stargeek
FCC’s Michael Powell at AO2004FCC’s Michael Powell at AO2004FCC’s Michael Powell at AO2004 07/14/2004 11:49 AM From Steve Gillmor
Much of Powell’s message could also be found in his in augural and fo llow-up posts on the Always-On blog site. He jokingly called the new Xbox generation “really weird,” reiterating his blog comment that his kids “see no difference between channel 4 and 104.” Yet the FCC currently regulates broadcast channels but not cable, satellite or the Internet. Howard Stern sat in, providing some e-mailed questions, most of which Jurvetson called too indecent to repeat. Powell honored Stern’s right to push the envelope but reminded the audience of the Commission’s statutory responsibility to respond to the exponential growth of complaints. As to concerns about the growing power of media barons, he neatly shifted the focus to Thomas Jefferson’s bête noire, King George, suggesting the real danger is government’s potential for controlling free speech with one finger for 250 million diverse American voices. But time and again, Powell returned to the difficulty of digital migration—moving from an era of one-wire, one-application monopolies to a VoIP space, where the regulatory metrics of the legacy phone system “will never work again.” It was in this context that Canter asked the What If question: If you had the power to do whatever you could imagine to make this transition come about, what would you do? Powell’s answer combined the pragmatic, the political, and the personal. He suggested the stakes: whether the United States would retain the leadership role in the 21st Century that it held in the Industrial Age. He called for more enlightened thinking about the “automization” of lower cost health care, shifting from unreadable doctor-scrawled prescriptions to virtual networks. And then he raised the specter of what he dubbed “legal jurisdictional power issues.” After an hour of transparency, empathy, and the kind of expertise we imagine but don’t often expect in public officials, you could almost trust Powell to make the transition work. But even as Canter pronounced his support for the first father-and-son presidential ticket, I couldn’t help thinking that that same power, in the hands of a less principled chairman, might not be such a good idea. [ZDnet] I'm here at the first day of the AlwaysOn Network Innovation summit. AO is one of our clients and we helped get social networking and blogging into this "global Silicon Valley" network. Just wait till you what's next from Tony Perkins and the AO gang! UPDATE: Denise Howell has a great report of what transpired. Thanks Denise! This is a GrokNews Entry: (what is grok?)FCC’s Michael Powell at AO2004Grok Headline matches for FCC’s Michael Powell at AO2004Michael PowellMichael Powell 07/10/2004 02:34 PM "blogging" .. Always On .. Powell alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=4830_0_3_0_C Hey Michael Powell, you're too late!Hey Michael Powell, you're too late! 01/27/2004 09:12 AM CNET Jan 27 2004 1:19PM GMT Can Michael Powell Take a Compliment?Can Michael Powell Take a Compliment? 07/14/2004 05:17 AM Really interesting session with FCC Chairman Michael Powell, Steve Jurveston and Lawrence Lessig at Always On tonight. Follow along with a live webcast. While Powell has carved out an area of thought leading regulation, open spectrum, perhaps to keep thought... Michael Powell keeps on bl0ggingMichael Powell keeps on bl0gging 07/17/2004 07:53 PM This is not a fluke folks. This guy is for real. Take a look at what he just posted......
