Internet Poker Lobby Setting Up Tables At Both Conventions

from the upping-the-ante dept

The US's odd decision to effectively ban online poker as part of a national security law has never made much sense, other than as yet another paternalistic move by the government deciding what is and is not okay for you to do in the privacy of your own home. Some claim that the online poker ban is due to lobbyists from the offline casino industry, who don't like the competition -- but there's little evidence to support that. First of all, the offline casinos have talked about how they'd like to get into the online game themselves, but cannot due to this ban -- and it's quite likely that making games like poker more popular via online competitions would increase foot traffic to offline casinos as people who believe they've become experts online venture out to real world casinos.

Either way, it seems that the folks in favor of legalizing online poker are getting increasingly sophisticated in their lobbying efforts. Last year, they sent representatives to lobby in DC, and this year they're setting up actual poker games at both major party political conventions, trying to drive home the point that playing poker shouldn't be a crime. The article also notes that the lobbyists have started their own Political Action Committee as well, called PokerPAC, which has already raised some cash. Apparently, the poker players are getting serious about calling Congress' bluff on online poker.

Filed Under: conventions, lobbyists, online poker, pacs, poker

Comcast's New Plan: Send Heavy Users To The Back Of The Line

from the slow-down-there,-speedy dept

Comcast agreed last year to change the way it was dealing with supposedly "heavy" users, after it came out (following many denials from Comcast) that the company was using a rather heavy-handed manner to block certain services from working, without bothering to tell anyone. Now the company has said that it will be implementing a plan whereby heavy bandwidth users will be sent to a sort of "time out" room where all of their traffic will be slowed down for a period of 10 to 20 minutes. Consider it the flipside to Comcast's Powerboost offering, which was supposedly designed for the exact opposite purpose: to help heavy downloaders get more bandwidth when they needed it. Now, apparently that gets you punished.

Meanwhile, over at the PFF conference, execs from Comcast (and Verizon) were apparently complaining that lobbyists were shaping the net neutrality debate, leaving out the part where it was their own lobbyists who really kicked that process off. Update: Oh, and as was widely expected, despite the FCC voting against Comcast, the company will not be fined or anything.

Filed Under: bandwidth hogs, lobbyists, net neutrality, power boost, slow speed, traffic shaping
Companies: comcast

Entertainment Industry Again Says Everyone Else Must Protect Its Business Model

from the please,-please-help-us dept

The Progress & Freedom Foundation is hosting its annual tech policy conference in Aspen, and given that it's PFF we're talking about, it's chock full of entertainment industry folks without any input from anyone who questions the basic premise that the entertainment industry puts forth: that content creators need to charge for each individual copy of their works. Thus, it should come as no surprise that a panel of entertainment industry lobbyists fell into the usual routine of insisting that everyone else -- mainly ISPs -- be responsible for protecting the entertainment industry's business model.

The reasoning seems to be the same as always: the entertainment industry itself has found it too difficult to come up with a business model (even as those who have escaped the traditional bounds of the industry seem to be figuring it out on their own), and thus others simply must be responsible for propping up the business model. If you put them all on a panel together, of course, they're going to whine and complain that others have to fix their business model for them -- but that doesn't mean it's true. There are plenty of business models that they could embrace on their own, requiring no assistance from others. That they chose not to is their own mistake -- not the fault of companies in a totally separate industry.

Filed Under: business models, entertainment industry, lobbyists, protection
Companies: progress and freedom foundation

Tech Lobbying/PR Firm Outed For Faked Op-Eds

from the what-will-the-corn-farmers-do? dept

We get tons of PR spam here at Techdirt, most of which is simply an attempt to get us to write about this or that startup or product launch. It pretty much all gets trashed. Occasionally we hear from various tech lobbyists as well, pushing an angle on a story that supports the angle they're pushing. But one of the oddest experiences we've had was with a firm called LawMedia Group, which we wrote about earlier this year when Declan McCullagh outed the group as having allegedly composed a letter from a group of corn farmers somehow opposed to Google and Yahoo working together. Why corn farmers would be interested in such things isn't clear -- but McCullagh pulled back some of the curtain on the way these sorts of lobbyist groups act, picking a somewhat random "group" and then writing these sorts of letters and simply placing the group's name on the top -- even if (as in the corn farmers/internet advertising situation) the group has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

In our case, as mentioned, the folks at LawMedia Group started out by acting as if we were close friends, and then insisting that they had some really secret info that was damaging to FCC boss Kevin Martin. It's no surprise why they would approach us on the subject -- as we've written critically about Martin for years. After ignoring repeated requests for a phone call during which this info would be "revealed," I finally said that if they had anything they wanted me to see, just send it over. And so they sent a bunch of stuff that basically confirmed what was well known: Kevin Martin has friends who work at AT&T. Shocking, right, that a telco regulator might have friends at a telco? But, of course, it was positioned in a way to make it look really secretive, even to the point of suggesting that Martin really worked for AT&T. In other words, it was totally bogus. I told the guy at LMG that the info seemed pretty pointless, and never spoke to him again -- though he and other colleagues keep emailing stories that might make Martin look bad.

