Next month, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is scheduled to present its National Broadband Plan to Congress and the stakes could not be higher. Broadband opens doors that allow for extraordinary opportunity — opportunity that should be available to all Americans at an affordable price.

As we anxiously await the details, our society prepares to undergo tremendous structural changes in how vital government services are delivered. These services are a lifeline, particularly for our underclass. America’s low-income communities cannot afford to be further disadvantaged as a result of a lack of the benefits that the digital future promises (education, entertainment, healthcare) due to the rising price of Broadband.

I share the FCC’s commitment to equal rights for Internet users, but I am genuinely concerned about the unintended consequences that well-intentioned net neutrality policies could have on America’s underclass. For many families, the brutal recession that we continue to battle has already pushed the dream of high-speed Internet access out of reach. Implementing new network neutrality regulations that may not allocate costs in a fair or equitable manner, particularly in these times of economic uncertainty, is of serious concern.

Assuming that we all agree with President Obama on the importance of universal broadband in our society, the required cost to achieve such must be considered. There are many technologies available to wire the country: cable, fiber optic, wireless, satellite, but without the necessary infrastructure in place, we can’t get wire to everyone. From the desperately poor in our inner cities (places like South Central or Detroit) to the isolated poor and rural locations like the Ozarks, hundreds of billions of dollars in new investment are needed to change the status of our un-served and underserved Americans.

More than $100 billion has already been spent to deploy high-speed systems across America. But the FCC has estimated that $350 billion is necessary to achieve universal broadband access. As such, the focus of the FCC should be on speeding this process, either through federal programs or by incentivizing the investment of private companies.

Throughout this process, we must also strive to ensure that access remains affordable. To achieve this, I see one logical solution — to have the build-out in these communities financed in part by agreements between the companies paying to lay the wires and the companies that will use those links to sell services.

Largely missing the point, proposals for new “neutrality” rules do nothing to help us realize these important goals. Instead, it is widely thought that new net neutrality regulations will reduce much needed investment in infrastructure, thus causing broadband to become less affordable and accessible to underserved and un-served populations.

Others who have come to the same conclusion include Democratic Governors Beverly Perdue of North Carolina and Mike Beebe of Arkansas. Beebe, whose state includes large numbers of desperately poor in both rural and urban areas, wrote to the FCC last October to express concern that Net neutrality rules would hurt his efforts to expand high-speed service in Arkansas.

When Oklahoma’s Democratic Governor Brad Henry spoke out on this issue he encouraged the FCC to look at what he’s done as Governor. As he put it, the best way to wire Oklahoma is through its model of “light or no regulation for landline, broadband and wireless services.”

Additionally, certain members of the Congressional Black Caucus recently called on the FCC to reiterate, not repudiate, its historic commitment to the principles that have fostered an Internet open to all: competition, private investment and a restrained regulatory approach.

As the FCC considers President Obama’s charge to create universal broadband access, it is important to remember that deploying the access is only part of the solution. Making this access affordable is equally important.

For all Americans, the stakes are high. For our minority and low-income communities, the stakes are even higher. If federal policy remains focused on encouraging broadband roll-out and allowing financing arrangements that make access more affordable, the possibilities will be limitless. That’s a dream we all share.

Follow Julius H. Hollis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/digitalequality

The race to get quality content directly to your HDTV has been building for a few years. TiVo now includes podcast aggregation ability, AppleTV includes the ability to watch movies, independent films are distributed via iTunes directly to your TV, and Boxee now aggregates and scrapes the social web for online video that your social network is watching and allows you to broadcast directly to your home theater.

Consumer electronic devices have gone from component HDTV connections to HDMI and optical inputs for quality HDTV viewing.

Hollywood would like to break your TV and revert your viewing experience back a few years. Never mind the evolution of media distribution created by an open market. The large corporate trade associates want to control distribution abilities directly by breaking your TV.

The MPAA (Motion Pictures Association of America) has been trying to increase movie distribution while maintaining full control of their content. Throughout the years they have joined forces with the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) to take on media related websites, bit torrent technology, and various file sharing programs in an effort to crack down on illegal piracy.

