WHERE GOOD IDEAS COME FROM by Steven Johnson via ReadWriteWeb

Stephen Colbert Hearing "Protect America's Harvest"

In August, the comedian spent a day working at a corn and vegetable farm in New York state after Rodriguez appeared on his show to discuss UFW's "Take Our Jobs" campaign.
The effort is intended to debunk the theory that undocumented immigrants are taking jobs away from American citizens and highlight the fact the nation's food supply is dependent on these farm workers.

"Protecting America's Harvest" Stephen Colbert Congressional Hearing

Colbert says he is happy and honored to be there, to share his "vast experience" of working on a farm for one day, and hopes his fame will get this show bumped up to "C-SPAN ONE."
He offers to prove the value of vegetables by entering his colonoscopy into the Congressional record.
By the way, the comedy is way too fast for this liveblogger!
Colbert says he "rejects the idea" that Americans won't do farmwork because he is an American and he did it, in an effort to prove that he already had a way better job. He jokes that in November, a lot of Democrats are going to know what it's like to lose a good job. "I do mean this sincerely...please don't make me do this again."
"Apparently, the invisible hand doesn't pick beans." Adam Smith comedy.
"I'm not a fan of the government doing anything, but I have to wonder, why isn't the government doing anything? Like me, it's possible that they haven't read the bill." He then does the inversion thing, where he comes out in favor of the bill, along with a rather cutting, subtle admonishment that Congress doesn't always seem to act with much urgency.

Mark Zuckerberg Talks Philanthropy and More on “Oprah”

Mark Zuckerberg on Oprah from Cindy W on Vimeo.

Google’s Chief Defends His Privacy Comment — or Joke

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Eric Schmidt
http://www.colbertnation.com/
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election Fox News

Eric E. Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, has faced some pretty tough critics in the past, defending the companies stance on privacy issues and new features on the Web site, but on Tuesday, he went right into the lion’s den when he was a guest on “The Colbert Report” on Comedy Central.
On the show, which is known for its dry and sometimes sarcastic humor, the host, Stephen Colbert, discussed some of the privacy issues associated with Google, including data mining and the secrets of its algorithm.
Mr. Colbert initially asked Mr. Schmidt about Google’s ability to remember information about people online and its storing of that information. Mr. Schmidt said, “It’s true that we see your searches, but we forget them after a while,” to which Mr. Colbert responds, “Uh, huh, and I’m supposed to trust you on that?”
After a few more jokes, Mr. Colbert asked why Google decided to pull out of China, referring to the company’s decision to stop operating in the country this year. Mr. Schmidt said the company decided to stop working in China because, “We didn’t like their laws.” (Mr. Schmidt said it took four years for Google to figure out it didn’t like China’s laws.)
Finally, Mr. Colbert asked about privacy (loosely paraphrasing a comment Mr. Schmidt made last month): “Now you famously said, and I completely support this, the idea that someday, young people, instead of having privacy for the things they put up on Facebook — and be able to expunge that since once it’s up there it exists forever — that one day that they’ll just erase their histories and change their names and they’ll be scot-free,” Mr. Colbert said.
Mr. Schmidt’s response: “It was a joke.”
Mr. Colbert said, “I guess it was too hip for the room.”
Mr. Schmidt recognized that it is best to leave the jokes to the comedians.

Chris Anderson: How web video powers global innovation

Weekly Address: The Republican Corporate Power Grab

5 Important New Trends in Location

5 Important New Trends in Location

Cell Phone & Smartphone Users Willing 2 Add App 4 Health & Pay 4 RX, Says PricewaterhouseCoopers

Cell Phone & Smartphone Users Willing 2 Add App 4 Health & Pay 4 RX, Says PricewaterhouseCoopers

Download Our Latest Free Report: The New Social Layer for the Enterprise

Download Our Latest Free Report: The New Social Layer for the Enterprise

Cultural Labels, Immigration and what becoming an American Should Require

Recently, I enjoyed a short TED clip featuring Maz Jobrani. While I think their Axis of Evil commedy tour is a step in a positive direction toward mitigating the harshness of cultural prejudice in our world, I can't overlook the self labeling of being an "XYZ American." What I'm referring to is the cultural labeling and embellishment of type of American. This practice is a relatively new fabrication which I do not see as harmless.

