CISPA’s proponents bent over backward to respond to reasonable complaints , but the extremists are still complaining. Anonymous and Mozilla (much of which is foreign, no?) are whining, but nobody ever points to any specific, offending verbiage of the bill. Am I the only one who reads tech bills before complaining about them? Even Democrats are having to start acknowledging Republican expertise in tech leadership , though. Darrell Issa is the leader of quite a gang in DC. FCC on the other hand… FCC is still going to totally nuts. We’re now regulating channel numbers . Seriously. This is out of control. We’re also arbitrarily delaying decisions because we’re not meeting our own deadlines, allegedly over a minor complaint that has been addressed . But no, there must be complaints and delays anyway. The rules must move to suit the extremists. Extremists who now wish to silence critics of the administration ahead of the election. Funny, that. A more interesting question the FCC is tackling: Should police be able to jam cellular phone signals in riot situations?
See the original post:
Tech at Night: CISPA opponents are vague, FCC overreach is constant
So, the Internet died this week or something. CISPA was amended much , as I gather mostly tightening up some alleged privacy concerns. Then it passed the House . I don’t know if it’ll become law, but it’s a good idea. The comparisons with SOPA are deceptive. Speaker Boehner cut to the heart of the matter , pointing out that President Obama’s CISPA veto threat was rooted in his desire to control the Internet. The White House was stung enough to reply , but it’s true: CISPA opposition is a ruse to fool feeble minded leftys into thinking Republicans are the threat, rather than the Democrat Cybersecurity bill in the Senate, pushed by Joe Lieberman. It’s Lieberman-Collins that’s the threat to liberty online. More and more it’s clear we dodged a bullet by preventing Joe Barton from becoming Energy and Commerce chairman . Darrell Issa’s on a roll: His FISMA overhaul also passed , passing easily under suspension on the heels of his transparency bill passing by voice vote. Secure the government. If the government is so good at Internet security that Barack Obama wants to regulate, then let’s just clean house internally instead. As long as Anonymous can hit things like the CIA website, there’s work to be done. I know, it’s just a website, but what other websites are at risk? Look, guys, the bad guys are out there and looking for ways to attack America online. They’re sharing information amongst themselves, too. That’s why we need CISPA: to level the playing field. That’s also why improving the government’s standards for itself also matters. The FCC continues to outdo itself when it comes to power grabs. Now they’re after content: passing regulations attempting to stifle political speech ahead of the election . Yet unfortunately Chuck Grassley is relenting on his FCC holds , saying he’s satisfied with the FCC starting to open up to him, even though there’s still more investigating to be done on the LightSquared situation. Jim DeMint has got some people worried. Even as he questioned Aereo, he’s threatening the unfair advantage broadcasters have in retransmission negotiations . That’s why lately you’re seeing lots of sob stories about broadcasters . This is a coordinated effort to make you think that DeMint is the Grinch attacking the poor local TV station. Ignore it. Spectrum: we need it , the Democrats obstruct that process as in the cases of Verizon, AT&T, and any other high profile deal they can get their thieving hands onto, but Cliff Stearns and the Republican House are trying to fix it . Enough said. That’s all we need for a great wireless market. we don’t need regulation , just freed-up spectrum for competition and growth.
See more here:
Tech at Night: CISPA passes the House, FCC passes campaign regulations, Boehner calls out Obama
What’s the ideal situation for the cable television marketplace? A free market. Cable providers should be able to negotiate, or not, with broadcasters and copyright holders to purchase streams to resell to their customers. Jim DeMint is trying to bring us closer to that by ending special leverage in the marketplace given to broadcasters . You see, the rules in place now are not designed to create a free market. Just as the Net Neutrality regulations are designed to restrict customer choice, out of fear that those customers would favor paying for superior service, so too did regulators fear that cable companies would win in the marketplace. So regulations were put into place to favor local broadcasters. There’s a lot of inside baseball here in the retransmission consent debate. It’s tricky to unwind a complex regulatory system. But DeMint’s plan is a step forward. So is CISPA. Some say the bill is risky and may get too much information out into the open, with too little oversight. That might be right. The bill might stand tweaking. But the concept is good. I find it interesting that Google isn’t taking a position on it , possibly out of fear of a left-wing backlash. You see, there’s more to CISPA opposition than just CISPA. There’s also the Lieberman-Collins cybersecurity bill at stake. I maintain that the sudden and growing left-libertarian opposition to the bill is meant as a feint to distract us from the bill that actually does create new, arguably-unconstitutional government powers: Lieberman-Collins. That bill is under threat by John McCain and his coalition in the Senate , so it needs propping up from being swamped as SOPA was. CISPA opposition is designed to keep Lieberman-Collins from pinging the radar and getting defeated. PATENT WARS: Apple sued over yet another vague touchscreen patent , years after the alleged infringement began. Hmm. Meanwhile, Facebook arranging to buy some AOL patents from Microsoft . Facebook is spending money!