Enter Selectable Output Control (aka The Cable Kill Swith).

“Selectable Output Control” (”SOC”) is the remote signaling of home devices by content providers or distributors, to turn off consumer home interfaces on a program-by-program basis. The interface in question would simply not operate for the particular program. It would mean that a consumer who has purchased an HDTV display, and pays for a set-top box or other device with an HDTV output, still might not receive all of the HDTV programs he or she has paid for — because the interface between the set-top box and the HDTV display has been turned off by remote control. In the long term, imposition of SOC could have the effect of driving from the market any home interface that supports home recording. HRRC has opposed imposition of SOC by law or in any context subject to regulation.

SOC is activated by data “triggers” that ride along with program information when it is sent to the home. FCC Encoding Rules currently ban SOC use, but the FCC has left the door open to its use in the future.  – Home Recording Rights Coalition

Here is a video about this technology:

For years the FCC has limited the SOC option from content creators or distribution providers (cable companies.) However on November 23rd the MPAA sent a letter to the FCC defending their original request to wave the FCC’s previous deicsion to block access to the SOC technology.

Public Knowledge, Home Recording Rights Coalition, the Consumer Electronics Association, and various other organizations took a strong public stance against the original request (the letter available here:: http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/soc-genachowski-letter-20091104.pdf.) In additional they responded to the newest letter in several strong blog posts stating:

“it utterly fails to demonstrate that anybody steals content through the analog hole or that giving the MPAA the ability to shut off both analog and protected digital outputs would have any impact at all on piracy.” (original link: http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2783)

Further:

“We use the word, ‘breaking,’ deliberately, here and in previous filings and videos, because that is exactly what would happen if the industry has its way and the FCC grants the ill-conceived waiver to allow the industry control over consumer devices. Because of existing FCC rules, a consumer with a stand alone digital video recorder (DVR) or Slingbox knows that it will work for all video-on-demand (VoD) services, and that compatibility is a key factor when consumers spend their hard-earned money on consumer electronics. It would be a rude shock if, at the industry whim, some of those devices did not perform as expected. (original link here: http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2782)

As the debate continues between Hollywood studios, consumer electronics manufactures, and home recording rights advocates, there are many more that have yet to weight in on this debate or be mobalized that will be severly impacted.

Given the current economy, job creation is critical. Direct-to-home movie releases will eliminate thousands of movie theatre jobs and hurt movie theatre owners. The National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) has yet to publish a statement on this issue and the impact it will have on the job market.

How will this impact independent distributors and 3rd party content distributors such as Apple iTunes, Boxee, TiVo, etc?

Will blocking their signals be next?

Greg Tarr from TWICE says it best:

“There is also no readily available consumer friendly way to make copies of HDTV programming over the so-called unprotected analog component-video outputs. So why do producers require the ability to shut down such ports? Why must thousands of consumers who have purchased expensive HDTVs five or more years ago lose the ability to watch some programs in HDTV now that it is finally available? Just to prevent a handful of pirates from possibly using expensive professional recording equipment with complex analog-to-digital encoders from illegally reproducing the content for sale?

The solution to that problem lies with law enforcement, not by discriminating against the people who helped to make the digital TV transition happen.”

In the coming weeks we will put this issue on the forefront. New Media content producers, movie theatre owners, workers, and consumers have yet to weigh in.

This issue will not just be an FCC issue. We expect Net Neutrality related issues to surface in Congress around this matter. We will be talking to these groups in the coming weeks and begin to organize a consumer led public awareness campaign.

For now, your thoughts on this issue is important.

What are your concerns?

Will this affect you? If so, in what way?

Future of Music Policy Summit 2009
The Grandaddy of Music-Tech-Policy Conferences is Back and Better Than Ever!

It’s been nearly a decade since the digital music genie burst out of its bottle, changing the game for virtually everyone in the music ecosystem. So what comes next? Future of Music Policy Summit 2009 will examine this question through practical, musician-focused workshops, keynotes from leading artists, managers and policymakers and inspired panel discussions with the sharpest minds in the music/technology space. New this year, the event will feature unique presentations from a range of visionaries about where we’ve been and where we go from here. All this plus cocktail parties, a movie screening and a rock show!

