Communications-related Headlines for 2/25/99
E-COMMERCE/INFOTECH
Amazon Buys Stake In Upstart Drugstore.Com (WSJ)
Sites Find New Ways to Profit (WP)
Privacy Concerns Aside, Consumers and Schools Rush to Get Free PCs (NYT)
MERGER
Phone Merger Blasted by ICC Staff ChiTrib)
TELECOMMUNICATIONS/REGULATION
Speech: Moving On (FCC)
Speech: Furchtgott-Roth at the Federal Communications
Bar Association (FCC)
SATELLITE TV
DirecTV, Congress Scramble To Avoid Network Cutoff (WSJ)
BUDGET ISSUES
U.S. Lawmakers Want Permanent Research Tax Credit (SJM)
POLITICS
High-Tech Entrepreneurs Dive Into California Politics (CyberTimes)
ANTITRUST
Microsoft Officials Deny Sabotage (WP)
E-COMMERCE/INFOTECH
AMAZON BUYS STAKE IN UPSTART DRUGSTORE.COM
Issue: E-Commerce
Amazon.com bought 40% of Drugstore.com, a 7-month-old online company that wants
to sell everything from toothpaste to Prozac, Anders reports. Amazon's CEO,
Jeffrey Bezos said the U.S. pharmaceutical market is six times greater than the
book business and there are similarities between what people want in books and
what they want in drugs that makes it a good duo: "Customers want selection,
convenience, price, and information." Amazon will share management tips with
Drugstore.com and lead Amazon customers to the drug retailer through their
website. Bezos says further Amazon investments in other retail websites are
likely. The Seattle-based online drug seller does not hold inventory and has
contracted with two Texas distributors. Peter Neupert, Drugstore.com's CEO says
they have hired 35 pharmacists to oversee the prescription process. Doctors must
fax in prescriptions in line with state regulations. He also says the company
won't host web ads on its site, for fear that customers will not be trusting of
the site's information.
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal (B1), AUTHOR: George Anders]
http://wsj.com/
See also:
Drugstores Next for Internet
[SOURCE: San Jose Mercury News, AUTHOR: Charlie McCollum]
http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/indepth/docs/drugs022599.htm
PRESCRIPTION FOR SUCCESS: THE SMART WAY TO SHOP FOR DRUGS ONLINE
http://www.anchordesk.com/a/adt0225ba/3131
SITES FIND NEW WAYS TO PROFIT
Issue: Electronic Commerce
Internet companies are devising clever new methods for wheedling money out
of visitors to their websites. Most of the Internet has been left out of the
financial bonanza of Web advertising. Of last year's projected $2 billion in
Web advertising revenue, 70 percent went to the Internet's top 10 sites,
according to the Internet Advertising Bureau. Most Web content is handed out
for free; only a few sources, usually with financial information (the Wall
Street Journal) or sex, can ask for a premium price for everything. Efforts
at finding advertising generally fall between the two extremes. Often they
mix free content with time-based, event-based and a la carte payment
systems. Microsoft's Slate stopped charging for their site when editor
Michael Kinsley noted the "spreadsheet wizards" convinced him that the extra
traffic and advertising from a free site would more than exceed Slate's lost
subscription fees. He learned that "Web readers surf" and "are unlikely to
devote a continuous half-hour or more" to a single site.
[SOURCE: Washington Post (E1), AUTHOR: Leslie Walker]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/feed/biztop919945605056.htm
PRIVACY CONCERNS ASIDE, CONSUMERS AND SCHOOLS RUSH TO GET FREE PCS
Issue: Privacy/Access
Over one million people have signed up to receive free computers from
Free-PC, the company that announced it would give away 10,000 computers to
people who agree to watch adds and disclose personal information. Almost
6,000 schools have signed up for a similar offer from Zap It, which has
already given 55 schools computers with satellite-based Internet
connections. The Zap It computers display advertising in the left-hand
corner on the screen. While these deals seem popular with schools and
consumers, they make privacy advocates a little uncomfortable. These free
PCs will have the ability to closely monitor user habits as well as simply
displaying advertising. "You're letting a surveillance device into your
home," says Jason Catlett, president of an organization that opposes
intrusive marketing. Some school officials have responded just as negatively
to the Zap Me offering, "arguing that their mission is to educate, not act
as an advertising conduit," writes Richtel. Ted Maddock, technology
coordinator for one of the schools that has Zap It computers, doesn't see
things that way. "Someone offered us $70,000 worth of computers," Maddock
said. "It's been working well."
