If New FCC Boss Ajit Pai Is So 'Pro Consumer,' Why Does The Telecom Industry Need To Pay People To Say So?

from the dollar-per-holler dept

On his first day new FCC Boss Ajit Pai repeatedly and breathlessly insisted that consumers and the digital divide would be his top priority. The problem: that dedication was directly contradicted by not only Pai's past voting record at the agency, but his first actions as agency head. Out of the gate Pai undermined an FCC legal case against prison phone telecom monopolies, scrapped an FCC plan to bring competition to the cable box, killed all ongoing zero rating inquiries and began laying the ground work for killing net neutrality, and prevented nine already-approved ISPs from helping the poor via the agency's Lifeline program.

Unsurprisingly, it didn't take particularly long for some news outlets to realize that Pai's words weren't supported by his actions. Both The Washington Post and the New York Times penned editorials blasting Pai, most notably for his ongoing disdain for net neutrality, which has broad, bipartisan support.

Driven to defend Pai's selection as FCC boss for obvious reasons, ISPs got right to work fighting back via their traditional weapon of choice: bullshitters for hire. Shortly after the Post and Times pieces surfaced, contrasting op-eds quickly popped up in newspapers and websites nationwide claiming Pai is actually an incredible boon to consumers, competition and innovation. Most of these op-eds failed to adequately disclose the authors' financial ties to large broadband providers, or the fact they take money while pretending to be objective analysts -- often including Congressional testimony.

Fred Campbell, a long-standing ISP-funded "consultant," penned a piece over at Forbes blasting the Post and Times for "doublespeak," while insisting that Pai is secretly a hero of the people:

"Doublespeak is language that disguises or even reverses the meaning of words in order to disguise the nature of the truth. A flurry of attacks on Ajit Pai, the new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, are full of it. It’s clear that Pai is serious about closing the digital divide between those who use cutting-edge communications services and those who do not."

Ah the post-truth era, when those that spend the most time practicing doublespeak endlessly whine about doublespeak.

Look, if you actually talk to any genuine consumer advocate in the telecom space (they're easy to spot: they're the ones with limited budgets and shittier suits), they'll quickly tell you that while Pai is a nice guy -- he's a water carrier for industry, rarely if ever challenging their positions on any issue of consumer note. You only need look at his voting record, and the numerous times he not only voted down indisputably pro-consumer initiatives like net neutrality, but refused to hold companies like AT&T accountable for outright fraud -- even when that fraud involved the Lifeline program Pai professes to now adore.

Campbell's editorial was one of numerous, similar missives. Rick Boucher, one-time respected Congressional fair use champion, now works at Sidley Austin, a law firm that effectively acts as an AT&T policy arm. That direct financial tie isn't really made clear in an op-ed over at Light Reading, where Boucher informs readers that, despite his nonexistent track record on the subject, Pai will somehow be a champion of expanded broadband coverage:

"Chairman Pai recently announced the formation of the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee, a task force that will offer "specific" recommendations to speed broadband deployment and, in his words, "close the digital divide."

Pai's action is an excellent first step towards accelerating broadband deployment (and adoption) throughout the country. Getting great minds together to hack a solution is both wise and urgent. And perhaps most important, it's a sign that fact-based decision-making is now the order of the day at the FCC."

But forming a committee to talk about the digital divide isn't an actual solution to anything -- especially expanded broadband coverage. And it certainly doesn't magically obliterate Pai's anti-consumer, and anti-startup voting record. If there's an FCC plan to actually shore up competition or bring broadband to the under-served (like the FCC's recent vote to ensure low-income users can use their $9.25 monthly Lifeline credit for broadband), you can be fairly certain Pai voted against it. It's not really something that's open to debate. Well, unless you're the type that's paid to pretend that generally-accepted facts are up for debate.

It's important to understand that broadband providers and politicians adore slathering meaningless platitudes upon the "digital divide" because it earns them cheap political brownie points without having to do much of anything. In fact that's Comcast's entire lobbying MO, and the primary reason they renamed their top lobbyist the company's "Chief Diversity Officer." It's a simple schtick: distract the public by professing your support for closing the digital divide with the bare minimum of effort, while denying the singular problem that causes broadband coverage gaps and high prices in the first place: a lack of competition.