Policy Summit 2009 is taking place at Georgetown University in Washington, DC on October 4-6. The clock is ticking on early bird discounts (official cutoff is midnight on Friday, August 21), so grab yours now!

**Stellar Speakers**
We’ve got a range of incredible speakers and panelists lined up, with more on the way.

FMC is thrilled to announce the appearance of US Senator Al Franken (D-MN), who will be talking about why net neutrality is so important to connectivity, creativity and commerce online. The Senator will also be interviewed by Mike Mills of R.E.M. How cool is that?

Another exciting addition is Daniel Ek, founder of Spotify — the potentially game-changing music service that’s sweeping Europe and collecting press mentions like rockers collect hangovers. Ek will swing in from Sweden and offer his vision for music in the digital age, which you won’t want to miss.

On the artist side, there’s the legendary Wayne Kramer of MC5, Dave Allen of Gang of Four, singer-songwriter Erin McKeown and more. Look out for upcoming announcements about other exciting participants who’ll be joining us soon!

Policy Summit 2009 will also be webcast live:
http://futureofmusic.org/civicrm/profile/create?reset=1&gid=19

Panel Topics
• Visionary presentations on the music-tech space
• Ten years after Napster
• Practical tips for musicians
• New business models
• Future of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act

• Intellectual property, privacy & network rights
• Possible remedies to the challenges of the sample license clearance process
• Screening of Copyright Criminals documentary

Keep your eyes on this spot for breaking news about any and all Summit-related activity!

Policy Summit 2009 event site:
http://www.futureofmusic.org/events/summit09
Registration:
http://www.futureofmusic.org/eventrelated/registration-pricing
As with all FMC events, a limited number of musician scholarships are available:
http://www.futureofmusic.org/eventrelated/scholarships-working-musicians
Press credentialing:
http://www.futureofmusic.org/eventrelated/press-credentialing

It’s been three years since Jeff Howe coined the term “crowdsourcing” in his Wired article “The Rise of Crowdsourcing.” The term, which describes an online, distributed problem solving and production model, is most famously represented in the business operations of companies like Threadless and InnoCentive and in contests like the Goldcorp Challenge and the Doritos Crash the Super Bowl Contest.
(via CFCM.)

Governor Schwarzenegger launched the www.MyIdea4CA.com website for Twitter users to share and discuss their ideas to move California forward. The MyIdea4CA Twitter Forum was initiated to extend a popular conversation that began in June of 2009 on Twitter when Governor Schwarzenegger called for public participation for new ideas on the state budget.

As government cuts back their budgets, consultants, polling data, and combined with the need for transparency we will begin to see more crowdsourcing projects more and more. It not only creates a way to get real time results of public opinion, but also provides engagement strategies to connect with the public. The real question is the quality of this feedback?

This is not scientific nor a professional response, however it is true public response and engagement. The Public and the European Union has begun working with the public to perfect this approach.

Echoing the Open Government initiatives currently underway at the White House, the process is beginning with an open brainstorming session to identify and evaluate a range of ways in which EU governments can harness the emerging power of the web to transform European public services.

Debate graph on these ideas here: http://debategraph.org/flash/fv.aspx?r=20101

The potential is huge. The trend of such approaches have already caught on. With such traction, do you feel that decisions will now be interpreted as the popular sentiment? Does access and knowledge of social media provide greater access to policy makers?

The California Assembly is taking steps to protect photographers and public figures whose images are used without consent online.  AB 632, introduced by Assembly Member Davis, would require a social networking site to prevent an image of a person that is posted on the site from being copied or reproduced by another person without the permission of the user who posted the image.  In a further measure to protect unauthorized reproduction of a person’s image; social networking websites would be required to create a mechanism for users to flag images for removal of images of that user that are posted without their authorization.

This bill may allow Californians to sleep a little better at night knowing that their Facebook profile images cannot be arbitrarily copied and used on a porn site.

