules, EU Information Commissioner Viviane Redding said, "It would be a distortion of competition if we were to just regulate one and not all.” Nowhere in her thinking, apparently, did the idea pop up of decreasing regulation for traditional TV rather than increasing for cable and the Internet.

Now, this isn’t merely the FCC saying what CBS or NBC can show during primetime, this is the Internet. Which leads us to our point:

SBC to Internet Cos: Don't Bogart My Pipes

 What could wake The 463 up from a temporary work-induced slumber?  How 'bout fighting words like:

"They don't have any fiber out there. They don't have any wires. They don't have anything," he argues. "They use my lines for free -- and that's bull. For a Google or a Yahoo! or a Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes for free is nuts!"

All this courtesy of SBC CEO Ed Whitacre in a recent BusinessWeek interview. 

So, three cheers to Whitacre for so eloquently kicking the previously esoteric "Net Neutrality" debate into the sphere of the interesting  And, indeed, hyperbole or not, it will only get more interesting as battle lines are drawn and the fight is played out.

Of course, Whitacre wasn't just talking pretty to impress visiting journalists in September.  He was hoping to influence the FCC as they reviewed his pending merger with AT&T.  And, just last week the FCC said that...

The FCC's 911 Quandry

The FCC today backed off its threat to force VoIP providers to disconnect customers who didn’t acknowledge that it may be hard to reach 911 from a VoIP phone. It’s easy to understand the FCC’s position – it wants to ensure that VoIP growth doesn’t lead to folks getting disconnected from emergency services. Unlike conventional phones, which can only be used from a set place, VoIP phones can be plugged into wherever there is a data network and work there. That means you can have your work phone ring at your house (“Yes, boss, of course I am in the office, enjoy your business trip. What? No, that is not the “Andy Griffith Show” you hear in the background, it's Fred talking to a customer.”).

The challenge with the flexibility is it makes it harder for 911 to know where you are.
The FCC’s solution was to force VoIP customers who didn’t acknowledge that to lose their service. Hmmm. Now how does that help them in an emergency?

By the way, the overwhelming majority of the roughly 2.7 million VoIP customers in the United States have met the FCC’s mandate.

A Broadband Bill of Rights?

That’s what Vonage’s Jeffrey Citron pushed for during the Aspen Summit’s telecom roundtable, and he wants it be the Law of the Land. This Bill of Rights would place into law what types of Internet access and service a broadband user could expect.

Citron has a vested interest because in a few instances Vonage’s VOIP services have been blocked by ISPs that offered a competing service. On one level, he has a point. There would probably be a hue and cry if Google blocked access to Yahoo! Or of a phone company’s 411 service blocked access to phone numbers of its competitors.

So, in this Bill of Rights, the law would prohibit an ISP from blocking access to a website. Sounds good, right? Well, dig a little deeper and it gets tricky....

IPTV Legislative Fight Previewed

TV over IP may come eventually to a television set near you, but not before a regulatory fight in the U.S. Congress.

It's a fight pitting two giant industries against each other -- cable television carriers vs. the largest telecommunications carriers -- with the two sides arguing over the rules that will govern competition for traditional television and advanced video and broadband services offered to U.S. residents.

This from a Grant Gross NetworkWorld story on a D.C forum that previewed the IPTV legislative battle.  Gross outlines the battle:

Intel Speaks on Muni Broadband

Despite the heat of the issue in 2005, much of the tech industry has shied from taking firm positions on whether municipalities should be allowed by states to operate broadband networks (be they wireline or wireless).

A Senate bill (S. 1294) has Intel's Communications Policy Director Peter Pitsch speaking out as reported by Technology Daily (subscription) and reposted by Red Herring:

800-Pound Gorillas Converge

John Van at the Chicago Tribune writes that the Baby Bells fight with the cable companies over delivering Internet Protocal TV to consumers is moving from Texas to Congress.

Three former Bell companies are upgrading their networks with optical fiber so they can deliver television to consumers. It's a multibillion-dollar undertaking that will stretch out for years. But it will take even longer if SBC, Verizon and BellSouth also must secure video franchises from every city, village and hamlet where they operate.

In a bid to short-circuit that requirement, SBC Communications Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. sought a law in Texas that would grant a statewide franchise. That bid failed when the Texas legislature adjourned over the weekend without passing the law.

"We're looking at the possibility of federal legislation, which could be introduced this summer," said Eric Rabe, a Verizon spokesman.

Unfurling the Broadcast Flag

Some are calling the "broadcast flag" an issue as big as the Grokster case in terms of its potential ramifications.  Yesterday's New York Times (Tom Zeller Jr.) ran a nice summary of why.

The broadcast flag is a FCC regulation that they plan to implement this July.  Susan Crawford, an Internet law expert (and a vocal opponent of the flag), explains that the rule:

"is a mandate that all consumer electronics manufacturers and information technology companies ensure that any device that touches digital television content 'recognize and give effect to' the flag by protecting content against unauthorized onward distribution. The FCC claims that the rule will protect digital television (DTV) broadcasts from massive redistribution over the internet."

The impetus of the Time's piece is a Public Knowledge (et al) lawsuit against the FCC challenging the rule.  Today, oral agruments begin in the D.C. Circuit for the US Court of Appeals.   (For a CNET review of today's proceedings. go here).

Powell Says Don't Rewrite It

Outgoing FCC Chairman Michael Powell said today in Colorado that the "broken" Telecom Act of 1996 shouldn't be completely overhauled.  Instead, he said, according to WirelessWeek, the act just needs to be tweaked to include an "IP statute that will take the industry forward".  Powell is worried that, if rewritten, the legislation will get bogged down for many years.

