Category: media industry lobbying

Congressional Internet Caucus: It’s For Sale!

Who really runs the U.S. Congressional Internet Caucus–Members of Congress or the companies and special interests with the deepest checkbook? Take a look at how a forthcoming Congressional Caucus meeting on wireless issues is, literally, for sale. At the NetCaucus website for the event, chaired by Congressman Mike Honda [Chair of the Congressional Internet Caucus’ Wireless Task Force] is a pitch for “sponsorship.” Here’s how you can push your message before the Hill:

“Sponsorship Opportunities

We are seeking responsible industry players to help facilitate this important policy dialogue with a few key sponsorships. These promotional sponsorship options will help position your organization as a thought leader during the substantive discussions. Your assistance will help to bring together leading location-service providers, social networking sites, advertising service providers, wireless carriers, government officials and Congressional players will come together to start discussing the range of issues, policies and opportunities presented by this emerging marketplace.

Options include:
Dialogue pens: Distribute pens with your logo in conference bags and binders.
Dialogue breaks: We’ll announce your sponsorship of the morning continental breakfast or mid-morning coffee break and feature your logo or brand in the break area.
Dialogue Wi-Fi Hotspots: We will blanket the meeting area with wireless Internet access and include you as a promotional sponsor.
Post-Dialogue VIP Dinner End the conference on a high note and host a VIP event; choose from some of D.C.’s finest restaurants. ICAC staff will work with you to craft the perfect guest list.

Contact us for details & pricing.”

It’s time that the Caucus break its ties with the Advisory Committee and become a truly independent forum. Take a look at the Advisors!

FCC Revolving Door for Well-Connected Media Biz “Super Lawyers”

Last Sunday,included with the New York Times, was the special ad supplement “Washington DC Super Lawyers 2007.” Listed were the “Top Attorneys in the Washington, D.C., metro area.” An ad supported homage to some of the key power brokers, the supplement included a listing of communications attorneys.

Not surprisingly, among the “top ten” of all the Capital’s Super Lawyers stood Richard E. Wiley of Wiley Rein. The former chair of the FCC (1974-77), his firm has represented practically every media and telecom company, including the NAB, Time Warner, Clear Channel, CBS and Verizon.

Here’s the “Communications” Super Lawyers, and, in many cases, their former roles in Congress or the FCC.

Kathleen Q. Abernathy, Akin Gump. Former FCC Commissioner, 2001-2005
Jonathan. D. Blake, Covington & Burling
Richard J. Bodorff, Wiley Rein. Former counsel at FCC (1974-77)
James L. Casserly, Wilkie Farr & Gallagher. Former senior legal advisor to a Commissioner (1994-99)
Gary M. Epstein, Latham & Watkins. Former FCC official, inc. chief of Common Carrier Bureau (1981-1983)
Charles D. Ferris. Partner, Mintz Levin et al. Former chair of FCC (1977-1981)
Patrick J. Grant. Arnold & Porter
Scott Blake Harris. Harris Wiltshire & Grannis. Former chief of FCC International Bureau (1994-96)
Frank R. Jazzo. Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth
Regina M. Keeney. Lawler Metzger Milkman & Keeney. Former chief of several FCC bureaus and senior counsel for communications at U.S. Senate Commerce Committee
William T. Lake. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr. Former U.S. State Department official
Andrew D. Lippman. Bingham McCutchen.
Francisco Montero. Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth. Former FCC official
John T. Nakahata. Harris Wiltshire & Grannis. Former chief of staff to FCC chair and Congressional aide
Lewis J. Paper. Dickstein Shapiro. Former FCC chief General Counsel
Henry M. Rivera. Wiley, Rein. Former FCC Commissioner (1981-1985)
Norman M. Sinel. Arnold & Porter.
Cheryl A. Tritt. Morrison & Foerster. Former chief of FCC Common Carrier bureau
Philip L. Verveer. Wilkie Farr & Gallagher. Former FCC, FTC, DOJ official.

Will the Interactive Advertising Bureau `Mess-up’ Branding Online By Opposing Privacy Safeguards?

The IAB appears to have engaged in a Congressional game of deception today, warning Congress that legislation designed to protect privacy and digital marketing abuses would “curtail consumer choice and hinder the growth of advertising that is proving one of the Internet’s economic underpinnings.” The IAB lobbying group used the same, tired, old refrain as it sought to protect its special interests from having to act responsibly. If Congress protected consumers with online marketing safeguards, warned IAB, it would threaten the nature of the Internet itself. Dave Morgan, representing the IAB (and with the behavioral targeting company Tacoda) told a House subcommittee that “there is always a risk that legislation that governs complicated technology could result in limiting and/or stifling innovation. We want to ensure that the availability of free content online continues to grow and that consumers receive the richest, most relevant internet experience, without unduly burdening the advertising engine that makes these websites run.” The IAB’s new president Randall Rothenberg said that interactive advertising was the “primary means of support for cost-free, rich Internet content, as well as free access to unparalleled products and services. Such advertising has lowered barriers to market entry, enabling new businesses, both small and large, to thrive.”

