More Silly Restrictions Will Limit Team Obama's Ability To Communicate

from the don't-let-the-lawyers-govern dept

While there are some indications that newly inaugurated President Obama is going to be able to keep his Blackberry (or some other device) to communicate with the outside world, similar "restrictions" are being used to curtail his staff's ability to communicate. Specifically, staffers have been told they have to give up instant messaging. The reasoning, once again, comes down to the lawyers, and that records need to be kept of all written communications in the White House, according to the Presidential Records Act. However, it's seriously (and reasonably) pissing off Obama staffers who have come to rely on IM as a very efficient way to communicate and get stuff done.

It's really sad when efficiency is getting stifled by lawyers, though it happens all too often. Why not just make it clear to staffers to consider the fact that everything they instant message may be seen on CNN the next day, and tell them it's their responsibility to use the tools effectively? This is the federal gov't we're talking about. Why are they being treated like grade school kids? The purpose of the Presidential Records Act is to increase transparency in government. But, like so many unintended consequences of regulations, it's doing the opposite. It's driving people to use less efficient and less useful tools of communication to decrease transparency.

Filed Under: communication, instant messaging, obama, regulations, unintended consequences

New FCC, Telecom Committee Chairs: What's In Store?

from the predicting-politicians dept

As the new Presidential administration gets settled in, it's worth taking a look at some of the leadership changes that will affect the technology and communications spaces. First, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has announced he's stepping down on Jan. 20 (not that we'll be too upset), and he'll be replaced by Julius Genachowski, pending confirmation hearings. Genachowski is a long-time friend of Barack Obama, dating back to their time together at Harvard Law School; he was also chief counsel of the FCC during the Clinton administration. But he's also most recently worked in venture capital, and was also an executive at IAC, giving some hope to the idea that he's well-tuned to the needs of web startups, entrepreneurship and new media, and will give them a voice in Washington. Many stories have noted that Genachowski's positions on many issues aren't widely known, but he did chair the advisory group that delivered Obama's Technology and Innovation Plan, which he summarized in a blog post as "Open Government. Open Networks. Open Markets." GigaOM came up with a nice wish list of tasks for Genachowski, and also reports that telcos can expect their influence at the FCC to wane from Martin's era, that cable companies can expect a slightly better environment, and that wireless companies can expect to see their broadband plans promoted. Like us, they're optimistic that Genachowski's leadership will see the FCC adopt policies that benefit consumers, rather than telcos and other providers, but we'll wait for his confirmation hearings for more details.

Over in the House of Representatives, Congressman Rick Boucher, a Democrat from Virginia and a leading proponent for consumer rights on the House intellectual property subcommittee is taking over the Communications, Technology and the Internet Subcommittee. Boucher's swapping places on another committee with former chair Rep. Ed Markey, who's introduced net neutrality legislation in the past. In an interview with the WSJ, Boucher laid out some of his views: he says net neutrality isn't a top priority for him, but that forcing wireless operators to open their networks and allow consumers to access any type of service could be. He also wants to try and reform the Universal Service Fund, an enormous telco boondoggle that really does little to advance its goal of building out telecom service in rural areas. That all sounds good, generating further optimism that things telecom-wise could be taking a turn for the better under the new administration. Still, it bears repeating: hopefully both Genachowski and Boucher will understand that what's really needed in the telecom space is real competition, and that they'll work towards crafting solutions that engender it.

Filed Under: fcc, julius genachowski, obama, rick boucher, telco committee

State Of The Net: Blair Levin Tells Us To Not Freak Out Yet On Obama's Broadband Plan

from the benefit-of-the-doubt? dept

While we certainly think that having a better broadband policy in the US is an important step, there's a difference between just saying that you have a broadband policy, and actually implementing a plan that helps improve broadband. The devil's in the details, as they say. And... so far, the details that have come out have suggested that the key elements under discussion look something like a boondoggle for incumbent providers, rather than a truly comprehensive plan to stimulate actual competition in the broadband space.