Now Declan is back with more stories of questionable activities by LawMedia Group, including what would appear to be a series of op-ed pieces published in newspapers using the names of people who don't even agree with what's in the op-ed, but, from the sound of it, may have effectively rented their name out to LMG to use in the op-ed. Most of the article focuses on a guy in Boston who is in favor of net neutrality, but had an op-ed published under his name that strongly argues against net neutrality. The guy admitted that LMG had something to do with it, but refused to provide details. However, when asked his opinion on net neutrality, proceeded to stay stuff in direct contradiction with what was in the op-ed under his name.

While somewhat sleazy tactics like this may be every day business in Washington DC, it's good to see it exposed, especially when it's being done so egregiously. At the very least, maybe it'll get LMG to stop bothering me with bogus conspiracy theories about Kevin Martin.

Filed Under: astroturfing, fcc, lobbyists, telecom policy
Companies: law media group

Do We Really Want Congress Choosing Which Business Models Are Best?

from the lobbyists-aren't-pushing-for-the-public-good dept

One of the most disappointing things in watching how Congressional Reps respond to entertainment industry lobbyists is that they seem to accept that the RIAA and MPAA's interests really are about helping "content creators" rather than simply putting in place laws that prop up an increasingly obsolete business model. Braden Cox recently came out with an interesting paper that highlights the fact that lobbyists are almost always either trying to protect their own business model, or make it difficult for other companies' business models to succeed. Yes, this is incredibly obvious, but it's an important reminder of something that is often missed by our politicians.

More specifically, it also explodes the myth that "the tech industry" has a single opinion on most policy issues. The report notes, basically, that different companies support different policies entirely based on their business models. It also notes that any effort by Congress to protect one particular business model is equally likely to harm another business model. In effect, any effort by politicians to prop up one is making an explicit choice over which business models are "best." And, for obvious reasons, we should all be pretty worried when Congress critters put themselves in the position of deciding which business model is best.

Tim Lee then does a nice job following up to show how things like the DMCA are an explicit choice by Congress to say that proprietary software business models are better than open software business models -- even though most in Congress don't recognize this fact. Isn't it time that we let the market decide what the best business models are instead of Congress?

Filed Under: business models, congress, lobbyists, regulation

Canada Takes ACTA Secrecy To New Levels

from the this-isn't-a-treaty,-it's-protectionism dept

We've covered the disturbing levels of secrecy surrounding the ACTA treaty -- which is basically a way for various industries to push through new copyright laws without having to actually go through the legislative process. The most annoying part is how secretive various governments have been in crafting the treaty -- basically allowing various industry groups to tell government trade representatives what they want, and then letting the governments negotiate amongst each other. This process leaves out many parties impacted by these rules (and the public!). Michael Geist has some details on how Canada has taken this process to new levels of secrecy beyond even that in the US.

Apparently, the Canadian government has created an "insider" group to work with the government on the treaty. What's disturbing is that this insider group seems to involve mostly lobbyists who have a one-sided take on this issue. Not included are any lobbyists from industries who are opposed to ACTA or any sort of representative of consumer rights or privacy issues (which is a big concern, considering that ACTA may allow border searches of laptops and iPods). Given that the Canadian government is already getting beaten up for writing its newly proposed copyright laws in secret with help only from industry representatives, you'd think that maybe (just maybe) it would try to be a bit more open and inclusive with ACTA. Apparently not.

Filed Under: acta, canada, lobbyists, secrecy

Boy, Those Corn Farmers Sure Are Interested In Internet Politics

from the something's-not-right-here... dept

You may recall last summer, an NBC Universal exec tried to convince Congress that corn farmers were very, very concerned about movie piracy, coming up with an obviously laughable theory that more piracy would hurt corn farmers by having fewer people buy popcorn in the theaters (forgetting, of course, that people eat popcorn at home too -- and that popcorn isn't exactly a significant portion of corn farmer revenue these days). Anyway, it appears those "corn farmers" sure are busy when it comes to keeping politicians aware of what's happening on the internet. Declan McCullagh found it odd that a group of corn farmers had sent a letter to Congress demanding Congress investigate the potential harm done by a Google-Yahoo advertising deal. It didn't take much investigating for McCullagh to figure out that the letter wasn't actually written by corn farmers, but by a secretive lobbying/PR firm called Law Media Group, which was clear from the metadata on the corn farmers' letter.

McCullagh then explores how these lobbying groups basically get other groups to put their name on various letters, quoting one anonymously saying: "You go down the Latino people, the deaf people, the farmers, and choose them.... You say, 'I can't use this one--I already used them last time...' We had their letterhead. We'd just write the letter. We'd fax it to them and tell them, 'You're in favor of this.'" Amusingly, McCullagh notes, a Latino group also wrote a letter of concern about the Yahoo-Google deal, just hours after the farmers did.