My Trip to CaliforniaI just returned from my trip to the Bay Area. I was there for three days and had an opportunity to stop in and see a number of companies doing very interesting things. In addition, I had a keynote "fireside chat" at the Always-On Conference, hosted by Larry Lessig and Steve Jurvetson. It went very well, but it takes some getting used to, having real time blogging going on while you are on stage. On this trip I focused a fair amount on the converging living room. There are major efforts underway to bring together the television entertainment system, computer management, communications and broadband Internet to offer a multifaceted and richer consumer experience. Many small entrepreneurs and large companies alike are pursuing this vision. The vision is not new, but the thing I observed that has gained greater traction is providers increasingly building their solutions around broadband access. There are efforts to offer broadband delivered movies, concerts and other content from sources other than cable or DBS, such as Yahoo, and Netflix. More effort is being placed in using "TiVo-like" functionality and distributed intelligence to allow the user to order up a queue of content and have it delivered as you move through your choices (a-la Netflix rentals). Of course, products are looking to allow DVD copying as well. Also, the capability to pull content from your computer using WiFi and other standards is gaining ground. The progress I see is simpler interfaces and more elegant boxes that make for an easier (yet more powerful) experience for the consumer. What does stand out, however, is how critical getting copyright and DRM issues solved in a manner that protects content but allows these developments to flourish. Clearly, the multiple standards combined with restrictive protection schemes can damper the possibilities. All this convergence will also raise interesting legal questions about how to classify certain kinds of offerings that integrate seamlessly what used to be separate and distinct services for regulatory purposes. Love to hear your thoughts on these issues. PS: I do not mean to limit the discussion to Silicon Valley. I know there is similarly interesting work going on all over the country. I also visited a BPL demonstration. I think the technology is promising. Getting another broadband pipe that reaches nearly all Americans is a powerful possibility and should be aggressively explored. I do think we need to exercise care to ensure proper protection against harmful interference. Notching schemes and other engineering devices can limit the risk, but more work is being done to understand these issues and explore what is possible. We have proceedings underway, as well as work in our labs, examining these issues. Indecency Many of you have asked me about FCC indecency enforcement and I do want to respond. A word of caution, however, I am not allowed to comment on specific cases that are pending so I will have to be general. Our Authority: Many that oppose our efforts question what authority we have. I have heard questions about commissioners not being elected, and arguments that our actions are unconstitutional. Here is the scope: In 1927, Congress made indecency over the public airwaves (these laws do not apply to Cable, Internet, Newspapers or Satellite) illegal. The statute reads: "Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both" Yes, the statute is a criminal provision. This underscores the seriousness of the statute. Congress is elected and represents the full body of the American people and the laws it passes are presumed to be reflective of the public will. Congress, having passed the law, can and has directed the FCC to enforce the law. This is where our authority (indeed our obligation) comes from. The First Amendment: The First Amendment bars the government from infringing on speech, but the bar is not absolute. Government cannot ban indecent speech; the government can only limit its airing. The Supreme Court has said that the government has a compelling interest in protecting children from such utterances. The courts have specifically held that a rule that prohibits indecent broadcasts between 6am and 10pm (hours children are said to likely be in the audience) is constitutional. So, though I respect the many that feel indecency enforcement is unconstitutional, the courts have said that it is not, and we are not at liberty to take a different view. How We Do It: Our enforcement efforts are complaint driven. We do not listen in to broadcasts and generally do not affirmatively go after shows. We instead respond to complaints from the public. If we feel there is reason to believe the law was violated, we issue a Notice of Apparent Liability. A party is then free to challenge the NAL and show why the incident is not indecent. If we agree, we drop the matter. If we do not, we will issue a fine to the broadcast company. Our enforcement efforts have picked up over the last 2 years. The main reason is a significant rise in complaints. In 2001, we received only around 111 complaints for all of television. In the first quarter of 2004, we received nearly 540,000. "Indecency" is defined as material that describes or depicts sexual or excretory organs or activities that are deemed patently offensive by community standards. Thus, interpretation is key as applied to specific facts. We weigh many factors of context before making a determination. It is admittedly a delicate task. Final Thoughts: Several have suggested that the indecency enforcement effort is a Republican political crusade. The facts belie this characterization. The FCC is bipartisan -- it has Democrats as well as Republicans. Both have supported major indecency decisions. More pointedly, a leading advocate for more aggressive enforcement on the Commission is a