On Wednesday, I got to attend the Congressional Internet Caucus' State of the Net 2009 conference, where the opening (surprise) speaker, was Blair Levin, one of President Elect Obama's tech transition team. In his remarks, he clearly tried to respond to these criticisms raised by us and others by suggesting (1) that the team is still tossing up a variety of ideas and nothing has been concluded and (2) there are two elements that need to be considered: (a) a short-term "stimulus" plan to get the economy churning and create new jobs and (b) a more comprehensive broadband policy. From this, he suggested that the first part -- the "stimulus" part -- would have to involve "existing structures" (i.e., the incumbents), but that was only a piece and "not the whole puzzle" or "just an inning, not the whole ballgame."

While it's a relief that the tech team recognizes there is a larger issue, I think it's important to keep hammering home the point, because this has all the warning signs of a "best laid plans..." situation. The initial "bailout" (and the ISP representatives keep making sure to say "it's a buildout, not a bailout") as an initial stimulus just seems ripe for abuse. The incumbent players have almost no record of either playing fair on these issues or delivering what they promise to deliver. And, why should they? There's been no downside to simply accepting the subsidies and not delivering. And, of course, after that happens, there may be the next crisis to deal with. Do we ever get that really comprehensive broadband plan? Remember, President Bush also had big plans to provide a massive broadband policy... and that went nowhere.

While I understand the point that Levin is making for separating out the short term action and the long term action, it's still not clear that the short term strategy makes sense and will do what it's supposed to do. And then there are questions about whether or not the long term strategy will ever actually show up. Combined... you have to wonder if we're just hearing a lot of hype about nothing. I'm sure Levin and the rest of the team are earnest in what they want to do. From what I've seen from the folks working on the transition, there are an awful lot of really smart, dedicated and sincere folks involved. So that's (at least) a good first step. But going from there to actually implementing something real that's useful? That's a big step, and we've heard enough vague promises over the years not to take such a promise at face value. Hopefully, we'll be surprised, and both the short and long term plans will make sense -- but considering how many times the "best laid plans" of government officials have gone off the road and into a ditch, it's hard to provide the benefit of the doubt without at least a little more info on what's really happening.

Filed Under: blair levin, broadband, broadband policy, obama

Is Obama's Broadband Plan Anything More Than A Free Gift To Incumbent Providers?

from the increasingly-looking-that-way dept

Just a few weeks ago, we warned that, while the thought of increasing broadband is a good idea, the details of any sort of "broadband stimulus" plan was important -- especially if it just looked like giving money to the same old incumbent players who have a long, and rather disgusting, history of accepting tons of public money and then not delivering. At other times, those incumbents have spent a lot of money trying to stop the actual spread of broadband. Broadband Reports is warning the incoming administration that the incumbent players are going to be spinning all sorts of stories about how they'll provide all sorts of new broadband improvements, while ignoring their history of fighting against broadband expansion. Unfortunately, Business Week points out that the broadband stimulus plan is almost certainly heading in that direction, meaning that it will almost certainly reward the incumbents, despite the fact that they're a part of the problem.

For years, plenty of people have been pointing out that the real problem with broadband in the US is the lack of competition in the market -- and a big part of the reason there's so little competition is because of these sorts of government handouts that favor a single player in a market. It's difficult to see how continuing that tradition changes anything -- other than making a few legacy providers even wealthier. If we want to see more and better broadband in this country, we need to see more competition, not the strengthening of existing legacy players.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, incumbents, obama, stimulus

Obama Appoints Former RIAA Lawyer To Associate Attorney General

from the good-lawyer,-bad-client dept

Amidst a number of high profile appointments today was the position of associate attorney general. The high-ranking position has been awarded to Tom Perrelli of the prominent law firm Jenner & Block. By all accounts, Perrelli has led an impressive legal career spanning public service and private practice. However, his most recent tenure in private practice has had him representing the recording industry. Although specifics are hard to come by, according to his official biography, "Mr. Perrelli regularly represents the recording industry in cutting-edge intellectual property, technology, and anti-piracy litigation. He has represented the recording industry in a host of cases arising under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), as well as in copyright infringement and digital piracy litigation. He has also represented the record industry and recording artists in a series of copyright royalty proceedings before the Copyright Royalty Board."

Of course, Mr. Perrelli's job was to represent the interest of his clients, but given the questionable legal tactics the RIAA has pursued in its litigation and the problems with the Copyright Royalty Board, there is reason to pause regarding his appointment. But, as Matt Yglesias writes, since the RIAA has relied so heavily on litigation, it's probably a good bet that they chose the best lawyers they could.