My grandmother came to this country to become and "American" and was truly proud to say that she was American and that her children (8) were all Americans. She did not want the sacrafices of that choice and her new identity as an American to be diluted to something less than what it truly meant to her, our family and most of our ansestors that came to American in last century.

Immigration today, whether legal or not, should require one essential qualification which is, that you want to be an "American." That is it. All or nothing. And certainly nothing less!!! It is the history of that sacrafice alone that has made America something more. Becoming an American was a new identity and not a fair weather relocation program.

If you are an American then no qualification is needed, all else is presumed, implied and otherwise accepted unless you place a qualification on your own identity in which case you cannot be said to have become an "American."

In this time of our history, we should all recognize the importance of not allowing others to dilute our identity as Americans. More importantly, we should never dilute our own identity as an American or the sacrafices of our ansestors.

I am an American, who among you are satisfied with the singularity of that identity?

Derek Sivers Keep Your Goals to Yourself

After hitting on a brilliant new life plan, our first instinct is to tell someone, but Derek Sivers says it's better to keep goals secret. He presents research stretching as far back as the 1920s to show why people who talk about their ambitions may be less likely to achieve them.
Derek Sivers is best known as the founder of CD Baby. A professional musician since 1987, he started CD Baby by accident in 1998 when he was selling his own CD on his website, and friends asked if he could sell theirs, too. CD Baby was the largest seller of independent music on the web, with over $100M in sales for over 150,000 musician clients.
In 2008, Sivers sold CD Baby to focus on his new ventures to benefit musicians, including his new company, MuckWork, where teams of efficient assistants help musicians do their "uncreative dirty work."

Nothing to be proud of!

Suing music fans a strategy that the RIAA began in 2003 has proven to be an ineffective response to unauthorized P2P file-sharing. Downloading from P2P networks is more popular than ever, despite the widespread public awareness of lawsuits. The RIAA lawsuit campaign has not resulted in any royalties to artists. One thing has become clear: suing music fans is no answer to the P2P dilemma.
Five years into the RIAA’s campaign, it has become all too clear (if there were ever any doubt) that suing music fans is not a viable business model for the recording industry. With courts, state watchdogs and the RIAA’s own members questioning the tactics of the campaign, it is time for the industry to embrace a new model that can help artists get paid and help fans access and share the music they love.

Education by Lawsuit: Lesson Learned and Ignored
The RIAA has frequently justified the lawsuit campaign as the most effective way to get music fans to understand that downloading is illegal and can have serious consequences. In the words of top RIAA lawyer, Cary Sherman, "Enforcement is a tough love form of education." There is some evidence to support this view. After all, in light of the early headlines in most major media outlets, it would be remarkable if the lawsuits had failed to increase awareness of the record industry’s view that file sharing constitutes copyright infringement. An April 2004 survey revealed that 88% of children between 8 and 18 years of age believed that P2P downloading was illegal. At the same time, the survey also discovered that 56% of the children polled continue to download music. In fact, the children surveyed were more concerned about computer viruses than about being sued by the record industry. Another April 2004 survey, this one focusing on college-bound high school students, found that 89% of high school students continued to download music despite believing that it was against the law. This number decreased slightly in a 2006 survey by Piper Jaffrey that found that of 79% of high school students who obtain their music online, 72% use P2P networks to do so. In short, the RIAA’s "tough love" message has been delivered, and largely ignored.
The "educational" value of the litigation campaign is also diminishing because it has become "business as usual." Media coverage of the continuing lawsuit campaign has largely dissipated, with stories about the lawsuits migrating from the front to the back pages to not being covered at all. Indeed, in early 2006 the RIAA gave up its monthly press releases announcing how many individuals were being sued.
If the goal of the RIAA was to increase awareness of the copyright laws, that mission has been accomplished, albeit at the expense of financial hardship to nearly 30,000 arbitrarily chosen individuals. But as press attention fades, the "bang for the buck" provided by suing randomly-chosen filesharers has diminished as well. In other words, if the lawsuits are to continue indefinitely, they cannot be justified as an "educational" measure.