Over at The Hill, the National Grange, one of countless organizations telecom providers pay to support megamergers and other unpopular policy, also ignores Pai's clear and obvious history, claiming he'll be an incredible boon for rural communities. Over at the telecom-industry funded Heartland Institute blog, Scott Cleland, who also takes funds from the sector while pretending to be an objective analyst, crows that Pai will "return a pro-consumer focus" to the FCC:

"Unlike the Federal Communications Commission’s previous head, new FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is putting consumers first, not net neutrality. The sad reality is that the previous FCC did the bidding of the biggest edge providers, both on the issue of net neutrality and opening up the cable box market, as I will explain."

Up is down, black is white. We've long noted how the broadband industry has tried to downplay net neutrality issues by claiming that everything is somehow Netflix's fault, and incumbent broadband providers are just misunderstood, innocent daisies. Logical cohesion is generally missing from this narrative, but Pai himself has played a starring role in claiming repeatedly that -- in stark contrast to all available evidence -- it's the edge (content and service companies not-coincidentally challenging the industry's TV stranglehold) providers that are the real internet villains.

This disconnect between reality and dollar-per-hollar rhetoric is nothing new, especially in telecom. Former FCC boss Michael Powell, now the cable industry's top lobbyist, made a career out of paying endless lip service to consumers to the acclaim of industry sockpuppets, while his actions repeatedly worked to undermine oversight of giant companies like Comcast (to obvious end). That's because the real goal for most of these folks is something you may have ferreted out already: protection of loyal campaign contributor revenues above all else. If anything, there's an active disdain for the consumer.

If Pai actually were "pro consumer," his voting record would reflect it with minimal debate. And consumer advocates (the ones that actually spend ten hours a day fighting the good fight to little acclaim or profit) wouldn't be issuing warnings about "empty rhetoric" and "Orwellian" behavior at the FCC. At the end of the day you have to wonder: if you need to covertly pay people to support your argument, what kind of argument do you actually have?

Filed Under: ajit pai, broadband, consumers, fcc, fred campbell, public, rick boucher, scott cleland

Big Telco Lobbyists Produce CNN OpEd Arguing That CISPA Is Good For Privacy

from the just-trust-the-government dept

We've noted already that the big telcos love CISPA, as it gives them widespread immunity to violate the privacy of users in handing over all sorts of information to the government. It appears that the efforts by various organizations like the ACLU, EFF and others to push back on CISPA as a blanket tool for the abuse of privacy is beginning to get to the telcos, because they've sent out their big guns -- former Congressmen and now both big telco lobbyists, Steve Largent and Rick Boucher -- to post a ridiculous, fact-lacking op-ed piece for CNN (with very little disclosure) arguing that CISPA is good for privacy.

We'll get to the argument in a moment, but first, while the article correctly notes that Largent leads CTIA, and that CTIA is a DC-lobbying group for telcos, it does not note that the telcos stand to benefit by getting broad immunity under CISPA. Worse is the disclosure around Boucher. Back when Boucher was in Congress, he was actually one of the good guys, especially on copyright issues. Yet, since losing his seat, he went to work for Sidley Austin, which is basically AT&T's legal caddie in DC. His disclosure leaves out Sidley's ridiculously close relationship with AT&T or how AT&T benefits from CISPA. Great work, CNN, making sure that your credibility continues to be at the scraping-bottom level.

As for the actual argument, let's sum it up this way: "CISPA is good for privacy, because CISPA will mean more security and security means more privacy." That's really is the argument, and it's misleading in the extreme:

The debate on cybersecurity has produced a sideshow centered around the belief that added security means a reduction in privacy. Such views are nonsense. Quite simply, digital privacy cannot exist without cybersecurity. Weak security equals weak privacy. Want better privacy? Raise your security game to prevent hackers from stealing private data. Let the experts from the private sector and government communicate with each other so when they see threats, they can alert others and work together to create a solution.

Except... no one is complaining about experts in the private sector and the government communicating with each other. So their whole argument is based on a lie. The worry is that CISPA also gives companies blanket immunity for sharing personal information of their users/customers with the government, and then allows the government to do whatever the hell it wants with that information. That's the opposite of "good security." In fact, it guarantees that it's more likely that this information will leak and be available to bad or malicious players.

Critics don't like the fact that CISPA enables information sharing between the federal government and the private sector in order to prevent cyberattacks and to pursue cybercriminals, hackers, fraudsters and others intent on harm. As they see it, such cooperation constitutes a potential privacy invasion that is so egregious as to merit no further consideration.

