My Letter to Congress About Internet Streaming Radio Fairness Act S3609

There is a great divide between younger generations and older generations.

While older generations in corporate America prefer to stay with what they KNOW, their lobby for enforcement to ‘hands off’ regulation, mixed with their respective lobby groups to take advantage of consumers continues to sprawl. This  is hurting competition and hurting the citizens of the United States.

 

We have seen how technology can uproot and change decades of traditional markets – like the Music Industry, Movie Industry, Software Industry and Book Publishing Industry. While it can be understandable for businesses to protect what they know, their own lack of innovation and actions to stonewall and stop new markets – only hurts the market place and the US and global economy.

Our country has proven, even in the early 1900′s, that huge corporations left to their own devices, stop newer innovations from taking root. This is the importance of regulation in markets. There was only success in business based on regulations, not completely unregulated markets.

 

Today, more people have become interested in online Internet streaming radio than AM FM radio stations. It is a new era and while AM FM radio has consolidated to only a few remaining corporate players like Infinity and Clear Channel, these businesses would like to see nothing more than the collapse of Satellite Radio business like XM Sirius and Internet Streaming Radio markets like Pandora and Slacker. Their motive stems from a lack of innovation into these new markets on the part of the traditional players.

Unfortunately, Internet radio is where their future markets live. People don’t sit around the fire and listen to FDR Fireside Chats and The Shadow. Traditional companies would be better off spending wasted lobby and lawyer fees on innovation, verses trying to wreck new players in new markets.  Older companies would prefer to break these new markets to get back to what they know. Yet modern consumers are not interested in spending their evenings around the fireplace and Radiola listening to commercials about  Lucky Strike cigarettes and the Lone Ranger. As we have seen with Apple’s iPod and iTunes, music has gone into new markets There are very few retail stores selling music – a critical part of old music and radio markets.  This was due to the innovation of Apple iPods and their iTunes store. (More than once Steve Jobs told these old industry leaders that he would not double and triple the Apple fees to consumers, to appease Warner Brothers, Sony Music and others revenue desires.  He saw the new markets with greater volume, more distribution and thinner margins. Thinner margins and ten times the distribution created real profits. This has allowed people to buy from their mobile devices and computers, from all over the world, to buy from their home more often, versus having to drive 30 or 50 miles to purchase music as a CD.

While Internet streaming groups like Pandora Radio have worked carefully and closely for fair compensation packages with traditional production houses and artists, that give royalties to their respective rights owners, and artists, the Music / Recording is back peddling and insisting on different royalty agreements, making unrealistic demands on these Internet Streaming companies. This is predatory and monopolistic.  The older Recording Industry and Lobby is insisting on larger royalty compensation packages in the hopes to either ‘break’  these markets or make more money from them. Internet Streaming does not have the ability to build their market without federal regulation to help them from being railroaded and bullied. Unless the Internet is torn apart, removing Internet Streaming overall will only lead to new underground markets which will force people to freely distribute music, like in the days of Napster, iMesh and other Peer-to-Peer sharing networks. It will encourage the same situation as alcohol prohibition in the early part of the 1900′s.

 

 

The Internet Radio Fairness Act, bill number S 3609 by Senator Ron Wyden was put together to protect the Internet Streaming markets. As posted on his blog (http://www.wyden.senate.gov/the-internet-radio-fairness-act) :

 

“Unfortunately, digital services for broadcasting music are one area of innovation on the Internet that is being stifled.  In 1998, federal laws were enacted that specifically constrained the development of Internet radio as a commercially viable service.  Despite stunting the growth of innovative new business models, the legacy music industry saw a massive decline in record sales.  Artist, consumers and rights holders are increasingly searching for innovative new models to better promote music and fairly compensate creators. “

 

While these older executives fain hardship in revenue to their contracted artists, it is simply a ploy to try and look for sympathy in the courts. Traditional production houses have made a collective of hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue from traditional markets. Artists have only been given a fraction of this revenue – typically 1-5% on average of all sales. They also do not have careful tracking, on purpose, to monitor and pay royalties to artists. This is not the behavior of representatives who respect artists, as they claim time and again in legal proceedings.  Artists have not been given fair deals by these production houses, in older markets.