Does it Work?
Has the arbitrary singling out of nearly 30,000 random American families helped promote public respect for copyright law? Have the lawsuits put the P2P genie back in the bottle or restored the record industry to its 1997 revenues?
While it is hard to precisely measure the use of P2P and the amount of illegal file sharing in the U.S., one thing is clear: after more than 30,000 RIAA lawsuits, tens of millions of U.S. music fans continue to use P2P networks and other new technologies to share music. The lawsuit campaign has not succeeded in driving P2P out of the mainstream, much less to the fringes, of the digital music marketplace. Moreover, by most accounts P2P usage is growing rapidly in the rest of the world, where the RIAA has not been able to replicate the scale of its lawsuits against Americans of all ages and backgrounds.
Over this time, P2P technology sites have made themselves less vulnerable to legal assault by expanding and drawing attention to legitimate uses of P2P technology. BitTorrent indexing site Isohunt.com, for example, has promoted public domain material, and has formed an alliance with Jamendo, an archive of Creative Commons-licensed music from a variety of independent musicians.
The RIAA’s lawsuit campaign against individual American music fans has failed. It has failed to curtail P2P downloading. It has not persuaded music fans that sharing is equivalent to shoplifting. It has not put a penny into the pockets of artists. It has done little to drive most filesharers into the arms of authorized music services. In fact, the RIAA lawsuits may well be driving filesharers to new technologies that will be much harder for the RIAA’s investigators to infiltrate and monitor.

What to do?
At this point, courts, state watchdogs and finally with the foresight of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-years-later#3) the RIAA’s own members can now understand the need to question the tactics of that campaign and as an industry look to embrace a new model that can help artists get paid and help fans access and share the music they love.
Given the lessons presumed to have been learned and now understood, how then can a revamped replay of this type of copyright litigation business model be considered an acceptable good faith use of our judicial systems? What RIAA’s campaign and this next round of copyright trolling lawyers like Righthaven who are going after bloggers have in common is that they seek to take advantage of copyright’s draconian damages in order to bully internet users into forking over money.
Maybe latency newspapers and the music industry will step up on behalf of the bloggers and the future of journalism to shut down this next round in overreaching “sue the audience” business model tactics which will surely burden our judicial system, destroy meaningful exploration and innovation of new business models that foster journalism and serve only the financial goals of the lawyers who will surely hide behind the transparent arguments of protecting the interests of clients they are soliciting and lobbing a practice long frowned upon in the legal profession.

Net Neutrality

The F.C.C. under the Obama administration is moving to add a principle that will prevent Internet providers from discriminating against certain services or applications. Consumer advocates are concerned that Internet providers might ban or degrade services that compete with their own offerings, like television shows delivered over the Web.
Some large Internet and telecommunications companies are talking, however, about creating a two-tiered Internet with a fast lane and a slow lane. Google and Verizon, two leading players in Internet service and content, came out with a joint proposal that took a different approach. In a joint policy statement they issued in August 2010 they proposed that regulators enforce those principles on wired connections but not on the wireless Internet. They also excluded something they called "additional, differentiated online services."
In other words, on mobile phones or on special access lanes, carriers like Verizon and AT&T could charge content companies a toll for faster access to customers or, some analysts worry, block certain services from reaching customers altogether.
The proposal set off a flood of reaction, much of it negative, from Web companies and consumer advocacy groups. In the most extreme situation that opponents envision, two Internets could emerge — the public one known today, and a private one with faster lanes and expensive tolls. Google and Verizon defended the exemptions by saying that they were giving carriers the flexibility they need to ensure that the Internet's infrastructure remains "a platform for innovation." Carriers say they need to be able to manage their networks as they see fit and generate revenue to expand them.
Currently, Internet users get access to any Web site on an equal basis. Foreign and domestic sites, big corporate home pages and low-traffic blogs all show up on a user’s screen in the same way when their addresses are typed into a browser. The Federal Communications Commission has come out in favor of keeping things that way, but its ability to do so has been in doubt since a federal appeals decision in April 2010 restricted its authority over broadband service.