Excerpt from:
Tech at Night: Jim DeMint vs favored broadcasters, CISPA vs Lieberman-Collins
CISPA is still a harmless bill devoid of new mandates of power grabs, but I’m actually short of new things to say about it this week. Lieberman-Collins is the real threat. Watch the other hand. Let’s start with some spectrum instead. Verizon is under fire for trying to buy spectrum from Comcast and other cable companies, even as it tries to sell other spectrum . Note though that observers are saying T-Mobile, recently held up as a competitor who must be propped up by government action, stands to benefit in the marketplace by Verizon’s actions. Sprint, however, is put under pressure to to continued mismanagement and lack of funds to invest in its network. Why would Verizon buy and sell its spectrum is all over the place , and consolidation allows for less demanding hardware requirements for its phones, which benefits Verizon’s customers. That’s good thinking, and that kind of market innovation should be rewarded, not regulated out of existence. Look: it’s well and good to try to find a treasure trove of unused spectrum as Mark Warner wants, but hope is not a substitute for making more efficient use of what we already know about. Though while Warner is optimistic, the NAB is insane . I mean, seriously? Did they miss where Verizon is also buying spectrum, so that it’ll have a net gain? Or that Verizon needs to look to the future, unlike various American broadcasters, who are doing the same old thing, and gradually losing out to new technologies? Jealous much of the Internet, NAB? Speaking of Sprint, New York is accusing the firm of seven years of tax fraud . If true, it just makes the firm’s failure to compete even more baffling, and FCC’s desperate measures to prop them up even dumber. Don’t copy that floppy! BSA to focus on “anti-piracy” . I imagine lots of lobbying will be involved, though. Perhaps even of Obama’s copyright chief . Anontards butthurt that their cheating did not go unpunished by Time . Let’s not pretend they didn’t try to rig it first, before Time un-rigged it. That’s what they do. The have a history of this at Anonymous. As FCC gradually gives in to Chuck Grassley on transparency and LightSquared, it turns out that some people want him to give up . Just what are they worried he’s going to find if he keeps up the pressure? PATENT WARS: HTC denies Apple’s accusations , even as Samsung continues to fight back, hard . I guess part of being on top is being in court: Apple under fire for a ‘no poaching’ antitrust accusation , along with Google and more.
See the original post here:
Tech at Night: Verizon innovates in Spectrum, Sprint accused of tax fraud, Chuck Grassley pressured to give up on transparency
CISPA is still a harmless bill devoid of new mandates of power grabs, but I’m actually short of new things to say about it this week. Lieberman-Collins is the real threat. Watch the other hand. Let’s start with some spectrum instead. Verizon is under fire for trying to buy spectrum from Comcast and other cable companies, even as it tries to sell other spectrum . Note though that observers are saying T-Mobile, recently held up as a competitor who must be propped up by government action, stands to benefit in the marketplace by Verizon’s actions. Sprint, however, is put under pressure to to continued mismanagement and lack of funds to invest in its network. Why would Verizon buy and sell its spectrum is all over the place , and consolidation allows for less demanding hardware requirements for its phones, which benefits Verizon’s customers. That’s good thinking, and that kind of market innovation should be rewarded, not regulated out of existence. Look: it’s well and good to try to find a treasure trove of unused spectrum as Mark Warner wants, but hope is not a substitute for making more efficient use of what we already know about. Though while Warner is optimistic, the NAB is insane . I mean, seriously? Did they miss where Verizon is also buying spectrum, so that it’ll have a net gain? Or that Verizon needs to look to the future, unlike various American broadcasters, who are doing the same old thing, and gradually losing out to new technologies? Jealous much of the Internet, NAB? Speaking of Sprint, New York is accusing the firm of seven years of tax fraud . If true, it just makes the firm’s failure to compete even more baffling, and FCC’s desperate measures to prop them up even dumber. Don’t copy that floppy! BSA to focus on “anti-piracy” . I imagine lots of lobbying will be involved, though. Perhaps even of Obama’s copyright chief . Anontards butthurt that their cheating did not go unpunished by Time . Let’s not pretend they didn’t try to rig it first, before Time un-rigged it. That’s what they do. The have a history of this at Anonymous. As FCC gradually gives in to Chuck Grassley on transparency and LightSquared, it turns out that some people want him to give up . Just what are they worried he’s going to find if he keeps up the pressure? PATENT WARS: HTC denies Apple’s accusations , even as Samsung continues to fight back, hard . I guess part of being on top is being in court: Apple under fire for a ‘no poaching’ antitrust accusation , along with Google and more.
Go here to read the rest:
Tech at Night: Verizon innovates in Spectrum, Sprint accused of tax fraud, Chuck Grassley pressured to give up on transparency