As for Law Media Group, McCullagh talks a bit about how secretive they are, and tries to dig out what cable firm or telco might really be behind the letter. He notes that AT&T claims it used to work with Law Media Group, but no longer does and wasn't behind the letter. I can say with near certainty that Law Media Group doesn't work with AT&T anymore... because representatives from Law Media Group have spent the last few months trying to get me to say bad things about AT&T. They contacted me a few months back insisting they had some really damaging info on FCC chair Kevin Martin. They sent over the "evidence," which basically could be summed up as: Kevin Martin has good friends who work or worked at AT&T. Oh really? That's like sending over documents saying that Kevin Martin is a Republican. It's not news. Ever since then, though, someone from Law Media Group sends me various alerts and press releases that all seem to be at the expense of cable industry foes. So, I'd say it's pretty likely that the "corn farmers" are really just representing the cable industry here. Hope they at least get a discount on those ever increasing cable TV rates.

Update: Declan now has a follow up, where LMG insists it had nothing to do with the letter other than to create the PDF. It also denies any lobbying activity, though McCullagh points out that the company filed disclosure forms for lobbying earlier this year -- to which LMG had no response.

Filed Under: advertising, corn farmers, lobbyists
Companies: law media group

AT&T Lobbyist Predicts Doom & Gloom, Clogged Internet By 2010

from the would-you-put-money-on-that? dept

We've noticed a nice little pattern. Whenever you hear news reports about how the internet is getting clogged up due to things like music downloading or YouTube or video downloads, the claims are almost always from consultants or lobbyists (or politicians who take their cues from the lobbyists). But when you talk to the actual technologists who understand what's actually happening on the network, a very different story emerges (even if those technologists work for the telcos complaining about a bandwidth crunch). They point out that there's no bandwidth crunch and the impact of P2P traffic is overstated and that any increase in bandwidth can be easily dealt with.

So, with headlines blaring out this weekend that AT&T is predicting that "the internet will run out of capacity by 2010," take a wild guess at the role of the guy making the prediction. Yup, it's the company's vice president of legislative affairs. If it's such a burden, then why does AT&T continue to build out its network? The answer is because it still makes the company plenty of money, despite what he'd have you believe. It's because the government was kind enough to grant AT&T all sorts of monopoly rights of way and subsidies -- and the only way to keep those flowing is to warn about some impending doom to hit the network. While he also talks up how he wants the government to keep a "light regulatory touch" when it comes to network neutrality, he skips the part about the heavy regulatory touch that's gone on in terms of benefiting AT&T for years. Funny how that works. No, the internet isn't at risk of collapsing in 2010. AT&T is just trying to squeeze more subsidies out of the government.

Filed Under: bandwidth crunch, clogged internet, lobbyists
Companies: at&t

Bipartisan PRO IP Bill Turns White House Into Hollywood's Private Enforcement Agency

from the please-explain-why? dept

Every time you think that the tide is turning and people are beginning to realize the ridiculousness of overly burdensome IP laws, some politicians start doing the dirty work of Hollywood's worst lobbyists. The latest may be the most ridiculous yet -- though, it certainly wasn't unexpected. Remember how NBC Universal execs started whining about how law enforcement's priorities were all screwed up, since they were focused on pointless things like burglary and bankrobbing rather than copyright violations? That was merely the starting point in a lobbying campaign for the new PRO IP (Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act) bill that has been introduced with backing of both top Republicans and Democrats. As the bill's not particularly subtle name makes clear, this law is all about giving Hollywood much of what it has been asking for. Rather than decreasing the ridiculous fines that can be handed out for copyright infringement, this law would increase them. But, more importantly, it sets up a brand new gov't agency within the executive branch to help crack down on "piracy." This despite increasing evidence that "piracy" isn't a problem for the economy at all -- but rather a problem for a few big companies with obsolete business models (who just happen to have tremendous lobbying clout) who are too lazy to even bother trying to adapt to a changing market place. This bill isn't just corporate welfare. It would be creating an entire government agency whose sole job it would be to protect the unnecessary and obsolete business model of a few dying companies while stifling innovative tools and services at every turn. It would help to kill off our creative industries by falsely assuming that creativity needs to be funneled through a few big companies. It's a disgusting travesty of the political process.

Filed Under: copyright, enforcement, government, lobbyists, politics, pro ip
Companies: mpaa, riaa

If You're A Telco Lobbyist Convincing The Gov't To Grant Immunity, What Would You Say?

from the immune-response dept

Thanks to a court ruling issued Wednesday [PDF], the Director of National Intelligence now has less than two weeks to turn over to the Electronic Frontier Foundation some 300 pages worth of documents concerning the lobbying efforts of the telecom industry, which is seeking immunity from suits related to its role in extralegal surveillance. (EFF has itself brought just such a lawsuit.) The ruling found that the government has not provided any compelling explanation for its foot-dragging response to EFF's Freedom of Information Act request for the documents, and that "the public interest will be served by expedited release of the requested records" before the passage of legislation that could provide retroactive immunity. Since an industry lobbying to protect itself from potentially costly lawsuits is hardly surprising, the attempt to delay disclosure here actually leaves me more curious than I otherwise might be about the contents of the documents. Less interesting than the mere facts about who spoke with whom may be the rationale for amnesty offered by the telecoms: Since they should prevail on the merits if they acted within the law, it may be instructive to see precisely what they are worried about.

Filed Under: immunity, lobbyists