November 2011

Google Ponders Pay-TV Business

Google is considering a plan to offer paid cable-TV services to consumers, a move that could unleash a new wave of competition within the traditional TV business.

Google has looked at ways to expand a previously announced project to build a high-speed Internet service in Kansas City, Mo., and Kansas City, Kan., adding video and phone service in a mirror of offerings from cable and telecom companies. As a result, Google has discussed distributing major TV channels from companies like Walt Disney Co., Time Warner Inc. and Discovery Communications Inc. as part of the video service, though the discussions were exploratory and no final decisions have been made. Google hired a former cable-TV executive, Jeremy Stern, who is spearheading talks with media companies. The discussions underscore the intensifying battle for control of the TV set. In recent years phone companies have jumped into a market previously dominated by cable-TV operators and satellite-TV providers. Now companies such as Amazon are bulking up their content offerings, while Apple and others are trying to reinvent the viewing experience with iPads and other devices, and potentially a new type of television set. Meanwhile, Comcast Corp. and other incumbent cable and satellite operators are fighting back, creating their own apps and lining up Internet-rights to programs that tie into their existing offline TV subscriptions. Much is at stake. Television reaps more than $150 billion per year in the U.S. from advertisers and consumers paying monthly fees.

Facebook vs. Google: The battle for the future of the Web

In the long history of tech rivalries, rarely has there been a battle as competitive as the raging war between the web's wonder twins. They will stop at nothing to win over whip-smart folks, amass eyeballs, and land ad dollars.

There's no public trash talking à la the Oracle vs. HP smackdown, nor are the battle lines drawn as clearly as they were when Microsoft took on Netscape, but the stakes are immense. These companies are fighting to see which of them will determine the future of the web -- and the outcome will affect the way we get information, communicate, and buy and sell. In one corner is Facebook, the reigning champion of the social web, trying to cement its position as the owner of everyone's online identity. In the other is Google, the company that organized the world's information and showed us how to find it, fighting to remain relevant as the Internet of hyperlinks gives way to an Internet of people.

Steve Jobs' legal war on Google, Android rages on

Steve Jobs launched Apple's all-out legal war on Google, unleashing a patent-suit blitzkrieg on its Silicon Valley rival, filing 10 lawsuits in six countries that accuse the Internet search giant of stealing its smartphone and tablet computer technology.

The campaign is rooted in Jobs' belief that Google and mobile device manufacturers that use its Android software copied key design and technology features from Apple's iPhone and iPad. Google and manufacturers using Android are vigorously contesting Apple's claims, which could take years to play out in court. But one thing is certain: There is a lot at stake for the company Jobs built. If it is unable to protect the iPhone's distinctive look and feel, lower-cost competitors emulating its technology could threaten the future of its most profitable products, analysts say. "Unless they can keep Android at bay, they cannot sustain their incredibly high margins," said Florian Mueller, a patent specialist who has been closely following the disputes. "They'll have to compete with much lower-priced devices with essentially the same features coming out of China and other places." Alternatively, victories by Apple would enable it to extract hefty ransoms from any phone maker that uses Apple-like technology, or even force its rivals to water down or remove popular features from their smartphones, including screens that respond to multiple finger touches, the graphical display of text messages, and the way users send email and browse the Internet.

EU and US conduct first cybersecurity test

The European Union and US conducted their first joint cybersecurity exercise, in a show of strength aimed at criminals and foreign nations who try to hack into critical computer systems. More than 100 government IT security experts from the 27 EU member states and their counterparts from the US department of homeland security convened in Brussels to simulate crisis scenarios, including attempted cyber espionage and an attack on power grid infrastructure. The aim was to find out where the weaknesses of critical national infrastructure were and how security professionals in different countries could rapidly communicate with each other in the event of an attack.

Sen Hutchison calls for Senate to repeal FCC’s network neutrality rules

Senate Commerce ranking member Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) called for the Senate to repeal the Federal Communications Commission's network neutrality rules.

“If ever there was a ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ situation, it is this one. The Internet has flourished; it has created new products, new services, because it is open, because there hasn’t been a gatekeeper," Sen Hutchison said. "So now, the FCC in December came forward with a net neutrality rule to determine what’s reasonable and what isn’t. With such an arbitrary standard, companies are going to be forced to err on the side of caution." "Forcing broadband companies to say, ‘Mother may I?’ to the federal government is going to delay the implementation of the new products and services getting to the market; it’s going to increase costs to consumers. What’s good about that?" Sen Hutchison said. She said she expects a vote on the issue next week, but only because the Congressional Review Act requires an expedited determination on resolutions of disapproval. "Without that force, I guarantee you that the Senate would not be voting on it next week,” she added.

The House passed a resolution to repeal the rules in April under the Congressional Review Act. However that bill would require both Senate approval and President Obama's signature, with the latter considered particularly unlikely because net neutrality was part of Obama's campaign platform.

Tech group says lawmakers catering to Hollywood

Gary Shapiro, the president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association, accused members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees of kowtowing to the interests of movie studios and record labels.

"The members of the Judiciary Committee deal with life and death issues: abortion, capital punishment. They don't deal with monied issues," Shapiro explained. "So they get a phenomenal amount of money from the content industry lobbyists." Shapiro made the comments while discussing the Senate's Protect IP Act and the House's Stop Online Piracy Act. Both bills would provide law enforcement and copyright holders with expanded powers to shutdown websites dedicated to copyright infringement. The Protect IP Act cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee in May and the Stop Online Piracy Act is awaiting a vote in the House Judiciary Committee. Movie studios, record companies and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly support the measures.