Although, like so many well meaning pieces of legislation, the enforcement of something like this may be next to impossible.  Further, does this type of legislation even make sense?  I post my images online “at my own risk”, I would much prefer that someone not steal and misrepresent my image; however, if such an event occured I may have a cause of action under libel (depending on the state’s laws). Perhaps states should focus on strengthening their defamation laws in order to provide protection to citizens against digital gaffes.

Beyond misrepresentation of someone else’s image, the bill also addresses taking images that another person created.  I admire creative and beautiful photography and know that it takes talent and equipment to produce certain images.  Is it fair for me to cut and paste the image onto my site without compensating the photographer?  On the flip side if a photographer posts their work online, is it considered a published work and part of the community’s domain?  What about First Amendment free speech rights; should a celebrity be able to sue a website because an unattractive, unauthorized picture of the celebrity is posted?  Better yet what if the situation involved a politiciann?

Finally, I understand that state legislatures pass bills concerning Internet use to protect their citizens; however, isn’t this a federal issue?  How can a state police websites like Facebook?  Especially when social networking site users can only use the service if they agree to terms of service and opt into the service?  California is requiring Facebook and other social networking sites to develop specific technology to meet the requirements of one state.  I argue that Internet laws should be the exclusive domain of federal policy making under the Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause.  Internet users and businesses require uniform federal laws that govern how we use websites and exchange information over the Internet.

Currently AB 632 passed the Assembly Floor and Senate Committee and will presumably be brought to the Senate Floor for a full vote.  What are your thoughts on policing the Internet?  Does this type of law protect or suffocate creativity?

The FCC’s latest investigation involves Apple and AT&T.  FCC jurisdiction is based upon iPhones running on public networks and its duty to ensure fair competition on wireless networks.  Apple recently rejected the Google Voice application for the new iPhone; AT&T claims that it is not responsible for accepting or denying iPhone applications. On face it seems inappropriate for the FCC to force Apple to allow all applications to be used on Apple’s product.  So what if Apple refuses the Google Voice app to be used on its iPhone; customers who want to use the Google app should buy a Blackberry or other mutlimedia device that allows the application.

So what is the FCC’s beef…why not let the free market dictate how apps are used?

Simple, because we have open use of the Internet, meaning on the wired Internet, we can connect any type of PC or other computing device and use any applications we want on those devices; so shouldn’t we want these same privileges on our wireless devices?  Currently, the wireless Internet is controlled by cellular carriers like AT&T, we can only use the phones they allow on their networks and can only use the applications they approve.  We use are mobile devices like mini computers are able to download functions (applications), which enable different uses for these devices.  So why shouldn’t wireless devices fall under the same open access rule as the wired Internet?

This issue is at the heart of the FCC’s Apple investigation.  The FCC is concerned about how Apple determines which applications can and cannot be used on the iPhone and sold in Apple’s App Store. On July 31, 2009 the FCC sent letters to Apple and AT&T with questions concerning how applications are chosen for the App Store, reasons for rejecting the Google Voice app, any part that AT&T played in denying Google Voice app, and all other applications that have been denied for the iPhone.  I would love to be a fly on the wall at Apple as their attorneys determine the best way to address these questions.  Lets hope that the Apple and AT&T responses are published!

This is a case where it appears the FCC is attempting to defend Internet open access by forcing Apple to create a clear policy on what type of iPhone applications are not acceptable.  The outcome of this investigation will determine how we use the wireless Internet and iPhone devices.  Applications provide useful tools to enhance how we use our mobile devices; however given the phones are closed sources, which means that the phone provider must approve the applications, users are limited to applications that are approved by the phone provider.

Is the closed source method stifling innovation or protecting consumers from downloading bad applications?  Further, should it be up to phone providers to determine which applications are “bad” or should a central agency, such as the FCC, determine if the application meets specific requirements?

Mobile phone technology will continue to evolve, should consumers get to decide how they want to use their devices?

What can and cannot be done on political campaigns is almost always dictated by campaign finance laws.  The Federal Election Commission (FEC) sets campaign finance laws for all federal elections; whereas, state legislatures make their own statutes for state and local campaigns.  One of the main objectives to campaign finance laws is to regulate campaign contribution amounts and campaign advertising.  Due to new internet technologies, these laws must be expanded on or interpreted to take into account changes in online communications and advertising.