That's a blatant misrepresentation of the complaints. The concern is the sharing of personal information. Many were perfectly happy with the executive order, which allows for greater communication -- because it does not involve companies violating the privacy of its users.

Their concerns are, no doubt, well intended. But they are also out of touch with reality and risk unintended consequences that only serve to allow cybercriminals to operate with impunity.

Who's out of touch with reality? Those of us who accurately note the problem, or the two big telco lobbyists (who fail to note whom they're speaking for in the op-ed), who flat out misrepresent the concerns of privacy advocates?

The breadth and scale of the threat of cyberattacks on our nation's critical infrastructure -- financial institutions, electric and water utilities and air traffic control systems, to name just a few -- to say nothing of consumers' personal data, is no longer in debate

Great. If it's no debate, please point us to the evidence that there's a real risk (i.e., what is the actual harm and why can't it be taken care of currently via information sharing allowed under existing law?). We'll wait. We've been waiting. I imagine we'll be waiting some more.

Meanwhile, the avenues and opportunities by which hackers have to penetrate our networks are growing hand in hand with our increasingly mobile communications ecosystem. On the consumer side, for example, a recent study concludes more than 40% of U.S. smartphone users will click on unsafe links this year, potentially spreading malware that can steal data and dollars to their friends, family and colleagues.

And how will CISPA stop this?

Does that sound like a dynamic we would be well served to leave unaddressed? Should we keep our fingers crossed and hope things go OK? Or should we work together to provide the nation with the most effective reality-based cybersecurity we can achieve?

Again, what is the problem with existing laws that prevent us from tackling this "dynamic" today? Why does everyone refuse to answer that basic question. No one is suggesting that companies and infrastructure providers should just "keep our fingers crossed and hope things go OK." To pretend that's what privacy advocates are saying is simply a misrepresentation of reality by two lobbyists who know exactly what they're doing in smearing privacy advocates with lies.

Clearly, the latter is what we need: a cooperative approach, one that allows for lawful sharing of information on where, how, from whom, and in what guise cyberattacks and other forms of cybercrime are emerging so defenses can be prepared.

And... why should that involve personal information of users? And... what laws are currently blocking the necessary information sharing today? Please, do let us know. Because that's important and (not surprisingly) every CISPA supporter wants to ignore it.

At its heart, good security starts with good communication. When it comes to securing our critical infrastructure, shouldn't all parties be able to communicate with one another about what they are seeing and how attacks can be repelled?

Same questions as above.

Of course they should. That is why it so critical that Congress passes CISPA and the President signs it into law.

So... you completely misrepresent the position of privacy advocates, fail to explain why the bill is needed, pretend that the alternative to CISPA is to twiddle our thumbs and wait... and then insist that we need to pass the bill. Wow. You can take the politician out of his Congressional seat, but you can't stop the political doublespeak emanating from his mouth, apparently.

Debate is useful when it advances a discussion and removes obstacles to positive outcomes. However, to be constructive the debate must be based on reality, not abstractions.

Funny you point that out when your entire op-ed is not reality based.

Continued stasis serves no one, except hackers and those who would seek to do us harm.

"And passing blanket immunity protects our clients after we pass along private info of our clients. But let's ignore that part."

Why does CNN allow publication of such obvious crap?

Filed Under: cispa, cybersecurity, information sharing, politics, privacy, rick boucher, steve largent

Congress Brings Back Recently Removed 'IP Subcommittee' Now That Copyright Reformer Won't Lead It

from the shameful-in-the-extreme dept

Back in 2006, when the Democrats took back control over the House of Representatives, we noted that who controlled the "IP subcommittee" of the House Judiciary Committee was going to be Howard Berman, who won out over Rick Boucher. This seemed pretty ridiculous to us, since Berman is from Hollywood and has been the Congressman in favor of stronger copyrights at every turn. As was noted at the time, it would be like making a representative from Detroit in charge of regulating automobile safety. No one would think that's reasonable and yet no one batted an eye when Berman took the job. Two years later, Berman decided to move on to take over the House Foreign Affairs Committee (which is much more prestigious). As we noted at the time, this opened up the spot for Boucher, who was next in line, and has been the leading light in Congress when it comes to copyright reform.

So what happened? Well, rather than let Boucher chair that subcommittee, Congress just got rid of it, saying it wasn't needed any more and that any intellectual property issues could be handled by the full Judiciary Committee. Of course, it's worth pointing out that the chair of the Judiciary Committee is John Conyers -- who also has a history of being a huge supporter of the entertainment industry (such as the time he claimed that radio is a form of "piracy" and that the lack of a performance tax on radio was like slavery).

