September 2011

Thirty-four House Democrats wrote to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski, urging him to cap the amount of taxpayer funds used to subsidize broadband coverage in rural areas.

The high-cost portion of the fund has swollen significantly over the past decade to $4.5 billion in fiscal 2010. The Members who signed the letter, including Reps. Doris Matsui (D-CA), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA), argue the fund should be capped because the current funding would be more than adequate to support broadband deployment. “As the National Broadband Plan noted, unrestrained growth in the fund not only imposes a greater cost burden on consumers, who pay into the fund via a contribution factor that continues to reach higher and higher levels, but it could also jeopardize public support for the goals of universal service,” the lawmakers wrote. “The collection of up to $4.5 billion per year, appropriately targeted to high-cost areas, should provide sufficient funding to support broadband deployment. Within that context, we believe it is clear that uncontrolled growth of the fund is unsustainable.” The lawmakers also argued that encouraging and funding broadband-adoption programs is crucial to the success of the program.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) will finally be signed Saturday, October 1, in Japan.

The agreement has been years in the making, but its final passage comes only after a vociferous campaign by civil society and digital rights groups demanding an end to the secrecy, a place at the negotiating table, and a scaled-back set of copyright and patent provisions. They did pretty well -- as we previously noted, US negotiators on ACTA were pushing for some of the toughest language on DRM, Internet disconnections, and more, but had to climb down in the face of international resistance and public pressure. The secrecy was so intense -- despite a blizzard of statements about transparency -- that leaked diplomatic cables showed other countries objecting. An Italian official complained that it was "impossible for member states to conduct necessary consultations with IPR stakeholders and legislatures under this level of confidentiality." In Sweden, an ACTA negotiator told the US embassy that "the secrecy issue has been very damaging to the negotiating climate in Sweden."

Gigi Sohn, head of Public Knowledge, is still venting her discontent with the process. "Although the final version of the Agreement was an improvement from earlier versions, we continue to believe that the process by which it was reached was extremely flawed," she said in a statement today. "ACTA should have been considered a treaty, and subject to public Senate debate and ratification or, in the alternative, debated in an open and transparent international forum such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Instead, public interest groups and the tech industry had to expend enormous resources to force the process open to permit public views to be presented and considered."

It may be difficult to describe what exactly the phrase “an Internet of things” means, but the pieces of the puzzle that are required for that to develop are all here today, ThingM CEO Mike Kuniavsky told attendees at GigaOM’s Mobilize conference in San Francisco.

Those puzzle pieces include ubiquitous network connectivity, cloud-based services, cheap assembly of electronics, social design, open collaboration tools and low-volume sales channels. When put together, Kuniavsky said, they create an “innovation ecosystem” that is the foundation for an Internet of things.

Google and Microsoft now dominate influence-peddling around Internet issues, each having spent $3.5 million on lobbying through the first half of 2011.

Google's total lobbyist count is now up to 93, the highest number the company has ever had in Washington (roughly one for every six members of Congress). The biggest thrust of Google’s lobbying push involves antitrust, patents, copyright, trade and China. Microsoft’s lobbying peaked in the mid-2000s, when Congress and antitrust investigators had their sights set on the software powerhouse. Currently, the company’s work in Washington is largely focused on setting and gaming the tax code, a pet issue for corporations seasoned in the ways of the capitol. Still, Microsoft’s lobbyists also continue to work heavily on antitrust, patent, copyright, trade, and China issues. Sixty-four percent of the 76 lobbyists employed by Microsoft are registered on these issues. Eighty-one percent of those lobbyists have previous government experience, according to a HuffPost analysis of lobbying disclosure reports and data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Microsoft continues to dominate Google when it comes to campaign and political action committee spending, outspending Google nearly tenfold in the first half of 2011. Microsoft reported contributing $580,000 to congressmen, candidates, political parties and leadership PACs, while Google reported $61,000 in donations over the same period. Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt, speaking to reporters after his sworn testimony, said that Microsoft had been lobbying hard to pressure Congress to bring the antitrust hammer down on Google -- the blunt pain of which Microsoft knows all too well.