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier

"Don't Be Evil?" video - beta version

Righthaven's Brand of Copyright Trolling

by Richard Esguerra

Copyright trolls are nothing new, and Righthaven is just the latest group of lawyers to try to turn copyright litigation into a business model. What these lawyers have in common is that they seek to take advantage of copyright's draconian damages in order to bully Internet users into forking over money. To anyone who has watched the file-sharing lawsuits of the last few years or the current BitTorrent cases brought by a DC law firm, the Righthaven saga is developing into a familiar, unfortunate story. It also has some especially troubling twists.
The basic pattern: Righthaven has brought over a hundred lawsuits in Nevada federal court claiming copyright infringement. They find cases by (a) scouring the Internet for parts of newspaper stories posted online by individuals, nonprofits, and others, (b) buying the copyright to that particular newspaper story, and then (c) proceeding to sue the poster for copyright infringement. Like the RIAA and USCG before them, Righthaven is relying on the fact that their victims may face huge legal bills through crippling statutory damages and the prospect of paying Righthaven's legal fees if they lose the case. Consequently, many victims will settle with Righthaven for a few thousand dollars regardless of their innocence, their right to fair use, or other potential legal defenses.

However, Righthaven is unlike other copyright trolls in some key ways:

Righthaven is going after bloggers using text news stories for comment or discussion. Many lawsuit targets are using the newspaper articles to augment discussions about current events. Reposting all or part of news stories is part and parcel of digital commentary and discussion and usually the goal of the reposting is to share the uncopyrightable facts included in the article, not the copyrighted expression, like the specific turns of phrase used by the author. By targeting news, Righthaven's lawsuits could have a chilling effect on individuals' attempts to engage their communities in free and open discussion.
Righthaven is fighting the basic mode of Internet debate. Other copyright trolls have involved controversy over file-sharing programs and encoded digital media, like music and movies. But Righthaven is taking aim at folks who are using elementary "copy & paste" functionalities. Online discussion survives and thrives on showing others the original text before adding a commentary or response. Accurate quoting is a virtue of Internet discussion that can minimize mischarcterization and support progress in a debate.

Righthaven lawsuits are demanding that courts freeze and transfer the defendants' domain names. Imagine if a single copyright infringement on Huffingtonpost.com or Redstate.com could result in forfeiture of the entire domain. Effectively asking for control of all of a website's existing and future content -- instead of only targeting the allegedly infringing material -- is an overreaching remedy for a single copyright infringement not validated by copyright law or any legal precedent. This also indicates that the attorneys are willing to make overreaching claims in order to scare defendants into a fast settlement.

Righthaven goes straight for litigation. Righthaven isn't sending cease and desist letters or DMCA takedown notices that would allow the targeted bloggers or website operators to remove or amend only the news articles owned by Righthaven. Instead, Righthaven starts with a full-fledged lawsuit in federal court with no warning. It's sue first and ask questions later, which smacks of a strategy designed to churn up legal costs and intimidate defendants into paying up immediately, rather than a strategy aimed at remedying specific copyright infringements.
Righthaven is claiming that its activities are intended to have a "deterrent effect" on the reposting of news stories online, but it's hard to resist viewing Righthaven's actions as purely business-related. In addition to the sharp legal tactics discussed above, Righthaven appears to only buy copyrights that it believes can be used for lawsuits and otherwise has no involvement in the practice of journalism.

Righthaven also appears to be soliciting other newspapers to sign on with it. But newspaper publishers who think that suing bloggers a story at a time will save journalism are sorely mistaken. Newspaper publishers have actually been having meaningful discussions about innovative business models to support real journalism. Sadly, Righthaven -- if it continues to attract clients -- threatens to derail those conversations with a sideshow proven to distract from progress.