Democrat, who consistently criticizes the Commission for not going far enough. My Democratic colleague has dissented from nearly every indecency decision, arguing that we should have taken a harder line through either higher fines, or even license revocation (i.e., putting a station out of business). Furthermore, the Congress has held hearings on indecency and both parties have pressed the Commission to be tougher. In fact, the House recently voted 391-22 for a ten-fold increase in indecency fines and the Senate voted 99-1 to raise fines as well. That is about as bipartisan as anything ever gets in Washington. Finally, to put things in perspective, in my 3.5-year tenure as Chairman, there have been close to 1 million complaints from the public. These complaints have resulted in 23 NALs (by the way, only 2 involved Howard Stern programs). I cherish the First Amendment and respect the work of many artists that push the envelope. However, "anything goes" is not the law. Last, I need to post some legal fine print on my blog limits: FCC regulations prohibit me from hearing about or discussing certain topics that may come before me as a decisionmaker -- such as matters that deal with the particular rights of specific persons or companies. As a result, I will focus my attention in my postings on the general pros and cons of telecom policy, rather than on the whys and wherefores of individual enforcement or licensing matters. Also, to help inform others, my staff will be forwarding comments that may be relevant to open Commission proceedings to their respective public files. I am going to jump off for now. I am traveling for the next 2 weeks and will have limited internet access, so I might not be able to write as much. I will keep checking in, however, and will pick up some of the other topics when I return. Thanks, Michael P. ================== I responded with this...... Wow - how amazing to actually have a thinking man (rather than a bureaucratic bot) represent a major wing of the U.S. government - congrats! Your instincts about convergence are true - and also true that it's not just in Silly Valley - but throughout the world - that software and services develoeprs are working together to ease the pain the end-user currently feel. That's why Tony calls it the "AlwaysOn Generation". But we're also the only industry that gets away with shipping things that don't work. As the movement from old school to new, the old Web to Web 2.0 continues - I think you'll see more and more great examples of how standards like RSS, and new kinds of services like Technorati can turn broadband into a worldwide economic engine - we always hoped it would. Personal publishing (like blogging) and social networking thrust the human end-users to the forefront where even Burger King and BMW now realize that it's not necessarily just about Hollywood anymore. Mobile services are exploding around the world - yet barely avaiulable here in the States, while communications and media frontiers are being pushed forward each day. So getting all this stuff to work together, in an integrated, aggregated and highly customizable manner - is key. And Open Standards and Open Source are how we get there. I call this the "digital lfiestyle aggregation" revolution. :-) Great meeting you. You gotta give credit to Tony Perkins for getting a major U.S. government official to start blogging. His AlwaysON Network is starting to take off. Michael Powell ReflectsMichael Powell Reflects 08/27/2004 01:28 PM If Michael Powell is still chairman of the Federal Communications Commission this time next year, no matter who is elected president in November, it will come as a major surprise. Powell hasn't announced any plans, but in several recent public appearances he seemed more in a valedictory mood than anything else: reflective about his seven-year tenure at the commission, including the past four as chairman. At the Progress and Freedom Foundation gathering today he talked at length about some of what he considered the less-known achievements, including what he called a major shift in the way the staff operates. And he warned, as he has again and again, that regulation in the Internet age should be done with the lightest possible touch, or else we risk a long delay in seeing the Net reach the potential it should. Powell was among friends here. The PFF is a free-market oriented organization, and you could almost hear the members of this audience thinking Amen to themselves as he spoke. His message does resonate in many ways, and it always has even when FCC policies tended to belie the words. Entrenched incumbents have gone to great lengths to keep their advantages. Again today, he spoke of a broadband revolution that will be much more than just two data pipes -- DSL and cable -- and fiercely competitive. There's no doubt that the commission under his leadership has made some excellent strides in wireless, particularly in pushing more use of unlicensed spectrum. But some FCC decisions have tended to reinforce the long lead the Baby Bells and cable companies already have, giving them the right to establish an entrenched position in true broadband, as opposed to the pathetic imitation we have today. And Powell is plainly in no mood to help competitors get any traction on those pipes. (He's also been craven in his kowtowing to Congress on the "indecency" issue, which he must find an enormous waste of time. If so, he should have said so.) Upcoming rules governing voice over Internet Protocol will be one of the defining moments of the next generation of communications and the policy that will govern it, Powell said. VoIP is either a voice service, subject to myriad old-fashioned regulations, or its just another Internet data application, he observed. If it's just data, the implications are huge. Powell, asked to say what