The ad industry always plays the content card when it engages in self-protection. But the IAB’s leaders are doing a disservice to their industry. No one is saying that there can’t be interactive advertising. What is being said is that there have to be safeguards to ensure it’s done responsibly. There is going to be a growing movement to rein-in the abuses emerging. If the IAB was truly interested in the public, it would get in front of the issue. Instead, they are hiding behind the content the American public actually pays for (through higher prices to cover marketing, and now with unprecedented violations of personal privacy, data collection and more).

Unless the IAB, its members, and the ad industry as a whole begins to honestly address what is being put in place and support meaningful safeguards, marketing in the digital era will increasingly be distrusted. Where are the ad industry leaders who place the interests of the public before more narrow concerns about market share, brand engagement, and `closing’ the `conversion’ loop?

When I look up Orwell’s “doublespeak” on the Google search engine, I hope I receive Google.com near the top. Their new so-called privacy policy is a sham. They should be truly ashamed of themselves for engaging in such intellectual dishonesty. Google will now make its personalized data search information about us anonymous–but only after 18-24 months! Read Google’s annoucement here.

What this means is that Google will have access to all the current and relevant personal info about each of us, so they can target us while searching, on YouTube, Gmail, Google mobile, etc. The company knows very well that such search information is less relevant for precision targeting after 18 months. Besides, their data `cup’ on us will always be runneth over–or, more precisely, flowing into their servers and data mining centers. Google should have announced a policy where no collection and retention occurs for U.S. users–without explict and informed prior consent. As noted elsewhere, Google is using as an excuse the need to comply with EU-related policies on data retention.

ringtones walpapers 99cringtones 2100 hothobbits about ringtonemp3 ringtones bollywoodringtone fantasyringtone mosquitowap ringtones mp3nextel ringtones Map

Is Google Doing a Turn-about on Network Neutrality Law?

As reported by Drew Clark and others, high-ranking Google senior policy counsel Andrew McLaughlin told a Silion Valley crowd that “Net neutrality will ultimately be solved by competition in the long-run…Cutting the FCC out the picture would probably be a smart move. It is much better to think of this as an FTC or unfair competition type of problem.” It doesn’t appear at the moment that his view is official Google policy. But it underscores why we have never been confident that the corporate supporters of network neutrality, especially Microsoft, Yahoo!, IAC, and Google, could ultimately be counted upon to place the public interest before their own corporate futures. The Google’s and Yahoo!’s of the new media world are fearful of fostering public policies that would ultimately rein-in their efforts to collect huge amounts of personal data about each of us—so they can deliver ubiquitous interactive advertising and branded entertainment. As we’ve noted in the past, word from friendly policymakers is that Google and the coalition have done a terrible job lobbying for network neutrality rules. These developments underscore why those concerned about the future of the public interest and the digital era must quickly move beyond the policy realm. The real decisions about the quality and diversity of our digital media system in the short term will be primarily determined–sadly–in the marketplace.

We note that our friends at savetheinternet have written that Google still firmly supports network neutrality legislation, including the Dorgan/Snowe/Markey proposals. They have a quote from a Google spokesperson saying so. But we believe still that all the key work to promote net neutrality will have to be done by the folks outside the “gang of six.”

asian posr pornasian previews pornclips porn sex asianporn asian slideshowspreading porn asianstar asian porn listporn asian tia starporn asian stars bio Map

Bill Gates Fails to Address Real Threats to Privacy–from Microsoft and other Interactive Advertisers

Here’s a link to the speech Mr. Gates gave at the CDT “gala” the other night. Note that Mr. Gates failed to address data collection related to marketing and advertising. Why? Because interactive advertising is Microsoft’s new business model. Mr. Gates and much of the industry wish to narrowly frame the debate, permitting both big business and government to have access to our data. Microsoft and its allies basically want a system where the default is data collection and microtargeting. What’s really needed are strong protections requiring an informed opt-in (which would require, for example, for Microsoft, Google, AOL, MySpace, etc. to precisely explain what is being collected and how it’s being used. Then ask for periodic affirmative permission).

The Center for Democracy and Technology hosted a “gala dinner” last night featuring Bill Gates. Billed as a “night for networking,” the event was to (self) honor CDT. CDT has long raised tremendous amounts of money from the very industries it is supposed to serve as a watchdog for. How can the organization really press Microsoft on privacy when it uses Mr. Gates to help the group sell tables at $5,000 each! Having a host committee filled with folks opposing network neutrality and safeguards for online advertising doesn’t help either. For a list, see here. Verizon, the Network Advertisers Initiative, Comcast, Progress and Freedom Foundation are just a few listed. There are some public interest folks as well. How can groups such as CDT act as truly independent advocates for the public interest in digital communications when their hands are out for such donations. Ask yourself.