Filed Under: associate attorney general, obama, tom perrelli
Companies: jenner & block, riaa

Why Obama Should Change US Trade Policy On Intellectual Property

from the doing-more-harm-than-good dept

For years, we've had serious problems with the way the US government has viewed intellectual property when it comes to trade agreements. In many ways, it's been the exact opposite of its stated plan. We see, time and time, again where a supposed "free trade agreement" is actually about forcing other countries to add protectionist policies more draconian than the US. That's not free trade at all, and just as tariffs and other trade barriers harm the very industries they're supposed to protect, the US's trade policy concerning intellectual property has done great harm to US intellectual property industries. Unfortunately, you rarely see that discussed anywhere.

That's why it's good to see Ed Black, president and CEO of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, writing up an opinion piece for the San Jose Mercury News explaining to President-elect Obama why US trade policy concerning IP needs to change. First, he worries about the widespread reports that Obama has chosen Xavier Becerra to be the new US Trade Representative. In the past, the US Trade Rep has basically acted as a representative of Hollywood at times, and Becerra may be no different... as he's literally the Congressional rep for California's 31st district... which (you guessed it) covers Hollywood. Uh oh. That would be like making a Congressional rep from Detroit in charge of automotive policy in the US. They're less likely to have the nation's overall best interests in mind.

Black then outlines three reasons why the US's insistence on pushing draconian IP laws through trade agreements is a bad idea:

• It's alienating many of our allies who feel they're being forced to put in place excessively draconian IP laws they don't need or want.
• It takes away from America's ability to spread our culture internationally. Black notes how bootleg products in Eastern Europe helped contribute to the fall of communism there. By greatly restricting how American content can be used, we actually aid repressive regimes.
• Finally, and most importantly, these restrictions actually harm the US economy. Black specifically notes how excessive IP legislation that does not allow for fair use (which is what the US is pushing in most countries) actually harms American internet companies, allowing them to get sued for copyright infringement on things that should be fair use. He could actually go much further in how it harms our economy, but at least it's a start.

Unfortunately, given the current expected choice for USTR, the initial reaction is that this is going to be more of the same.

Filed Under: intellectual property, obama, trade policy, us trade representative, xavier becerra

Internet Filtering Appearing On Various Wishlists For Obama

from the hopefully-this-goes-nowhere dept

It's tough to get that worked up about the various "wishlists" being sent by different interest groups to President-elect Obama. After all, you'd expect the groups to basically push for their entire agenda, and there's no indication that an Obama administration will agree to any of these -- but it's still worth watching. For example, the MPAA's wishlist includes plenty of forced filtering and a "three strikes" policy that Europe recently rejected as taking away basic human rights (there's that MPAA spirit!). Then, we've got a group focused on "protecting the children" asking Obama to create a child protection czar, who apparently will take on the role of "first parent" in the White House, because it's not like we can expect parents to be responsible for protecting their own children.

Filed Under: mpaa, obama, protect the children, wishlists
Companies: mpaa

Is Putting Change.gov Under Creative Commons Really A Big Deal?

from the help-me,-I'm-missing-something... dept

There's been plenty of attention paid to the news that the website for President-Elect Obama's transition team, Change.gov has been placed under a Creative Commons license, allowing others to make use of the content with attribution. However, I'm a bit hard pressed to see how this actually is a big deal. The whole thing is made a bit odd by the fact that federal government content is not covered by copyright, so anything that comes out of the White House is in the public domain. But, apparently since Obama has not yet been inaugurated, the campaign can still claim copyright on the content. But, why would they? Rather than going with a CC license, why not go all the way and put the content in the public domain? After all, in two months, all such content will be in the public domain anyway? It seems a little odd, counterproductive and unnecessary to add more restrictions to the content than there will be once Obama is actually in office. If the Obama team really wanted to do something meaningful concerning the content on the site, they could follow the advice of Tim O'Reilly and go beyond just putting the content in the public domain and also add revision control, thereby committing to alerting people to any changes to the content. Now, that would be an impressive change.