Of course, now that the Republicans have retaken control over the House, and after Rick Boucher lost his re-election campaign, suddenly, magically, the Judiciary Committee has decided to bring the IP subcommittee back to life (thanks to Alex Curtis for calling this to our attention).

The timing of all this makes the reasoning pretty clear. The IP subcommittee was around for ages, when it was under the control of those who represented the industry. When a reformer is finally in position to be put in charge, the subcommittee is killed and its duties are handed over to the larger committee (controlled by someone who represents the industry). Then, as soon as the reformer is out, the subcommittee comes back? Congress at it's most shameful: a pretty clear indication that Congressional decisions on intellectual property are driven by the industry. This is how regulatory capture works.

Filed Under: congress, copyright, copyright reform, ip subcommittee, john conyers, politics, rick boucher

One Congressional Loss That Hurts: Rick Boucher

from the too-bad dept

I mentioned on Twitter yesterday that it was really sad how difficult it was to find any candidates I actually wanted to win in the election yesterday. In most cases, the more familiar I was with any candidate, the more I felt they didn't deserve to be elected (and that included both the leading candidates in many elections). There was one exception, however: I hoped that Rick Boucher would win re-election. There is a very, very small number of Congressional Representatives who actually seem to really get technology, telecom and copyright issues, and Boucher is was one of them. Despite easily winning re-election in many past elections (he didn't even have any real competitor last time around), it looks like Boucher has been swept out as part of the anti-incumbent sentiment. Trust me, I understand the desire to get rid of incumbent politicians, but Boucher was one of the rare politicians who actually seemed to get the issues that many of us find important.

This is bad news for copyright and for consumers. Not that he was all that successful in passing the laws that mattered on that subject, but he was one of the few who would ask the key questions, and actually try to fix those broken laws -- such as his repeated attempts to fix the DMCA and support fair use, as well as more recent attempts to stop the massive boondoggle that is the Universal Service Fund. Boucher was so respected on these issues, that even Public Knowledge's Gigi Sohn and ITIF's Richard Bennett agreed that this was bad news. I've known both Richard and Gigi for a while, and I can't recall them ever agreeing on anything. Gigi wrote up a blog post about what a loss this is for consumers and innovation. Hopefully we'll find out that one of the newly elected representatives actually understands some of these issues -- or perhaps some of the "survivors" will step up and recognize the issues. But Boucher's loss is bad news.

Filed Under: consumers, copyright, policy, politics, rick boucher, telecom

Draft Of Privacy Bill Introduced... And Pretty Much Everyone Hates It

from the is-that-a-good-sign? dept

Rep. Rick Boucher released a draft internet privacy bill that's getting plenty of attention. You can read the draft on Boucher's site (pdf) or embedded below: In Europe, internet privacy laws are pretty standard -- but in the US we've stayed away from them. The initial reaction to the bill seems to be that everyone hates it. Well, everyone who has a strong position and/or financial interest in it. Privacy groups say the bill is way too weak. Companies say it's way too restrictive. As per usual, the reality is probably somewhere in the middle. The key component of the bill is that is splits up information into two categories: "covered information" which sites will have to allow users to opt-out of collection, and "sensitive information" which sites will have to have users opt-in.

Covered information (information that sites can collect, but users will have the right to "opt-out" if they don't like it) includes:

1. The first name or initial and last name.
2. A postal address.
3. A telephone or fax number.
4. An email address.
5. Unique biometric data, including a fingerprint or retina scan.
6. A Social Security number, tax identification number, passport number, driver's license number, or any other government-issued identification number.
7. A Financial account number, or credit or debit card number, and any required security code, access code, or password that is necessary to permit access to an individual's financial account.
8. Any unique persistent identifier, such as a customer number, unique pseudonym or user alias, Internet Protocol address, or other unique identifier, where such identifier is used to collect, store, or identify information about a specific individual or a computer, device, or software application owned or used by a particular user or that is otherwise associated with a particular user.
9. A preference profile.
10. Any other information that is collected, stored, used, or disclosed in connection with any covered information described in subparagraphs (A) through (I).

As for "sensitive information" (which sites will require people to opt-in to collect), you've got:

1. medical records, including medical history, mental or physical condition, or medical treatment or diagnosis by a health care professional;
2. race or ethnicity;
3. religious beliefs;
4. sexual orientation;
5. financial records and other financial information associated with a financial account, including balances and other financial information; or
6. precise geolocation information.