A Post-script. CDT is part of a corporate coalition pushing for a national privacy policy that would not truly protect the public. It would permit Microsoft and the others to continue their unprecedented collection and abuse of our personal information. Note the huge loopholes–and disingenuousness–in this key section from the CDT/Microsoft backed “Consumer Privacy Legislative Fourm:

Consumer Privacy Legislative Forum Statement of Support in Principle for Comprehensive Consumer Privacy Legislation

The time has come for a serious process to consider comprehensive harmonized federal privacy legislation to create a simplified, uniform but flexible legal framework. The legislation should provide protection for consumers from inappropriate collection and
misuse of their personal information and also enable legitimate businesses to use information to promote economic and social value. In principle, such legislation would address businesses collecting personal information from consumers in a transparent manner with appropriate notice; providing consumers with meaningful choice regarding the use and disclosure of that information; allowing consumers reasonable access to personal information they have provided; and protecting such information from misuse or
unauthorized access. Because a national standard would preempt state laws, a robust framework is warranted.

About the Consumer Privacy Legislative Forum: The Consumer Privacy Legislative Forum was organized in the winter of 2006 to support a process to consider comprehensive consumer privacy legislation in the United States. The Forum began with a Steering Committee of companies eBay, Hewlett-Packard, and Microsoft, the consumer group Center for Democracy and Technology, and Professor Peter Swire of the Ohio State University..

764 mp3 heromp3 7650 nokinone mp3 77mp3 9311 777mp3 2many djsalbums mp3 786innocent ringtones sorrow boys abingdon schoolcompanies uk fo loan payday addresses Map

female movies orgasm freefree rape movie clipsmovies free-handjobmovies hardchi hsu movieslist old movies oftheme movie mp3sex hilton movies paris Map

Washington Post’s K Street Connections

We hope the Post fully discloses its own relationships with lobbyists as it unfolds its major “Citizen K Street” series [reg. required]. Right from the beginning, readers should learn that the Washington Post has had a long relationship with super-lobbyist Tony Podesta. All the various wheeling and dealing which Tony’s firm has and is doing for the company must be disclosed. The Post should also identify how it is supporting the lobbying agendas of the newspaper, broadcast, and cable industries. For example, through its Cable One subsidiary, the Washington Post plays a leading role aiding the National Cable & Telecommunications Association political agenda (such as opposition to broadband network neutrality). Via its Post-Newsweek TV group, the Post is on the board of directors of the National Association of Broadcasters (think opposition to media ownership rules). The Post is a member of the Newspaper Association of America; that trade group is fighting to eliminate the broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership safeguard. Finally, the Post Co. has a representative on the board of the Interactive Advertising Bureau (opposed to online privacy rules, etc).

The series should also examine the role Cassidy has played in weakening media ownership safeguards, including its work for NBC, Fox and CBS back in 2003. As Cassidy’s firm stated on its web site at the time, it had key connections to the then top GOP leaders, including “the Speaker, Majority Leader Conference Chair and seven other leadership offices.” [Source is my book, Digital Destiny, p. 5].

IAB: Worried that the Feds Will Do the Right Thing

Here’s a brief update on IAB. They are, notes ClickZ’s Kate Kaye, “…in the process of creating a Public Policy Council, to be comprised of Chief Public Policy Officers, General Counsels and IAB members. Tacoda Chairman Dave Morgan is heading up that operation, according to the IAB. Legislation and regulatory issues will have an enormous impact” on the interactive ad industry, said Rothenberg, noting, “We should be concerned, but we shouldn’t be crazy scared.”

Given that IAB’s new president Randall Rotherberg used to be a journalist (covering advertising for the New York Times and Ad Age), one would hope that he would be in the forefront of having his industry face up to facts. The basic business model is a threat to privacy and more. It’s gone beyond the time for “public policy councils” run by the industry’s spinmeisters. What’s needed is an honest admission of the problem, and support for a federal policy where consumers opt-in to all the techniques (after they are fully informed). That’s right. You need to get permission from individuals before you engage in behavioral targeting, retargeting, immersive rich media, etc. We imagine most people will consent. But it should be up to each person-not Ad Networks, IAB members, etc.

PS: Mr. Rothenberg: Don’t hide behind the press! We see that the IAB president quoted saying “The Interactive media industry is committed to striking the right balance between consumer protection and a consumer’s free online access to information and entertainment.” That’s not the real issue. No one is saying there shouldn’t be interactive advertising–or even the kind of personalized interactive practices the industry has embraced (with some notable exceptions). We understand the role which advertising plays to support the media. What we are saying is there have to be safeguards. In fact, ironically, I believe interactive ad practices done in the current stealth manner will help to undermine public confidence in the news media. The growing debate over online advertising is primarily about giving the public real information and control.