But no matter where a newspaper may stand on the debate about journalism's future, we think it is abundantly clear that a "sue the audience" tactic is nowhere near worth considering. Newspapers should resist the temptation to put themselves into the same position as the music industry circa 2004, where futile lawsuits distracted them from the incorporating new technology and creating new ways to market product to fans.

EFF is watching Righthaven and other copyright trolls closely for overbroad tactics that hurt free speech and fair use, and abuse the legal system. We're looking for good cases to defend and will deliver more news and analysis as the issue develops.

Steve Jobs is Watching You: Apple Seeking to Patent Spyware

Deeplink by Julie Samuels

It looks like Apple, Inc., is exploring a new business opportunity: spyware and what we're calling "traitorware." While users were celebrating the new jailbreaking and unlocking exemptions, Apple was quietly preparing to apply for a patent on technology that, among other things, would allow Apple to identify and punish users who take advantage of those exemptions or otherwise tinker with their devices. This patent application does nothing short of providing a roadmap for how Apple can — and presumably will — spy on its customers and control the way its customers use Apple products. As Sony-BMG learned, spying on your customers is bad for business. And the kind of spying enabled here is especially creepy — it's not just spyware, it's "traitorware," since it is designed to allow Apple to retaliate against you if you do something Apple doesn't like.
Essentially, Apple's patent provides for a device to investigate a user's identity, ostensibly to determine if and when that user is "unauthorized," or, in other words, stolen. More specifically, the technology would allow Apple to record the voice of the device's user, take a photo of the device's user's current location or even detect and record the heartbeat of the device's user. Once an unauthorized user is identified, Apple could wipe the device and remotely store the user's "sensitive data." Apple's patent application suggests it may use the technology not just to limit "unauthorized" uses of its phones but also shut down the phone if and when it has been stolen.
However, Apple's new technology would do much more. This patented device enables Apple to secretly collect, store and potentially use sensitive biometric information about you. This is dangerous in two ways: First, it is far more than what is needed just to protect you against a lost or stolen phone. It's extremely privacy-invasive and it puts you at great risk if Apple's data on you are compromised. But it's not only the biometric data that are a concern. Second, Apple's technology includes various types of usage monitoring — also very privacy-invasive. This patented process could be used to retaliate against you if you jailbreak or tinker with your device in ways that Apple views as "unauthorized" even if it is perfectly legal under copyright law.
Here's a sample of the kinds of information Apple plans to collect:
The system can take a picture of the user's face, "without a flash, any noise, or any indication that a picture is being taken to prevent the current user from knowing he is being photographed";
The system can record the user's voice, whether or not a phone call is even being made;
The system can determine the user's unique individual heartbeat "signature";
To determine if the device has been hacked, the device can watch for "a sudden increase in memory usage of the electronic device";
The user's "Internet activity can be monitored or any communication packets that are served to the electronic device can be recorded"; and
The device can take a photograph of the surrounding location to determine where it is being used.
In other words, Apple will know who you are, where you are, and what you are doing and saying and even how fast your heart is beating. In some embodiments of Apple's "invention," this information "can be gathered every time the electronic device is turned on, unlocked, or used." When an "unauthorized use" is detected, Apple can contact a "responsible party." A "responsible party" may be the device's owner, it may also be "proper authorities or the police."
Apple does not explain what it will do with all of this collected information on its users, how long it will maintain this information, how it will use this information, or if it will share this information with other third parties. We know based on long experience that if Apple collects this information, law enforcement will come for it, and may even order Apple to turn it on for reasons other than simply returning a lost phone to its owner.
This patent is downright creepy and invasive — certainly far more than would be needed to respond to the possible loss of a phone. Spyware, and its new cousin traitorware, will hurt customers and companies alike — Apple should shelve this idea before it backfires on both it and its customers.

Spies and Spooks: The (Mis)Adventures of the CIA

Spies and Spooks: The (Mis)Adventures of the CIA

Net Neutrality: Not Just a Nerd Issue

The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC overstepped its bounds in telling Comcast it could not regulate bandwidth use. So what if your Internet provider could charge you for what you use?

