The 463: Inside Tech

Online Video Political Speech: The Questions Begin

As we were pondering the impact of online video on political speech (and vice versa), Internet voice/video expert Jeff Pulver was getting asked many of the same questions we considered by a DC based policy reporter.

Pulver says he was asked:

Can you address some of the legal issues raised by these types of videos? Broadcasters, for instance, aren't allowed to censor or edit political messages when the candidate appears on screen. That frees them from liability in the event the candidate lies or defames his opponent. Do you think similar rules should apply online?

and...

Should online video sites like YouTube fact check politicos' videos and edit out errors? Are there provisions of the DMCA that shield them from liability?

History shows that indecency rules and political speech are two leading bridge drugs to media regulatory actions.  It will be interesting to see who else asks questions about these issues as we head toward 2008 with many in the online world operating under a new rules (or no rules) ethos.

AT&T's New Year's Resolution: Net Neutrality ....

....And, its 2008 resolution.

And, its 2009 resolution -- until July, at least.

Why?

Because 2+2 = compromise.

Or, in other words, because of an ethical decision by a new FCC Republican commissioner to recuse himself from the agency's approval of the AT&T/BellSouth merger, the FCC was left with a partisan deadlock on the merger.

Today, a compromise was found.

The most noisy of the outcomes is that AT&T has apparently agreed to a 30-month pledge not to break net neutrality principles in order to get the approval before the end of the year (and the dawn of a new Congress). From Bloomberg:

In a bow to backers of ``network neutrality,'' AT&T said it would refrain from charging Web companies such as Google Inc. premium fees for faster subscriber access. Neutrality supporters have urged Congress not to let phone companies charge higher fees for faster service, which they liken to the creation of tolls on the Internet.

TechDirt speculates on the realpolitik of why AT&T bit on the compromise.

TechDirt also notes that the deal would include the offering of so-called "naked-DSL" for AT&T customers. This basically means that if you order DSL you don't have a land-line phone (and pay for it).

UPDATE: TechDirt and commentators debate the fine print and differences between IPTV "net neutrality" (which may not be covered here) and more traditional "broadband" net neutrality (which seemingly is.) Eric Schonfeld's
Next Net has a primer (albeit opinion laden) on IPTV and the net neutrality-relevant issues here.

Regardless, Public Knowledge is happy with the deal and tells you why.

And, given that the deal was compromise as the shot clock was running out, we're sure we'll be hearing plenty more competing arguments on what the details really mean.

Vloggers & Candidates: New Rules?

I fired off a post last night after, frankly, being jaw-droppingly shocked by the cozy interactions between the well-respected and popular vlog-team at Rocketboom and the John Edwards campaign.

But, then I got to thinking about where my surprise came from.  It's pretty simple.  I write a blog, but deep down I'm old-school when it comes to my thoughts about journalism is and, most especially, when it's journalism that touches public policy and politics.  (Not many kids want to be a press secretary when they grow up, but I did -- in 1976).

So maybe my gut-instinct response was unfair.

Maybe Everything Has Changed like we're told over and over again.

But, if the old, long-established rules don't work, what are the new rules?  Are there any?

And, if not, how does a vlog viewer appropriately filter for bias (if any)?  Or, should the viewers of vlogs have such a personal affinity and connection to their video purveyors of choice that they should just know and understand where their daily dose of information is coming from without any added context?

This is serious stuff.  Similar conversations generations ago eventually led to the creation of the Fairness Doctrine, personal attack and political editorial rules (all since done away with).

Anyway, it should be allowed that this is genuinely new ground and debate (and even mistakes) should be encouraged to help in finding our way in the next generation of political communications.

To this end, I posted an open-letter of sorts to Rocketboom's founder and producer Andrew Baron on a vlogger list-serv to drive the conversation.  It's after the jump. 

To his great credit, Baron took time from what has to be a very busy day to respond.  His response follows my note.

Feel free to tell me that I'm wrong or barking up the wrong tree.  I think we all want to learn at this interesting moment in time....

-S. Garrett

2008: And, So It Begins... On YouTube...

John Edwards' presidential campaign enlisted (micro) celebrity vloggers like Robert Scoble and the Rocketboom crew to help him with his official announcement of his candidacy in New Orleans.   The big day was supposed to be tomorrow, but, ironically, his campaign made a boo boo and launched his campaign Web site a day early.  Whoops.  Live by HTML, die....

So, Edwards didn't wait for Scoble to make his connecting flight from California and announced his intentions to launch the "Tomorrow Begins Today" campaign a day earlier than planned.  (Today Begins What Was Going to Be Tomorrow Beginning Tomorrow Begins Today?)

Anyway, Rocketboom was there and Andrew Baron penned the note after the jump and sent it to a big vlogger email list...   I ask some questions about it....Others do, too....

Tech Policy Summit: Reserve Your Spot While You Can

We've mentioned the coming Tech Policy Summit conference before, but we can't help but plug it again.  One reason is because we want readers to be aware of the impending deadlines to get in on the late February action in San Jose.  The other is that simply we're simply very impressed with the conference docket so far and know that it's even going to get better.

As the Summit blog warns today, there are only four weeks left to register (if it doesn't sell out first).  Hopefully you've already been invited to the senior executive event. If you don't have an invite, follow the instructions on the conference site to request one.

So far the following are lined up to speak...

"Dems to Net: Go to Hell" says Lessig

Stanford Law professor, Creative Commons chair and all-around Net provocateur Lawrence Lessig took a big swing at one of the more tech-policy relevant Congressional committee chairman shifts on a Christmas Eve blog posting.