We are all familiar with the requirements that most campaign ads must state who authorized and funded the ad.  This is to protect not just the candidate but disclose to the public who paid for the ad.  Usually the campaign pays for ads (of course those who contribute to the campaign are not disclosed) but occasionally an outside organization will pay for ads that attack a candidate’s opponent…can we all say “Swift Boat.”  These rules seem simple enough (opposed to the rest of campaign finance rules) and are easy to follow in television, print, website, and radio ads.

Do these rules apply to social media?  How about internet ads?  What if a candidate decides to create a Facebook game and post on their Facebook fan page…would the game fall under campaign finance rules as a campaign advertisement?

The social web, for the most part is free.  Setting up Twitter and Facebook accounts are simple and cost the user nothing except time.  Twitter has come up with a process to verify celebrity accounts, which should be used for politicians.  A social web faux pas can easily occur when another person posts comments and content in lieu of the actual user.  Social networking  is another form of communication, which is extremely affordable and is becoming an integral part of  political campaigns.

For the most part, activites on the social web do not offend federal or state campaign finance laws as no funds are being expended on purchase of social networking sites.  However, as mentioned above, some activities require design work like websites, blogsites, Facebook applications, and mobile applications.  Do these fall under campaign finance laws?  I argue yes, because they are being created for the sole purpose of promoting the candidate during a political campaign.

As to internt advertising, pay per click campaigns offer a cheap and easy way to drive internet traffic to a candidate’s websites.  Campaigns only pay for advertising after so many people have clicked on the ad, which is different than paying for an ad and then broadcasting it.  A recent article in the Wall Street Journal discusses this issue in the context of a Florida mayorial election.

The Florida Elections Commission decided that a mayoral candidate’s ads on Google and Facebook  violated the state’s election law because they did not include a disclaimer that indicates who bought them. Many other states, including Texas, Alaska, Connecticut and Ohio, also require similar disclaimers.  The candidate’s campaign argued that the messages in question were not technically ads, but rather links to ads, and that it doesn’t pay for them unless a Web user clicks on them and is taken to a Web site that provides the appropriate disclosures.

My question to the campaign is simply, why not include disclaimer information on the Google ads?  Disclaimer information is not only beneficial to voters but to the campaign.  If I were the candidate’s opponent I could buy up my own Google ads, use the candidate’s face and campaign message in the ad and then once a person clicked on the ad direct them to another website…anything from a porn site to another candidate’s site.  As a voter I wouldn’t know what just happened and would most likely be frustrated with the candidate’s whose face is on the ad…not knowing that someone else might have posted the ad.  Further, even though the ad had technically not been purchased until someone clicked on it, the campaign (or other entity) had to pay to create the ad’s content, this should be disclosed to voters.

The Florida case comes as digital media faces broader challenges in accommodating the same sort of disclosures required in traditional advertising. This spring, the Food and Drug Administration sent letters to major drug companies, telling them their search ads needed to include risk information about their drugs in the text of the ad. Separately, the Federal Trade Commission is reviewing whether bloggers and other Web publishers that receive products from marketers and write about it are doing enough to make those relationships known, under truth-in-advertising guidelines.

Regulators are catching up to the digital world but does it make sense to apply traditional rules to new internet technologies?  Should we be able to “click at our own risk” or take information in blogs with a grain of salt?  How much government hand holding should be happening online?  Disclosure is a powerful regulatory tool; consumers deserve to know all the facts but are we also required to implement common sense when using the internet?

Almost half of the 1,015 advertisers polled said that Twitter use will grow exponentially over the next few years, compared with just 12% of consumers who felt the same. One-fifth of…….advertisers and 12% of consumers say Twitter is just something for young people, which contradicts a much-publicized report by a Morgan Stanley intern arguing the opposite. If McCain and his 150 fellow Congressional Twitterers, according to Tweet Congress, are any indication of the website’s audience, it’s not a young person’s game. -via Is Congress the ultimate ad agency with Twitter? | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times.