FURTHER INQUIRY INTO TWO UNDER-DEVELOPED ISSUES IN THE OPEN INTERNET PROCEEDING

In order to promote innovation, investment, competition, and free expression, and to protect and
empower consumers, in late 2009 the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Matter
of Preserving the Open Internet (NPRM). The NPRM seeks public comment on rules that would codify
the Internet Policy Statement’s four principles and strengthen them by prohibiting broadband Internet
access providers from treating lawful traffic in a discriminatory manner, and by requiring providers to be
transparent regarding their network management practices.1 The discussion generated by the
Commission’s Open Internet proceeding appears to have narrowed disagreement on many of the key
elements of the framework proposed in the NPRM: First, that broadband providers should not prevent
users from sending and receiving the lawful content of their choice, using the lawful applications and
services of their choice, and connecting the nonharmful devices of their choice to the network, at least on
fixed or wireline broadband platforms.2 Second, that broadband providers should be transparent
regarding their network management practices.3 Third, that with respect to the handling of lawful traffic,
some form of anti-discrimination protection is appropriate, at least on fixed or wireline broadband
platforms.4 Fourth, that broadband providers must be able to reasonably manage their networks,
including through appropriate and tailored mechanisms that reduce the effects of congestion or address
traffic that is unwanted by users or harmful to the network.5 Fifth, that in light of rapid technological and
market change, enforcing high-level rules of the road through case-by-case adjudication, informed by
1 Preserving the Open Internet; Broadband Industry Practices, GN Docket No. 09-191, WC Docket No. 07-52,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 24 FCC Rcd 13064 (2009) (Open Internet NPRM); see also Appropriate
Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireline Facilities et al., CC Docket Nos. 02-33, 01-337, 95-
20, 98-10, GN Docket No. 00-185, CS Docket No. 02-52, Policy Statement, 20 FCC Rcd 14986 (2005) (Internet
Policy Statement).
2 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 1-2; Comcast Comments at ii; Qwest Reply Comments at 5; Communications
Workers of America Comments at 12.
3 See, e.g., Cablevision Reply Comments at 15; Comcast Reply Comments at ii; Verizon Reply Comments at 18.
4 See, e.g., Verizon & Google, Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal, at 1, available at
http://www.google.com/googleblogs/pdfs/verizon_google_legislative_framework_proposal_081010.pdf;
Communications Workers of America Comments at 14-21.
5 See, e.g., Free Press Reply Comments at 10.
2
engineering expertise, is a better policy approach than promulgating detailed, prescriptive rules that may
have consequences that are difficult to foresee.6
There are two complex issues, however, that merit further inquiry. The first is the relationship
between open Internet protections and services that are provided over the same last-mile facilities as
broadband Internet access service (commonly called “managed” or “specialized” services). The second is
the application of open Internet rules to mobile wireless Internet access services, which have unique
characteristics related to technology, associated application and device markets, and consumer usage.
The NPRM raised both of these issues but addressed them in less detail than many other issues, and the
Commission’s analysis would benefit from further development of these issues in the record. We
therefore find it appropriate to further inquire into these areas.
I. SPECIALIZED SERVICES7
In the NPRM, the Commission recognized that broadband providers may provide other services
over the same last-mile facilities used to provide broadband Internet access service.8 These services may
drive additional private investment in networks and provide consumers new and valued services.9
However, there appear to be three general areas of concern about how to maintain the investmentpromoting
benefits of specialized services while protecting the Internet’s openness:
(1) Bypassing Open Internet Protections: Open Internet protections may be weakened if
broadband providers offer specialized services that are substantially similar to, but do not
technically meet the definition of, broadband Internet access service, and if consumer
protections do not apply to such services. A similar concern may arise if specialized services
are integrated into broadband Internet access service; for example, if a broadband provider
offers broadband Internet access service bundled with a “specialized service” that provides
prioritized access to a particular website.10
(2) Supplanting the Open Internet: Broadband providers may constrict or fail to continue
expanding the network capacity allocated to broadband Internet access service in order to
provide more capacity for specialized services. If this occurs, and particularly if one or more