he's point to in his running of the FCC as key achievements, was quick to list initiatives to change the nature of the organization itself. The staff now looks forward, not backward, on regulatory issues, he said, with special attention to how technology is changing the landscape. And there's regular internal training to keep up -- including an internal "university" the staff lawyers must attend. I wonder what government would be like if top appointees were all as smart and thoughtful as Michael Powell. Michael Powell Takes a PoundingMichael Powell Takes a Pounding 07/12/2004 10:43 AM Fortune Jul 12 2004 1:58PM GMT Michael Powell on censorship and VOIPMichael Powell on censorship and VOIP 05/05/2004 09:48 AM via Kevin Werbach Exactly. via Jeff Jarvis Umm... I don't think so. I guess 1 out of 2 isn't bad. Michael Powell on Internet opennessMichael Powell on Internet openness 02/10/2004 09:20 AM FCC Chairman Powell challenged broadband platform providers to ensure "Internet freedom" in a speech yesterday at the University of Colorado. Powell didn't advocate FCC action to ensure broadband openness, but he made it clear that he took the threat of closed networks seriously. This is important. If there is consensus that the cableization of the Net is a real possibility that would have terrible business and public interest consequences, we're making progress. Then we can fight over whether, in fact, that scenario is materializing. Michael Powell joins the bl0gosphereMichael Powell joins the bl0gosphere 07/08/2004 08:47 PM
Traditionally, the economic justification for government regulation of an industry was market failure such as monopoly, negative externalities, or unmet social goals. Government's role in the marketplace should be limited because markets and entrepreneurs develop innovative solutions far more efficiently than regulators can. This is the principle behind opening the communications sector to competition. I am particularly mindful of this principle as new competitive services—VoIP, for example—become viable alternatives for customers. Un- or less-regulated competition has been a hard pill to swallow for most incumbents (as well as many regulators) who legitimately question the regulatory disparity between themselves and startups. But the correct answer is not to regulate new firms the same way incumbents have traditionally been regulated. The answer is to "regulate down" as markets become competitive. Specific market failures that arise, if any, should be addressed with targeted and specific remedies. My policy toward regulating nascent communications services is thus self-reinforcing: for example, a light regulatory touch can bring VoIP services to market faster and the competitive effects, in turn, allow us to deregulate traditional service providers. Our struggle to define appropriate regulatory regimes to promote innovation is not limited to the telephone sector. The Commission's digital television transition is yet another example of how difficult the struggle can be. The Commission has worked tirelessly to foster new competitive platforms such as licensed wireless, Wi-Fi, powerline, satellite, and fiber—just to name a few. On the other hand, we also recognize the significant contributions and needs of existing providers.
For example, I need to hear from the tech community as we transition to digital television. It may be possible to deploy innovative wireless services in the unused spectrum between broadcast stations (for example, there is no channel 3 or channel 6 here in San Francisco). When broadcasting rules were created in the 1920s, white spaces were required to prevent interference with adjacent stations in a local market and with stations on the same channel in other markets. In today's digital world, it may be possible to deploy low-powered, smart digital wireless devices that would use these blank spaces without interference. This could mean reclaiming almost 1/3 the broadcast TV spectrum in crowded markets like Los Angeles to 2/3 of the spectrum in less crowded markets without interfering with full-powered TV broadcasts. Broadcasters, however, claim these unused channels as "their" spectrum. Yet a public policy that favors innovation and experimentation would seek to open these unused channels to develop new wireless services…just look at how much value has been created in the sliver of spectrum that has become Wi-Fi! If the high-tech community believes that new digital technologies will enable this kind of new thinking about and use of spectrum, then I need to know that. One reason I am participating in AlwaysOn Network's blog is to hear from the tech community directly and to try to get beyond the traditional inside the Beltway Washington world where lobbyists filter the techies. I am looking forward to an open, transparent and meritocracy-based communication—attributes that bloggers are famous for! Regulated interests have about an 80 year head start on the entrepreneurial tech community when it comes to informing regulators what they want and need, but if anyone can make up for that, Silicon Valley can. This is important not just for Silicon Valley—it's essential to insure that America has the best, most innovate communications infrastructure. You know - yah gotta love the head of the FCC joining the blgosphere - if it's for real. I sure hope he doesn't have some congressional intern doing all the ghost work. So I left a comment on his blog - let's see what happens. Of note - is that the AlwaysOn Network Zaibatsu (social network) enables Powell to REALLY get involved with his 'citizens'. But he's got privacy controls set to "Do Not Disturb". :-) Michael Powell Has No Problem Killing
|
Also check out: |
At the 
2Fellow Bloggers:
Pictured at left
are FCC Chairman Michael Powell (second from left) with the three of
the top folks from