[SOURCE: New York Times (E7), AUTHOR: Matt Richtel]
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/02/circuits/articles/25free.html
MERGER
PHONE MERGER BLASTED BY ICC STAFF
Issue: Mergers
The staff of the Illinois Commerce Commission has filed a "broad and
stinging denunciation" of the proposed SBC-Ameritech merger. The staff
concludes that the merger would stifle competition [who would have guessed
that] and hurt residential phone service. The staff report may scuttle hopes
of a compromise as seen in Ohio earlier this week. ICC's staff attorney's,
led by Darryl Reed, warn that the merged company would require tight state
regulation -- regulation that would be much more difficult than it has been
to supervise Ameritech: "Approval of the merger will delay, perhaps
indefinitely, the transition from regulated telecommunications markets to a
greater
reliance on competition, even if conditions are attached to the merger," Mr.
Reed and his colleagues wrote. "As a result, a merged SBC/Ameritech will
require greater regulatory oversight. Simply put, approval of the merger is
a statement for regulation over competition." Based on SBC's own statements,
the staff report says, "the proposed merger will diminish Ameritech's
ability to provide adequate, reliable, efficient, safe and least-cost public
utility service" as Illinois law requires. Obviously in denial, Ameritech
Chairman Richard Notebaert said, "Our merger is gaining momentum," in a
reference to the deal with the Ohio utility commission's staff. While he
cautioned that the Ohio commissioners themselves must still vote on
approving the merger, Mr. Notebaert said he is encouraged the SBC/Ameritech
merger will ultimately win regulatory approval. [I mean, what else is he
going to say?]
[SOURCE: Chicago Tribune (Sec 3, p.1), AUTHOR: Jon Van]
http://chicagotribune.com/textversion/article/0,1492,ART-24009,00.html
TELECOMMUNICATIONS/REGULATION
SPEECH: MOVING ON
Issue: Telecommunications
Chairman Kennard's Remarks before the NARUC Winter Meeting in Washington,
DC: Like you, I feel enormously privileged to be involved with the telecom
industry now as we begin these historic transformations from an analog age
to a digital one; from a world of monopoly to a world of competition; and
from an era of basic services to an era of convergence. This technological
transformation began in our nation's labs and universities. It began with
the hard work and vision of people willing to take risks on new ideas and
new technologies. And it began because government created the opportunities
for scientists and entrepreneurs to take these chances. Indeed, our
contribution to this communications revolution has been our privilege, our
responsibility to follow through on the wishes of Congress in implementing
the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In drafting this bill, the foundational
document for the competitive, high-tech world to come, Congress reached back
to one our oldest values: choice.
[SOURCE: FCC]
http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Kennard/spwek909.html
SPEECH: FURCHTGOTT-ROTH AT THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS BAR ASSOCIATION
Issue: FCC/Regulation
Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth's Remarks to the Federal Communications Bar
Association: Most Americans, though, do not understand Washington beyond the
passing images of a few famous people on television. Most have never been to
Washington, or even know anyone in Washington. It is a very distant city.
These Americans have never heard of the FCC or the FCBA. When they have a
communications problem, they don't call you or me. They don't know we exist.
They may not know that some communications problems are created and solved
in Washington. Or to the extent they know, they may believe that they have
no capacity to be listened to in Washington beyond
the anonymity of a phone call, letter, or e-mail to an unknown recipient in
Washington. But these ordinary Americans, these mere citizens, have voices.
Voices that can get angry at times.... I
would like to give that answer. Begin by saying that the FCC is an agency
that simply follows the federal communications law as written by Congress.
More specifically , the FCC should follow the law narrowly as it is written
in statute, consistent with the Constitution and with court decisions. We at
the FCC are law-followers, not lawmakers. We are merely regulators with
limited power conferred by statute. Moreover, we do not even make "policy."
Congress sets federal telecommunications policy. It is our duty to follow
it....If we at the FCC lack the specific authority to force an individual,
company, or industry to do something in one area, we must
not threaten action in a different area where we actually do have power, in
order to achieve the same result. All too often, I have seen the threat of
regulation in one area used to influence decisions in another area. In my
view, this is outside the law. I don't believe that the ordinary American
could fathom how a police officer in their home town could decide whether to
give a car a parking ticket based on whether or not the owner was appealing
an unrelated speeding ticket. The Commission must also abide by the
Administrative Procedure Act and its requirements for open and transparent
rulemakings: No decisions behind closed doors; An agency open and
transparently visible to all Americans; An agency with no secret documents
or secret rules. Open process is something ordinary Americans understand....
How should we explain discretion to
ordinary Americans? First, have humility about the power of regulation.
Second, keep it simple and predictable. Third, where there is discretion,
let governmental decisions be made as close to the people as possible.
Fourth, where regulation is required by law, try to make sure that benefits
significantly exceed the costs. Fifth, view new technology as an opportunity
to reduce, not to expand, regulation.