The WirelessWeek piece continues:

"If an IP statute isn't enacted, Powell suggested it could dampen a renewed interest in telecom from Wall Street. An IP statute would make it more attractive for incumbents to get into such things as VoIP services."

Some of the key people who write legislation said last week at the Congressional Internet Caucus that the Telecom Act needs to be completely revised, including the influential Senator Conrad Burns (R-Mont.). 

However, Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee is taking the middle ground for now.  He's quoted by GCN saying that he is:

"'not exactly sure whether we should rewrite or amend the 1996 act'.... He said he does believe 'all communications technologies—wireline or wireless—should be treated equally. We must not have multiple separate sets of regulations' for new services such as WiMax and IP video. Congress should foster more competition and innovation, not try to 'put every new technology in its own regulatory box. I do believe we will act in this [109th] Congress.'"

Convergence = UK Internet Regulation?

The chairman of Ofcom, the UK's communications regulator, said this week in a BBC story that:

"The challenge will arise when boundaries between TV and the internet truly blur and then there is a balance to be struck between protecting consumers and allowing them to assess the risks themselves."

A BT executive responds:

"How risque can I be in this new age? With celebrity chefs serving up more expletives than hot dinners, surely I can push it to the limit."

463 partners will be having dinner with a visiting delegation of British MPs next week.  We'll get their opinons on this.

New Tech Gives TV Industry the Willie-Nillies

New technologies could place "the very creation of television programming in jeopardy" says one network exec in John Markoff and Lorne Manly's NY Times piece today on MythTV, BitTorrent, and Videora.

Essentially, MythTV is software that helps you turn your computer into a cable box, allowing you to record shows, use the Internet on your TV, and strip out commercials.  This means no more cable and Tivo subscriptions and no rented or purchased cable and DVR boxes.

BitTorrent greatly quickens the process of downloading video content.  Twenty million people have dowloaded it.

And, Videora is software that allows people to find the BitTorrent content that they want.

Add, all of these technologies together and you have a the setting for an industry freak-out. Naturally, this means lawsuits, legislation and regulation. 

Indeed, a NBC Universal executive argues:

"...that the industry and the government have to move - fast - to establish rules by which copyrighted television programming 'cannot be moved around willy-nilly.'"

One controversial regulation has already been implemented by the FCC and is being actively fought in both court and at the grass roots level. Here's more from the Times' story:

I Want My GTV?

It's doubtful that Dire Straits would pen an ode to Google's new video search capabilities.  Run this search, for example, and you get gripping images like:

Still, as Chris Gaither at the Los Angeles Times reminds us today, Google has very good reason to be tip-toeing into the video waters:

The Times Converges Google & VOIP

The normally staid London Times is, rather assertively, picking up on a rumor that Google is getting into the broadband and VOIP game.  How assertive?  The story in tomorrow's edition leads:

Google revolutionised the internet. Now it is hoping to do the same with our phones.

The company behind the US-based internet search engine looks set to launch a free telephone service that links users via a broadband internet connection using a headset and home computer.

PC World Makes Tech Policy Bets

Did you know that PC World is running a monthly column on tech policy?  Me neither.  But we look forward to reading more from Senior Editor Anush Yegyazarian.  In the January column that reviews 2004 congressional accomplishments (or the lack, thereof, for better or worse).  Anush bets:  "Only spyware (with a side of phishing), digital copyright, and VoIP will see any real action in 2005."

CES is the new Comdex

Yet, CES is getting more policymakers to Vegas that Comdex ever did.  From a New York Times piece on the real, live convegence between consumer technology and the digital world...

"And such is the lobbying power of the Washington-based sponsor, the Consumer Electronics Association, that 150 members of Congress and government regulatory officials, including the Federal Communications Commission chairman, Michael K. Powell, are expected to attend the event. It will be fact-finding, Las Vegas-style."

Full story here.

Tech Policy & Bush's Lips

In an internetnews.com story on the tech agenda of the 109th Congress (full story here), Roy Mark says

"...the biggest obstacle to the technology agendas of the next two years may simply be time. President Bush's vow to push through Social Security reform and widely expected Supreme Court nominee debates, combined with the Congressional oversight of the war in Iraq, are likely to suck the air out most other debates."

The PFF's Jim DeLong adds...

"President Bush has never mentioned telecom reform. I'll bet the word 'broadband' will not pass the lips of the president."

Perhaps.  But, will broadband policy and telecom reform be discussed by enough key folks in the administration to help get the ball rolling on policy changes?

Controlling Your Cable Box

Very telling case study by Jonathan Krim on what would seem an arcane techology issue, at first, but has deep impact as the technology industry attempts to gain a foothold in the oft-discussed "digital living room."...

The FCC Frenzy Over Controlling Your Cable Box
By Jonathan Krim, Washington Post
Full Story

Whether you cringe at the sight of your monthly cable bill or think you get your money's worth, chances are you long ago stopped noticing the $3 or so a month you pay for the control box that
allows you to get premium and digital programs.

(snip)

But the nondescript cable box is the object of a lot of frenzied lobbying over at the Federal Communication Commission these days, with consequences for your pocketbook and how you watch television.

VoIP regulatation & wireless lessons learned

Excepts from an Internet Telephony deep dive into whether VOIP will/should be regulated like the US wireless regime...

Full column here.

Powell Reason interview

Some interesting excerpts from a Reason magazine interview with FCC Chairman Powell from last August. 

Full version is here.