 

Today – with the inclusion of streaming radio and the iTunes store- more people can be reached and more money can be made for all involved. The Internet Streaming industry and online digital sales from sources like the iTunes store offer artists GREATER compensation, and better tracking for royalty payments.  These newer markets are both in the US and around the world, increasing the reach and sales potential by over a factor of 10 TIMES original revenue potential. New mobile distribution networks for these devices like ATT, Sprint and Verizon LTE, and devices like the iPad and iPhone, and Android phones allow great sales within new markets. These new devices allow more streaming and in turn more compensation overall to artists and production houses, with the critical help of Internet Streaming businesses.

 

Please consider supporting this Internet Radio Fairness Act, bill number S 3609, to help build new proven and viable markets in the United States economy and stop wealthy lobby money from supporting older models. (Another example of this happened when the recording industry previously fought with Apple for more revenue, Apple was able to prove through their R&D efforts that they can bring real revenue the Apple way, and not the historical Recording Industry way. This only helped the recording industry, not hurt it.)

 

Please vote in support of Internet Radio Fairness Act, bill number S 3609. Let these older business models learn how to play in the new sandbox of R&D and innovation, not kill the markets for the sake of holding back our country from success.

 

Thank You

 

AT&T Blocking Facetime …or did and now doesn’t if you upgrade

AT&T officially stopped FaceTime from functioning on their Apple iPhones and then told people that they will support it only if you upgrade your plan.

Ars Technica is an online news service that does investigative reporting, gadget and com[puter product reviews and reviews of all things technical. Nate Anderson recently ran an article “AT&T, Have you No Shame?” explaining how AT&T is blocking Facetime. The strange part of this story is that AT&T blogging had mentioned that all other video conferencing services will work on their network without a problem. Facetime is a service by Apple that allows Apple devices to offer video conferencing to other Apple devices, leveraging their internal chips to provide a better experience than Skype and other services.

As a quick background, AT&T was the only provider to take on Apple’s iPhone when first released. AT&T made a surprising amount of money as a result of offering this relationship. AT&T was not prepared for the demand of the phone use and consequently, most of the people who owned AT&T network iPhones experienced drop outs, lack of connectivity and standard billing fees without apology or real network expansion efforts,  Apple, tied to an initial contract of exclusivity, waited for their contract to end to offer their phone through other providers.  There was a mass migration of users from AT&T to Verizon and Sprint once the newer networks offered Apple phones. This allowed the people who kept AT&T service and iPhones to get access to the network and have a better experience.

Today, AT&T has an official stance that you can access Facetime with an upgraded plan, but you do not need to do so if you want to use all other forms (APPS) for video conferencing.

 

AT&T, have you no shame?

…

Bob Quinn, one of the top AT&T lobbyists (“Senior Vice President-Federal Regulatory”) in a company famous for lobbyists, must have drawn the short straw at the office staff meeting this week, because he got a truly unenviable job. Quinn’s task was to explain to the world how AT&T’s plan to keep blocking FaceTime video chats on some data plans but to unblock it on others was a good thing for customers, how AT&T was in “a learning mode,” and—most importantly—why the decision was absolutely, completely legal despite what the unwashed peasants in “public advocacy” work would have you believe.

So Quinn walked down the hall to the closet next to the photocopier and pulled out something reserved for just such an occasion: the company’s sole suit of adamantine armor, fortified against flame attacks by a special concoction distilled from the rage of 10,000 Internet commenters. (We are, admittedly, hypothesizing a bit at this point.) Bold Sir Quinn donned the suit and sallied forth to his desk, where he sharpened his quill pen and churned out a corporate blog post on “enabling” FaceTime for AT&T users.

In it, Quinn pointed out that AT&T’s serfs customers could continue to use FaceTime over WiFi. With iOS 6, they can soon use FaceTime over the cell network, too, but only with certain data plans. On other plans, FaceTime wouldn’t work. The restrictions apply only to FaceTime, however; Quinn even suggests that aggrieved users go out and download any other video chat app from the App Store—and they can run it on any data plan without problems.