Recently we had a conversation with Nancy Tarr, whom we hope will play a major role within#NMP, about this phenomenon. The very people who will have to decide on important legislation in the coming future regarding this space are still trying to understand how to use social media. The simple fact is, Congress (members and staff) are in this torrid love hate relationship with the reality that Twitter, YouTube, live streaming from your mobile device, is making the world and policy making more accessible and transparent.

The major question is: Do we want Congress to be an ad agency for new media?

You can see why politicians would love social media as it provides an affordable way to directly communicate with constituents (and voters) as well as hate lack of message control. The concern we have here at #NMP is that policy makers who will be crafting policy and legislation that effect new media usage barely understand how to use this technology and will be influenced by their own skewed experiences and investors in the technology; not those who are avid consumers, producers, and disseminators of new media content.

We can not let the weary concerned politicians, the ambivalent Congressional staffers, or the venture capital firms who want to protect their investments have a solitary voice over the rights of the social media community.

We must continue to drive this conversation from the consumers’ point of view.  Lend your voice and opinions to this blog…what are your concerns?  How do you view regulations that will affect how we use new media?

Government transparency in the form of social media is a hotly contested issue.  Some say that blocking employee access to social media sites is great news as taxpayer money is not being wasted on using Twitter on White House time.  Of course this logic is slightly flawed for those of us living in the digital age can access Twitter via our mobile phones.  However, the message being sent by invoking this policy is strong; social media is vital on the campaign trail but dangerous when governing.

Can social networks be harmful to government?  Worse yet do they pose a security risk?

Before delving into those questions, lets take a look at identity manipulations issues on Twitter.  Now when I joined Twitter I used my favorite screen name and linked it to my email and full name.  I am who I  say I am.  This is not always the case on Twitter, especially where celebrities are involved.  Twitter profile fakes for celebrities such as Emma Watson, the Dhali Lama, and Tony LaRussa have gained huge followings.   In an effort to delegitimize these impostors Twitter has created verified account status, which can only be obtained by the celebrity or their agent.

In a more serious case, Michigan-based public relations firm Tanner Friedman was “brandjacked” when it found in March that a Twitter account, under the username @TannerFriedman, had existed for two months without the firm’s knowledge. It filed a lawsuit against the account owner, and, in June, the judge ordered Twitter to reveal the account owner’s IP address. The address was traced back to rival PR firm Marx Layne. Tanner Friedman eventually regained control of the account.

The above demonstrates how easy it is to create false accounts, aliases, and infiltrate competitors through Twitter.  The Federal Court in Michigan forced Twitter to produce confidential user information to determine who was falsely using the competitor’s name on Twitter, which sets a precedence for whistle-blower Twitter users. Should a court be able to force Twitter to produce this type of information?  In extreme cases like the protests in Iran, what would have happened to all of those people protesting against their government if Twitter would have been forced to give up their account information?  On the other hand, Tanner Friedman’s brand and good name were being fraudulently used on the social web, surely the person behind those false statements should be enjoined to stop their activities.

Given this information, is Twitter, Facebook and other social networks bad for government…do they pose national security risks?  Clearly if used wrong, these sites can cause an internal raukus; however, I’m not sure they will be the cause for leaking state secrets.

Social media is another mode of communication just like email, the telephone, and text messaging.  Social networks allow users to communicate quickly and attach media to their posts.  Social media can be used for good and act as a government watchdog.  Anyone who has worked for a government entity knows that their office has complete monitoring control over their PC, so posting false, dangerous, or inappropriate information onto your social network at work is NOT a good idea (no matter where you work, but especially if you happen to be at 1600 Pennsylvania).

Further, instead of banning social media sites the White House should invoke stricter usage policies  requiring employees to disclose their social network user names and agree to allow their employer access to their IP address and other registration information from social networks.

Employees can of course simply use their mobile devices to tweet and communicate from work but the message being sent from the White House by banning this technology is paranoid and restrictive.  Smart work place policies for government entities will keep employees from abusing social media tools and send a message of openness and transparency.

What are your thoughts?  What are your work place policies in regards to social media networking?