[SOURCE: FCC]
http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Furchtgott_Roth/sphfr901.html
SATELLITE TV
DIRECTV, CONGRESS SCRAMBLE TO AVOID NETWORK CUTOFF
Issue: Broadcast/Satellite TV
In order to avoid the court ordered shut-off of satellite signals of network
broadcasting to viewers, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) will introduce a bill this
week that would allow satellite-TV viewers to continue receiving the network
signal until the Federal Communication Commission can decide on a fair standard
in determining eligibility. The battle began when CBS and Fox complained that
PrimeTime 24, a satellite-TV carrier, was illegally packaging their broadcasts
and sending them to viewers. Miami federal court ordered a shut-off for 700,000
subscribers by this Sunday and another 1.5 by April 30. In other legislation,
to avoid the shut-off, the Senate Judiciary Committee is likely to approve a
bill today that would resolve the copyright problem facing satellite-TV
servers. Senate Commerce Committee is set to vote on a bill next Wednesday,
introduced by Chairman John McCain (R-AZ), that would allow satellite carriers
to retransmit network signals locally. Meanwhile, DirecTV, the largest
satellite-carrier in the country is trying to avoid the court-ordered shut-off
by no longer using PrimeTime 24, but providing network programs themselves. A
DirecTV spokesman said, "That way, we are no longer under the court order,
which applies only to PrimeTime 24." Not so fast--four major networks plan on
asking the court to impose a temporary restraining order against the move.
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal (B2), AUTHOR: Kathy Chen]
http://wsj.com/
See also:
SATELLITE TV BATTLE RAGES
[SOURCE: San Jose Mercury News, AUTHOR: Jon Healey]
http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/indepth/docs/dbs022599.htm
BUDGET ISSUES
U.S. LAWMAKERS WANT PERMANENT RESEARCH TAX CREDIT
Issue: Competition, Employment
A bipartisan coalition of US lawmakers Wednesday proposed legislation to
encourage high-technology companies to invest billions of dollars more in
research and development to create US jobs and keep foreign competitors at
bay. The bill would make the federal Research and Development Tax Credit
permanent, with an estimated cost of $2.5 billion per year. Congress has
pass nine extensions to the law since its inception in 1981. A Coopers and
Lybrand study concluded that permanent extension of the tax credit would
lead to a $41 billion increase in US research and development spending
through 2010. The bill was introduced by Representative Nancy Johnson (R-CT)
and co-sponsored by 90 lawmakers.
[SOURCE: San Jose Mercury News, AUTHOR: Reuters]
http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/breaking/reuters/docs/180969l.htm
POLITICS
HIGH-TECH ENTREPRENEURS DIVE INTO CALIFORNIA POLITICS
Issue: Democracy/Technology
In Silicon Valley, some high-tech entrepreneurs have begun to show an
interest in politics. They are finding, however, that the political process
moves forward at a much different rate than the rapidly evolving technology
industry they are used to. Tim Draper, a venture capitalist, discovered this
democratic reality when he attempted to use the Internet to collect
signatures for a school choice initiative in California. Electronic
signatures, he learned, are not legal on California petitions. Silicon
Valley is easily frustrated a political system in which change can only
occur as a result of painstaking consensus regardless of technological
realities. "The whole deliberative system just seems like a waste of time to
the technologists," said Bruce Cain, a political scientist at the University
of California at Berkeley. He became aware of this perspective when students
asked him why they could not just eliminate government and vote on policy
issues from their laptops.
[SOURCE: CyberTimes, AUTHOR: Rebecca Fairley Raney]
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/02/cyber/articles/25politics.html
ANTITRUST
MICROSOFT OFFICIALS DENY SABOTAGE
Issue: Antitrust
In testimony at the Microsoft antitrust trial yesterday Erik Engstrom, a
Microsoft engineer, said that his company wanted Apple Computer not to
distribute multimedia software that competed with a Microsoft product, but
he denied that Microsoft sabotaged its product after Apple balked. His
testimony disagreed with that of Apple executive Avadis Tevanian who
testified as a government witness earlier in the trial. Later in the day
Joachim Kempin, a Microsoft senior vice president, defended limits the
company placed on the way personal computer makers can alter Microsoft's
dominant Windows operating system. He said the company did not want anyone
to tamper with the "good design" of its products. The pace of the trial has
picked up this week in hopes that the company's defense can conclude by
Friday to permit a recess of several weeks.
[SOURCE: Washington Post (E3), AUTHOR: Rajiv Chandrasekaran]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/feed/biztop919945618816.htm
See also:
EXECS DENY PRESSURING APPLE, GATEWAY
[SOURCE: San Jose Mercury News, AUTHOR: David L. Wilson]
http://www.mercurycenter.com/business/microsoft/trial/
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*