A spokeswoman for the Recording Industry Association of America said her organization has sway because it makes a strong case for copyright enforcement. "I don’t think anyone can disagree that business for CEA members has been booming and they have made their presence felt in Washington. If the case we make is at all persuasive, it’s because we have a compelling story of $7 billion in lost revenues and 15,000 layoffs, primarily due to rogue websites," she said. The Motion Picture Association of America also pushed back against Shapiro's comments. "The fact of the matter is that Mr. Shapiro has chosen to go all negative all the time on the issue of content theft," Howard Gantman, a spokesman for the MPAA, said. "That does not lead to positive discussions or legislative solutions."

Top U.S. companies urge new Internet trade rules

Google, Microsoft, Citigroup, IBM, GE and other top-tier American companies urged the United States to fight for trade rules that protect the free flow of information over the Internet.

The unveiling of principles hashed out by the companies over the last nine months comes at a crucial moment, said Rick Johnston, senior vice president for international government affairs at Citigroup. Past trade agreements have largely focused on eliminating tariffs on manufactured and agricultural goods. But "we're now in an era where the economy is literally driven by the Internet. It's a digital economy," Johnston said. The group's report says future U.S. trade pacts must "reflect the new realities of the global economy: specifically, the contribution of the Internet toward economic growth, toward job creation and exports," said Bob Boorstin, director of public policy for Google, which has battled Internet restrictions in China and other countries.

MAP to Supremes: Pacifica Can Stand and FCC Indecency Enforcement Regime Still Fall

Television and music content creators and their broadcast distributors are on the same page when it comes to opposing the Federal Communications Commission's indecency enforcement regime, but differ on how the Supreme Court should approach its review of those regulations.

That was clear in a Media Access Project (MAP) brief filed with the High Court in support of Fox in the case involving the FCC's indecency finding against Fox stations for profanity on a Billboard awards show now almost a decade ago. Both producers and networks support Fox and oppose the FCC indecency enforcement regime as currently constituted, which they argue is unconstitutionally vague, but the networks have long signaled they believe the Supremes should take this opportunity to look deeper into the constitutional issues surrounding regulation of broadcast content than would the content producers and creators represented by MAP. MAP filed on behalf of the Center for Creative Voices in Media and the Future of Music Coalition, which represents creators and producers of TV and shows and music. That brief argues that the FCC's policy is unconstitutional under existing Supreme Court precedent (the Pacifica decision, in which the court upheld the FCC's finding that George Carlin's "Filthy Words" monologue was indecent), and that the court need not overturn Pacifica to find the FCC's current indecency policy unconstitutional. Although it does not take a position on whether Pacifica should remain the law of the land, it does concede in the conclusion that the court may decide to invalidate Pacifica, and MAP does not have a problem with that, but it wants to make it clear the court need not go that far to find the FCC policy unconstitutional.

The brief argues that the FCC's indecency enforcement policy is unconstitutionally vague and violates due process, infirmities that cannot be saved by relying on the Pacifica decision, which it says is in any event a narrow opinion that directed the FCC to "tread lightly.” MAP concedes the FCC is permitted to regulate indecency under Pacifica, just not the way it has been doing it since it decided to crack down on fleeting, and not-so-fleeting -- nudity and profanity. "For individual artists and broadcasters seeking to make judgments about content, the Commission‘s decisions not only fail to guide but constitute a blindfold, and a muzzle," MAP says. MAP does, however, make it very clear that the groups do not support the court re-examining the Red Lion Decision, which underpins the FCC's regulation of broadcast content. Broadcast networks have argued that should be up for review in the Fox case, but MAP says that Red Lion is about promoting additional speech, not suppressing it.

Former ICANN Chairs Voice Concern With Domain Name Plan

Two key former officials with the nonprofit group that manages the Internet's domain name system are raising concerns with its plan to allow an unlimited number of generic Internet addresses, the top-level domain name suffixes that come after the dot like .com or .org.

Google Chief Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf and tech investor Esther Dyson chaired the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers during its early years, when the group was introducing the first set of new domain names to compete with the only Internet addresses available to the public at the time: .com, .net. and .org. They now said they see several potential problems with ICANN's latest domain name plan, which has sparked strong opposition from major trademark owners. Dyson was ICANN's founding chairman of the board from 1998-2000, while Cerf, one of the pioneers in the Internet's development, succeeded Dyson in 2000 and served until 2007. Despite their past association with ICANN, neither has a formal role with the group any more. Following an appearance at an unrelated event, Cerf said that he's "nervous" about ICANN's new domain name proposal. He cited several potential concerns, including that it could create confusion among Internet users, big problems for trademark owners who may feel forced to register their trademark in all the new names or launch their own Internet addresses, and also logistical headaches if any of the operators of the new domain names go out of business. Dyson has raised similar concerns in recent months about ICANN's plan. In a syndicated column in August, Dyson also said expanding the number of domain names reduces the value of those out there already and questioned the motives behind the plan.

California Transparency Website Shuttered

A California government transparency website that originally made state government records more accessible to the public has been shut down.

Gov. Jerry Brown (D-CA) shut down the website Reporting Transparency in Government Nov. 2, partly because it had not been properly updated since former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger left office last January. Former Gov Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-08-09 stating that by June 2009 state departments were mandated to post audit data to the Reporting Transparency in Government website. In addition, Gov Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-20-09 mandating state departments to post information including accountability reports, evaluations, inspections and other activities to the transparency site as well. Last month, Gov Brown signed Executive Order B-12-11, which rescinded both S-08-09 and S-20-09. Executive Order B-12-11 mandated that agencies and departments provide as much information as possible on their various contracts through the eProcurement website. Brown’s recently passed executive order also requests that “other entities of state government not under my direct executive authority work to promote governmental transparency by making information about their contracts readily available to the public in a cost-effective manner.

Benton

Search