Filed Under: change.gov, copyright, creative commons, obama, public domain

'YouTube Moments' Hold Politicians Accountable

from the power-to-the-people dept

Virginia Postrel points out a great story on the way YouTube is changing the dynamics of political debate. It points out that when Bill Clinton was first running for president in 1992, the media landscape had relatively few mechanisms for holding politicians accountable for misstatements. There was only room for so many stories on the nightly news, and so when politicians told white lies, reporters tended to move on before anybody could check the claims for accuracy. But now that anyone can create a blog post or a YouTube video, politicians' fibs and gaffes can take on a life of their own, whether it's Hillary Clinton's sniper fire, Barack Obama's "bitter" Pennsylvanians, or John McCain's "100 years in Iraq." The nightly news doesn't always cover these kinds of comments when they happen, but someone in the blogosphere almost always catches them and they then get endlessly reported, debunked, and hashed out online. And once a clip has generated a lot of heat among bloggers, it can often become a big enough story that mainstream media outlets pick it up again. While some of these attacks can be nit-picky or taken out of context, on the whole it's a definite improvement in the quality of democratic debate. With video cameras everywhere and bloggers ready to pounce on any misstatement, politicians have a stronger incentive to tell the truth, and not to talk out of both sides of their mouth.

Meanwhile, USA Today reports that the presidential candidates are raising eye-popping sums of money in small increments via the Internet. In the first quarter of 2008, Barack Obama led the pack with $129 million in small donations, followed by Hillary Clinton at $65 million and John McCain at $37 million. Even John McCain's fundraising would have been considered a major accomplishment four years ago -- Howard Dean made headlines with $15 million in online donations in the third quarter of 2003, much of it from small donors. If the trend lasts -- and there are good reasons to think it will -- it will also have a democratizing effect on the political process. Presidential candidates will be more inclined to pay attention to the priorities of grassroots activists, and comparatively less worried about pleasing insiders capable of raising money in $2300 increments.

And of course, these developments are connected. The rise of blogs, YouTube, and other participatory media has gotten more people engaged and invested in the political debate, which in turn makes them more likely to open their wallets. Conversely, the fact that blog readers are often campaign contributors gives bloggers real leverage over candidates -- bloggers can punish candidates perceived as not playing fair by directing contributions to their opponents. All of which is producing a more engaged and accountable political process. Of course, things are far from perfect, but there are good reasons to think that 21st century politics will be better than politics was in the 20th century.

Filed Under: accountability, clinton, democracy, elections, mccain, obama, presidential campaigns
Companies: google, youtube

Politics Can Be Crowdsourced, Too

from the changing-politics dept

Last week, Mike noted the latest example of the trend towards people wanting to share the news, rather than just consuming it. Now that two-way communications have become cheap and easy, people (especially young people) are growing accustomed to news reporting being a two-way enterprise, with them commenting on the news and sharing it with others rather than just passively consuming it. A recent Washington Post profile of the Obama campaign's online efforts suggests that something similar is happening in politics. The Obama campaign's fundraising efforts have put to shame those of the McCain and Clinton campaigns. The Post suggests that a major reasons is that Obama's campaign has been careful to cultivate a real relationship with its supporters, rather than just treating them like walking ATM machines. It notes that Obama's emails to his supporters are less likely to ask for money and more likely to invite them to attend a campaign event, watch a video, read an article, or volunteer time for the candidate. This is politics as crowdsourcing. Just as companies can build brand loyalty by cultivating an ongoing relationship with customers, so political campaigns can spark greater levels of support by making them feel like they have a greater stake in the campaign.

A particularly interesting part of this strategy was discussed is a recent edition of Don Marti's LinuxWorld podcast with Tony Steidler-Dennison, who talked about the Obama campaign's success with phone banking. The campaign has an online phone-banking system that allowed users to log into a website, get a list of phone numbers to call, and make the calls from the comfort of their own home. This saves the campaign the hassle of having to rent out space for phone banking, but more importantly it gets more volunteers the opportunity to participate, which gives them a stronger sense that they have a stake in the campaign. The net result will be that money will become less important, while volunteer engagement and enthusiasm will become a lot more important. Thanks to the Internet, campaigns that can energize large numbers of people will find it easier and easier to harness that enthusiasm and translate it into concrete results.

Filed Under: clinton, crowdsourced, mccain, obama, politics