 

Nate goes on to explain that we have a choice as a consumer group and that overall competition is the key to innovation. Luckily other cell phone providers int he USA exist and we can still allow innovation to like FaceTime to be available to others. AT&T has had a problem with building out their mobile network and keeping up with the future – its growth has only caused it to be more bloated with bureaucracy and middle management.  No one provider is a Saint, but changing features in plans in the middle of contracts and not giving reciprocity to the subscribers is another example to why competition is important in any field.

 

China Problems – One Perspective

There is probably no company outside of GM that has helped China in manufacturing more than Apple. Even today they have a battle on their hands to stop counterfeit. A lack of government intervention shows a lack of respect for copyright and Rule of Law

There has been great hype about how China is a fantastic market for any manufacturing group or even sales. While this sounds terrific and simplistic in discussions, on paper there are many prohibitive reasons why China is a problem today for any business.

A recently found a great post over at Dartmouth Business Journal which is an excellent perspective about China and how their internal structure actually fails them to perform in the free markets. While one can argue about size of deals and number of manufacturers that are operating over there, the points in this article can not be disputed with real evidence. China is gigantic, and to do business over there requires all kinds of deal making and monitoring of money transactions, quality controls and constant watch of political players to find success over there.

Here is one great section from this article:

Hindered by a maze of administrative procedures, foreign investors in China have complained that the Chinese government does not allow them to compete fairly with native businesses. Chinese investors that want to invest overseas, too, are heavily limited by esoteric guidelines.

However, beginning in October of 2011, the Chinese government took a significant step toward freeing up its hold of the financial sector. The deregulations include allowing foreign companies with RBM deposits outside of China to use their offshore account to directly invest in China, and allowing direct investment overseas for private Chinese investors in Wenzhou, also known as a “general financial reform zone” experiment. The government, afraid of the volatile international financial sector, decided to allow Wenzhou–a city in China recognized as the “birthplace of China’s private economy” due to its role as leader in developing a commodity economy, household industries, and specialized markets in the early days of economic reforms–to experiment with direct investment overseas. Concerns over inflation and property risks have held back the Chinese government from allowing a larger-scale deregulation, but nonetheless the Wenzhou experiment is widely acknowledged by the international community as a significant step forward.

Besides de jure governmental regulations, there are many de facto barriers to Chinese involvement in foreign trade. The most prohibiting factor to foreign trade is not what the laws say, but rather the existence of confusing, and often conflicting, laws at all levels of government. A unitary state with 23 provinces, 5 special autonomous regions, 4 self-governing municipalities, 2 special administrative regions, and a hierarchy of departments at all levels, China has innumerable bodies with legislative and enforcement powers that can influence foreign firms’ operations. Many foreign, and even native, companies have vocalized the impossibility of navigating the Chinese bureaucracy. A common phrase in Chinese business circles is, “It’s okay since no firm is 100% in compliance with regulations.” This trend poses significant legal risk for potential foreign investors.

Check out the full article on line over here, and let me know if you have any thoughts on the matter.

Another article in the Economist goes into greater detail of this problem.  To continue the point above from the Dartmouth Business Journal, the Economist claims:

A disproportionate share of China’s investment is made by state-owned enterprises and, in recent years, by infrastructure ventures under the control of provincial or municipal authorities but not on their balance sheets. This investment has often been clumsy.

I look forward to the days when the Global Markets actually sync well together, but today they are only a hint of what is needed to play along with American business. Perhaps this is what they call trail blazing?

 

Mark Stanislav Security Presentations

I stumbled upon these two security presentations that I thought were noteworthy for various readers.

Excellent backgrounders on some of the common exploits that go after websites and Linux systems.

“It’s Just a Web Site”: How Poor Web Programming is Ruining Information Security

View more presentations from Mark Stanislav

Core Linux Security: 0-Day Isn’t Everything

View more presentations from Mark Stanislav

Many Thanks to Mark for putting these excellent primers together.

 

Gas prices rising: Why GOP won’t address real cause

Gas prices rising: Why GOP won’t address real cause.

FINALLY! Someone discusses the real issue of gas prices. I think there is a portion of local station  price fixing as well because of both the crazy price adjustments during holidays and weekends, as well as the massive differences between cash and credit prices  gallon.