There are also some "exemptions" for the collection of information that was for "operational purposes" or "transactional purposes." Reading through the whole thing, I have to admit I'm a bit confused as to the purpose of the bill. It seems like the "opt-in" information is the type of information that you would have to opt-in for anyway, because no website is going to be able to get that information without it. As for the opt-out information, most of that can again be handled by the user, simply through various technology offerings out there.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but this seems like the kind of bill that's designed to say "hey, look, privacy law!" but that doesn't really do anything to protect people's privacy. I could see it causing a lot of trouble for sites, though, for no good reason. For example, saying that IP address information can be "opt-out" could create a massive hassle for pretty much any site that keeps log files. Imagine the fun someone could cause by visiting sites and then demanding the site remove his or her IP address from their logs. I understand the general thinking behind this, but I just don't see it doing anything good, while I could see all sorts of unintended consequences from it.

Filed Under: laws, privacy, rick boucher

NBC Universal Boss Jeff Zucker Lies To Congress About Boxee

from the but-what-about-the-corn-farmers dept

NBC Universal management gets more and more ridiculous every time we come across anything they do. While they've left most of the more ridiculous statements to their chief lawyer, Rick Cotton (who is worried about the poor corn farmers harmed by movie file sharing), CEO Jeff Zucker has made his fair share of whoppers. While he got a lot of attention last month for his cowardly handling of the whole Leno/Conan mess, his latest move is to flat out lie to Congress. In a hearing in front of Congress as a part of NBC's effort to merge with Comcast, Rep. Rick Boucher asked Zucker about Hulu being forced to block Boxee (a battle that's gone back and forth a few times). When the whole thing started, Hulu management was very upfront about how they were pressured by their content partners like NBC to block Boxee, which is just another browser. It was quite clear that Hulu didn't want to do the block, but had no choice due to pressure from the likes of partial owner NBC:

Our content providers requested that we turn off access to our content via the Boxee product, and we are respecting their wishes....

The maddening part of writing this blog entry is that we realize that there is no immediate win here for users. Please know that we take very seriously our role of representing users such that we are able to provide more and more content in more and more ways over time. We embrace this activity in ways that respect content owners' -- and even the entire industry's -- challenges to create great content that users love. Yes, it's a complex matter. A tough mission, and a never-ending one, but one we are passionately committed to.

For those Boxee users reading this post, we understand and appreciate that you're likely to tell us that we're nuts. Please know that we do share the same interests and won't stop innovating in support of the bigger mission.

So how did Zucker respond when asked about it by Congressman Rick Boucher? He blamed Hulu for making the decision, and falsely claimed that Boxee illegally access Hulu content:

Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA): What about Boxee? Mr. Zucker you probably are in a better position to answer that. Did Hulu block the Boxee users from access to the Hulu programs?

Zucker (NBC): This was a decision made by the Hulu management to, uh, what Boxee was doing was illegally taking the content that was on Hulu without any business deal. And, you know, all, all the, we have several distributors, actually many distributors of the Hulu content that we have legal distribution deals with so we don't preclude distribution deals. What we preclude are those who illegally take that content.

Of course, that's a flat out wrong, as Boxee was not illegally "taking" the content at all. Boxee is a browser, like Firefox. If what Boxee does is illegal so is accessing Hulu with Firefox or IE. But it's even worse than that, because last year, in a different situation, Zucker admitted that he had been a part of the decision makers to have Hulu block Boxee, telling Kara Swisher that "our vision" was to block Boxee in an effort to keep "Hulu being an online experience" rather than one you could access via a TV.

So why would Zucker flat out lie during a Congressional hearing, and throw Hulu under the bus while doing so? Does he not understand how Boxee works? Did he forget his own dealings with Hulu? Or is he just making stuff up in a Congressional hearing?

Filed Under: browsers, congress, content, jeff zucker, merger, online, rick boucher
Companies: boxee, comcast, hulu, nbc, nbc universal, universal

Are Industry Best Practices Enough To Protect Net Neutrality?

from the no-sticks-anymore,-just-carrots dept

For the supporters of net neutrality, an Obama White House, Genachowski FCC and Democratic Congress seemed to be the magic combination to ensure an open, non-discriminatory Internet. However, one of the key proponents, Representative Boucher, has recently suggested that he is switching tactics, "scrapping the idea of pursuing legislation mandating an openly accessible Internet in favor of negotiations with stakeholders aimed at reaching a comprehensive accord." An agreement upon industry best practices could, in theory, be a good way to protect net neutrality, but there are causes for concern.