specialized services serve as substitutes for the delivery of content, applications, and services
over broadband Internet access service, the open Internet may wither as an open platform for
competition, innovation, and free expression.11
6 See, e.g., Public Interest Commenters (PIC) Comments at Appendix B; Center for Democracy and Technology
(CDT) Comments at 38.
7 The NPRM used the term “managed or specialized services” to describe the services that we here call “specialized
services.” We avoid the term “managed services” to prevent confusion with services that have long been provided
by communications service providers to enterprise customers, which may include managing computing and
communications facilities on behalf of such customers. See, e.g., CDT Comments at 47; Akamai Reply Comments
at 11; Wikipedia, Managed services, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managed_services.
8 Open Internet NPRM, 24 FCC Rcd at 13116-17, paras. 148-53.
9 See, e.g., Verizon Comments at 8; Comcast Comments at 60-61, 64-66; American Cable Ass’n Comments at 17-
18; Clearwire Comments at 13-14; OPASTCO Comments at 11, 13; PAETEC Comments at 31; Bright House
Comments at 13-14; Covad Comments at 9-10; Motorola Comments at 14-16; Sprint Nextel Reply Comments at 2.
10 See, e.g., Netflix Comments at 9-10; CDT Comments at 46-48; Vonage Comments at 27; Google Comments at
75; Free Press Comments at 111; Dish Network Reply Comments at 12; XO Communications Reply Comments at
20-21.
11 See, e.g., CDT Comments at 46-49; Independent Film & Television Alliance (IFTA) Comments at 18-19; Google
Comments at 76; Sony Electronics Reply Comments at 6-7.
3
(3) Anti-competitive Conduct: Broadband providers may have the ability and incentive to engage
in anti-competitive conduct with respect to specialized services, particularly if they are
vertically integrated providers of content, applications, or services; or if they enter into
business arrangements with third-party content, application, or service providers concerning
specialized service offerings. Such discriminatory conduct could harm competition among,
and private investment in, content, application, and service providers.12
These concerns, particularly the second and third, may be exacerbated by worries that due to limited
choice among broadband Internet access service providers, consumers may not be able to effectively
exercise their preferences for broadband Internet access service (or content, applications, or services
available through broadband Internet access service) over specialized services.13
There appear to be at least six general policy approaches to addressing these concerns while
promoting private investment and encouraging the development and deployment of new services that
benefit consumers. These approaches could be employed alone or in combination:
(A) Definitional Clarity: Define broadband Internet access service clearly and perhaps broadly,
and apply open Internet rules to all forms of broadband Internet access service.14 Specialized
services would be those services with a different scope or purpose than broadband Internet
access service (i.e., which do not meet the definition of broadband Internet access service),
and would not be subject to the rules applicable to broadband Internet access service. But
such services could be addressed through one or more of the below policy approaches, or,
alternatively, the Commission could address the policy implications of such services if and
when such services are further developed in the market.15
(B) Truth in Advertising: Prohibit broadband providers from marketing specialized services as
broadband Internet access service or as a substitute for such service, and require providers to
offer broadband Internet access service as a stand-alone service, separate from specialized
services, in addition to any bundled offerings.16
(C) Disclosure: Require providers to disclose information sufficient to enable consumers, third
parties, and the Commission to evaluate and report on specialized services, including their
effects on the capacity of and the markets for broadband Internet access service and Internetbased
content, applications, and services.17 The Commission or Congress could then take
action if necessary.

http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0901/DA-10-1667A1.pdf

Help Level the Playing Field - Media Matters

Recently, we learned that News Corp, Fox News' corporate parent, gave $1 million to the Republican Governors' Association -- a donation that a News Corp spokesman chalked up to the RGA's "pro-business agenda."

While other networks covered this unusual contribution extensively, Fox viewers have been left mostly in the dark as to the network's direct involvement in races this fall.

Media Matters for America has decided to make sure Fox viewers are aware of News Corp's donation to Republicans. We are purchasing a national ad to air during The O'Reilly Factor to share this vital information with viewers. Will you help us?

RSA Animate – 21st century enlightenment

RSA Animate – 21st century enlightenment