This is why I like Robert Reich

 

CA Resident’s Rights Resource List

Every US citzen has a right to know things about their government. Patch.com, a service I love, put together a nice resource list for citizens.

++++++
There are a host of free, easy-to-understand and useful resources for you to help you understand what you are entitled to under local and state and federal laws. Here are a few of the best that we’ve selected for you:

-The Reporters Committee has an Open Government Guide for California open records laws.
-The Reporters Committee also offers a federal Open Government Guide and The Digital Journalist’s Legal Guide.
-The Knight Citizen News Network’s The Citizen Journalist’s Guide to Open Government.
-SunshineWeek.org has a host of resources on its site. http://www.sunshineweek.org/ReadingRoom.aspx  
-The First Amendment Coalition website has an extensive array of resources on First Amendment issues and its new free iPhone and Android Know Your Rights app, iOpenGov.  
-CalAware, a group dedicated to government transparency in the state that keeps up to date tabs on transparency cases across the state and has helped develop and promote local open government initiatives in Alameda, Berkeley and Dixon, is an excellent resource.
-The California League of Cities has an excellent Open & Public IV: Guide to the Ralph M. Brown Act, the state’s public meetings law.
-TheFirst Amendment.org has these useful guides on California public records and court documents: Pocket Guide to the California Public Records Act and the Pocket Guide to Courts & Court Records.

++++
There may be too much information to look at everything at once, but it’s worth the time to review some of these terrific resources.

Please check ouut the entire article at patch.com and sign up today for their newsletter in your city:

http://losaltos.patch.com/articles/get-smart-about-the-publics-right-to-know-a7c11589

 

IT Professional Career Enhancements

Looks like there was another IT industry survey has been performed, describing what skills enterprises consider important for their future,and what gaps exist on the job. I like this list because it reflects what others have said over the past five years. (Thanks CompTIA.)

The biggest gaps were in the following areas:

• Networks infrastructure (LANs, WANs, and so on)
• Server and data center management
• Storage and backup
• Help desk and IT support
• Cyber security
• Database and information management
• Data analytics and business intelligence
• Web design and development
• Virtualization

It is interesting that the NEW ECONOMY, the one where big companies lobby for deregulation and where profits surpass common sense, employee rights, environmental considerations and promotions are not based on knowledge and performance…. THAT economy – is more interested in less costly IT resources.

I was looking at potential Internship positions for some young college friends and while looking for sales and marketing positions, the job boards showed numerous listings for IT Interns.

While the purpose for a CIO has been in part to help communicate IT agenda and budgets between upper management and IT management, their value is no longer valued nor taking hold in the enterprise.  The motivation for a company to pay near bottom dollar for IT employees is simply like handing water guns over to a security force for a business campus.  While new graduates have no idea about operating production servers, that accommodate revenue, or enduring relationships within and out of a company (with people you would otherwise never socialize with), to move the workforce to a Summer Internship workforce. 

Things that are disregarded when using less experience employees (read – cheaper) the false claims of technology companies, deployment challenges in larger businesses, cost analysis considerations for their department. There are also issues like politics within a company, the reliability of products installed in the company already, the undocumented procedures to make sure things are maintain to an ‘operational status’ today, relationships with other divisions for future needs within the infrastructure.  These are all things that require experienced IT professionals. Forgetting these factors will lead to hidden consequences like losing access to email all the way up to competition stealing intellectual property.

While these topics are actual, the decision makers (board members and C-level) to cut costs and find cheap labor is undeniable. The job board listings prove that formal IT experts are seen as a money pit (cost center) and has little to no value to the businesses that post these positions.

There is a current surge in the CIO world to Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) with the onslaught of new tablets, mobile phones and laptop segments – this has been abused to mean to CIO’s to be flexible and allow almost anything into a company for the sake of coolness. Regardless of these ideas pushed in social media circles, BYOD is a stark security hole. I have tried to comment on this within social circles within LinkedIn’s CIO Group and it has been ignored or played down as a stupid worry. These discussions never bring up the considerations of security blunders – only that Blackberry is legacy and as old as an AOL email address.