As Techdirt contributor Tim Lee pointed out in his paper on net neutrality, the unintended consequences of legislation may be costly and inefficient. So, voluntary agreements could create a flexible, realistic approach to protecting an important principle. Something similar happened with the Global Network Initiative that brought together Google, Microsoft and Yahoo!, along with academics and human rights organizations, to agree to a set of principles and enforcement mechanisms to protect and promote free expression and privacy around the globe. But the motivating factor of this agreement was the threat of legislation following very humiliating Congressional hearings on American Internet companies' dealings in China. By creating a voluntary set of best practices, the Global Network Initiative sidestepped the unintended consequences of poorly drafted legislation. The ISPs could do similarly, but by publicly stating his change of tactics, Boucher may have removed the motivating factor.

Another key to any agreement would be competition in the ISP marketplace. In Norway, where they recently created a similar agreement between ISPs and consumer protection agencies to mandate non-discrimination of networks and endpoints, the ISPs are in a competitive sector. Because ISPs there recognize the competitive advantage of staying neutral, there is a force pushing them in that direction. In the United States, the driving force was largely the threat of legislation, and hopefully that is still there as Boucher guides the ISPs towards his comprehensive accord.

Filed Under: best practices, legislation, net neutrality, norway, rick boucher

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

Congress Trying To Make It Legal To Ignore Tax Planning Patents

from the wrong-approach dept

We've written a few times about the rush to patent various tax strategies. That, by itself, should be evidence enough of some of the problems with the patent system. However, rather than deal with those larger problems, it appears that our Congressional Representatives are trying to take the cheap way out: creating a special exemption that would exempt taxpayers and tax preparers from risking infringement should they use any of these "patented" tax strategies. While this bill may be well-intentioned, like the attempt to allow banks to ignore a questionable patent on check scanning, it's the wrong approach. Rather than dealing with the root causes of problems with the patent system, these bills look to paper over the manifestations of those problems. In the long run, such laws (if they become law) would only make the system worse. It's nice that Rep. Rick Boucher (who often is on the right side when it comes to intellectual property issues) recognizes that tax preparation patents are a problem -- but this isn't the way to solve them.

Filed Under: congress, patents, rick boucher, tax planning, tax strategies

Will Howard Berman Step Down From Leading Copyright Subcomittee?

from the the-representative-from-Disney-goes-international dept

A year ago, we noted how ridiculous it was that Congress was allowing Rep. Howard Berman to run the Congressional subcommittee dealing with intellectual property issues. Berman is a well-known supporter of Hollywood and the major record labels (and they, in turn, support him back). He's from LA and has been referred to as "the Representative from Disney" or "Hollywood Howard," and he's yet to meet a bill proposing stricter copyright laws that he hasn't been in favor of approving. As Larry Lessig noted at the time of Berman's appointment, it was like allowing a representative from Detroit to head a committee on auto safety standards. However, Copycense alerts us to a story from the Hollywood Reporter, suggesting that Berman may leave the chairmanship of the subcommittee in order to take on the more prestigious and desired role as chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

If Berman does step aside, then the next in line for the job would be Rep. Rick Boucher, who has been a very strong (perhaps the strongest) fighter for consumer rights when it comes to copyright issues. For many, many years he's been pushing to rewrite the DMCA, for example. So having him take over the subcommittee would be big step forward. However, as the Hollywood Reporter notes, Boucher may be too busy on other committees that are more closely related to his Congressional district and the head of the full Committee (the IP part is just a subcommittee), is Rep. John Conyers, another friend of Hollywood, who probably wouldn't allow Boucher to push initiatives that lessened the power of copyright law. If Boucher doesn't take the job, then the article notes it would likely fall to Rep. Jerry Nadler, who represents parts of Manhattan that happen to include many major entertainment companies. It's not clear what Nadler's stance on these issues are, but he was a supporter of the ridiculously backwards bill to extend copyright protection to fashion designs, a policy that is both unnecessary and potentially dangerous to the industry -- suggesting that he's fairly susceptible to poorly reasoned arguments in favor of stronger copyright.

Filed Under: congress, copyright, howard berman, jerry nadler, john conyers, rick boucher