" ...is there any hope for such reform from the Democrats? Word from Washington so far: Fat chance. As reported in the LA Times two weeks ago ..., the crucial House IP subcommittee will be chaired by Hollywood Howard (Berman) — among the most extreme of the IP warriors. It is this committee that largely determines what reform Congress considers. It is the Chairman who picks what voices get heard. And while Berman is a brilliant man — whose brilliance could really have been used in the problems facing the mid-east — his brilliance has not yet been directed towards working out the problems of IP and the Net with any view beyond the narrowest of special interests.

"This is like making a congressman from Detroit head of a Automobile Safety sub-committee, or a senator from Texas head of a Global Warming sub-committee. Are you kidding, Dems? The choice signals clearly the party’s view about the issues, and its view of the “solution”: more of the same....

"...The Dems have looked at the potential “return” from the activists on the Net. They’ve considered the kids being sued by the industry (including the kids running MySpace, and maybe soon, YouTube), and the kids creating amazing new (but presumptively illegal) mashups and remixes, and they have compared that value to the party with the value promised by Hollywood. Result: the 20th Century continues to rule.

"Dems to the Net:  'Thanks for the blogs. And please continue to get outraged by MoveOn messages. But don’t think for a second we’re interested in hearing anything beyond the charming wisdom of Jack Valenti. We appreciate your support. We appreciate your money. But come on — you’re all criminals. Don’t expect your criminal ways to be taken seriously by an institution as respected as the US Congress.'”

This Variety piece on Berman - replete with MPAA endorsement - doesn't disagree with Lessig's line of thinking.  The lede...

PTC Returns NBC Gift

Conservative media watchdogs, the Parents Television Counsel, has dinged NBC for posting the previously discussed uncensored version of the SNL video "Dick in a Box" on the Internet.  E! News reports that PTC president Brent Bozell said in a statement....

"This is a new low for NBC.  Clearly, the network will stop at nothing to find loopholes for its indecent programming to reach the public.  Moving objectionable content that would not meet FCC standards directly to the Internet is blatantly irresponsible and unacceptable."

I'm sure that there is nothing to worry about here.  The religious right haven't had much impact with regulators and legislators.

(Though, knowing smirk aside, the PTC has been less successful, to date, in its push for "cable choice").

Internet Attitudes Poll Coverage

The Internet Attitudes poll that we put out yesterday had us pretty busy talking to reporters as far as way as Australia and India. After the jump, are outside perspectives on the data that we collected from 1200 Americans.

Yes, we thought that the front page report in the San Jose Mercury News was pretty cool.

NBC Thinks Inside the Box

In a piece designed to appeal to the 14 people still waiting for Studio 60 to get good, the New York Times gives the behind-the-scenes machinations on the NBC decision to put the uncensored version of the Timberlake/Samberg "Special Gift" duet that ran on Saturday Night Live las weekend....

While the show’s producers had already concluded on their own that the video would have to be bleeped to be broadcast, they had a special request for Mr. Ludwin: Would he permit the uncensored version to be made available on the Web?

“My first instinct, without having seen anything, was that we probably shouldn’t do that,” Mr. Ludwin said later in an interview. “My thought was that even though it’s going on the Internet, it’s still representing NBC. But I hadn’t seen it yet. So I said it would depend on how dirty it was.”

Drawing close to a monitor adjacent to the show’s vaunted eighth-floor studio, Mr. Ludwin watched as Mr. Timberlake (in a blond wig) and Mr. Samberg (decked out with a close-cropped beard that made him look like the pop singer’s twin brother) sang of the various holidays on which they wanted to present their special gift (including Hanukkah and Kwanzaa) and the various settings (including backstage at the Country Music Association Awards.)

“We were all laughing,” said Mr. Ludwin, who had been accompanied by a representative from the NBC legal department. And then Mr. Ludwin said he had a change of heart.

“Those people who go on the Internet will not be shocked by this,” Mr. Ludwin recalled thinking. “Obviously there are some people who will be offended. Those people are probably unlikely to go searching for it on the Internet. It’s just funny.”

Still, the material was touchy enough, Mr. Ludwin said, that he sought final approval for the Web version of the video from the highest echelons of NBC, including Kevin Reilly, the president of NBC Entertainment , and Jeff Zucker, chief executive of NBC Universal Television Group.. Both approved the idea, he said. Another executive suggested that a disclaimer be placed before the Web-only version of the video that warned of its explicit content, a proposal that was immediately accepted.

Again, we got all excited yesterday when we thought we had been first to note that NBC had taken down the uncensored version. It was down for a few hours in the morning, but just as soon as we posted, it went back up. Whoops.

But, regardless, the point of post was pondering how regulators will eventually view online versus broadcast video content. And, considering this, how big networks will regulate themselves in putting up content to minimize regulatory incursions.

It's interesting to see the justification by the NBC execs that, on the Internet, one needs to seek out content that could be potentially objectionable. Therefore, those who might be offended wouldn't be found searching for "dick in a box" on YouTube.

I can just hear the talk show hosts asking now: "But, what about the children?! Won't anyone think of the children?"

Hopefully, the inside-the-box thinking at NBC is incrementally nudging us toward an acceptance of the diverse community standards that exist on the Web and not the homogeneous ones that underpinned media regulation 1.0.

NBC Pulls Dick From Box [Updated and Corrected]

[Oops...  Looks like The 463 posted 'prematurely' (so to speak).  NBC now has both versions up online, so we may have just caught them in a looong transition.  However, the questions discussed below that examine the potential for online video regulation still stand.]