Category Archives: Blog
The following quote can be attributed to Mike Montgomery, Executive Director, CALinnovates:
“The loud sound coming from Washington today is resounding cheers from the lawyers, lobbyists and fundraising groups that will gain from today’s FCC ruling for years to come. There will be a rush to the courtroom, which will take years to sort out.
Congress must step in and provide a solution that affirms the principles of net neutrality but does so with modern legislation that reflects 21st Century technology. The next billion we spend should be on innovation, not lawsuits.”
It might not be the hippest platform but it gets the job done
by Mike Montgomery
A University of Austin undergrad recently took to Medium to explain how his generation really views social networks. Unsurprisingly, Instagram and Snapchat are the places young consumers are most likely to hang out. Twitter is a bit of a mystery. Tumblr is a secret society everyone is in. LinkedIn is something they have to do and Pinterest is for artsy women.
Facebook is dead to them.
Well not completely dead. In the next breath, writer Andrew Watts admits that everyone has a Facebook account because while Facebook can be weird and annoying, “if you don’t have Facebook, that’s even more weird and annoying.”
So what’s a small business supposed to do with this breakdown? Everyone wants to reach the young demographic but Snapchat is reportedly asking $750,000 for an ad that disappears as soon as the viewer has seen it. That’s out of reach for pretty much every small and medium sized company.
Businesses know they need to be marketing on social media. But the range of sites and the sheer volume of available data can be overwhelming for a company that may only have a few employees and a tiny marketing budget.
I turned to Michael Perry, the founder of Kit*, to help walk me through the different options. Full disclosure, Perry’s company is a member of CALinnovates, the tech advocacy group where I serve as executive director. Kit acts as a digital marketing assistant helping small businesses place ads on different social networks.
According to Perry, Facebook is still far and away to best place for small businesses to advertise. Just look at Watt’s breakdown of the teen view of social networks. They might find Facebook annoying but everyone is on there.
“Their giant size is the biggest pro to advertising on Facebook,” says Perry. “Their targeting is better than anyone else.”
For less than $100 Facebook gives small business owners the opportunity to target a demographic as specific as women 25–40 who are moms, live in San Francisco and like yoga. Ads show up in Facebook’s mobile stream as well as online and give users a way to directly interact with the company.
Theo Yedinsky, one of the founders of the social media services company Social Stream Consulting, said that when his wife set up an exercise studio in Brooklyn, they immediately turned to Facebook for advertising. A new client special offer quickly paid for the price of the ad and most importantly, got people in the door to try out the studio.
“Facebook is the biggest and most important platform,” says Yedinsky. “You get a lot of bang for your buck.”
The downside of Facebook, according to Perry, is that the fire hose of data can be overwhelming for many small business owners.
“You can get into a very nasty spider web if you don’t know what you’re doing,” says Perry. “It’s easy to go too specific or too broad.”
The social networking site is finally starting to become a force in advertising. According to the company’s latest earnings report, demand for ads is outstripping supply. For the fourth quarter, promoted tweets were up 130% helping boost revenue 97% to $479 million.
But for the most part, the site still mystifies small business owners. Perry says he’s trying to figure out the best way to use Twitter but one thing the site is clearly very good for is giving business owners a chance to talk directly to their customers and to listen to them.
“You can build a brand around having a conversation and that’s free to do,” says Perry. “There’s a lot of emphasis on that for right now.”
Perry calls Pinterest the golden nugget of social networking.
“I can’t stress how many people are interested in Pinterest ads,” says Perry, because Pinterest users are already in the buying mood when they click on the site. The company is only now starting to roll out promoted pins, which will be the Pinterest equivalent of ads. Right now only companies invited to use the beta can create promoted pins but the program is expected to roll out soon.
The big question is how much promoted pins will cost.
“We assume it will be impression based but it could be pay per click,” says Perry. “We just don’t know yet.”
The hottest player in social media today offers crazy engagement and an age demographic to die for but Perry says the price is just way too high for anyone whose brand isnt’ huge.
The Facebook owned photo-sharing site is a good place to build a brand but not a great place for small businesses to try and buy ads. Ad space on the platform is limited and pricey right now. According to this article from Ad Age, a month-long ad campaign on Instagram can cost as much as $1 million. That keeps small business owners out of the sandbox but Perry expects they’ll eventually be asked to play as supply goes up and prices come down
As important as social networks are, they shouldn’t be the only arrow in a small business’ quiver. Social media expert Chase Norlin, who now runs the labor force training organization Transmosis*, says it’s important to try lots of different kinds of ad platforms, including Yelp, AdRoll, and Google, and see which mix performs best.
“Social media is valuable not because the user is so engaged but because of the targeting and automation that goes on there,” says Norlin. “It’s really all about the data that exists behind the scenes.”
Mike Montgomery is executive director of CALinnovates, a coalition advocating on behalf of California’s tech community.
Read the article as first published on Medium
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s explanation of why he will propose regulating the Internet under Title II is full of references to the past. Perhaps that makes sense considering his proposal would regulate the Internet under the 80-year-old Telecommunications Act. But his words speak volumes about his misunderstanding of how best to balance an open Internet with 21st Century regs.
A large part of Chairman Wheeler’s argument rests on his own experience in the 1980s when he was president of a startup called NABU. The young company offered high-speed Internet service (at the time, 1.5 megabits per second) over cable television lines.
But NABU was thoroughly demolished by AOL. Wheeler claims that the sole reason AOL’s slower service won out over NABU was because AOL founder Steve Case was able to offer AOL over the open phone lines while NABU had to ask each cable company for permission to use their lines. Open vs. closed … an open and shut case.
But the real history of NABU is more nuanced than that. According to Scott Wallsten at the Technology Policy Institute, NABU users not only had to pay a fee for the service, they also had to buy or lease a $299 NABU computer. But NABU couldn’t offer enough content to induce people to pay that kind of money.
Also the technology wasn’t quite there yet. According to Wallsten:
Cable TV systems were not built to handle much upstream traffic—an issue they still face today. Upgrading the cable infrastructure for two-way communication required significant investment.
The timing just wasn’t right for NABU and that had more to do with innovation than with regulation. AOL out-innovated NABU.
We need our leaders to be looking forward, not back. By the time this gets litigated, President Obama and Chairman Wheeler will be out of office, and we have no idea how future leaders will apply these new rules. Wheeler’s post shows the need for legislation that modernizes our technology laws instead of trying to regulate a constantly evolving technology using outdated ideas. As such, it’s time for Congress to step up and work together on a bipartisan basis to craft (and pass) legislation that will remove the uncertainty that comes from electoral musical chairs, because we’re looking at very different regulatory framework if, for example, Jeb Bush rather than Hillary Clinton becomes the next President of our great nation.
“CALinnovates remains concerned about the application of utility-style regulation of the Internet – regulation that won’t even explicitly ban paid prioritization. What we need more than anything is to have bipartisan and bicameral legislation that affirmatively protects the Internet from throttling, blocking, and paid prioritization that won’t be subject to the political whims of future Presidents and FCC Chairmen.“It’s been almost 20 years since Congress has provided guidance on important technology policy matters such as this, and it’s high time for a bipartisan, Congressional effort to address net neutrality. Congressional action will affirmatively protect everyone operating in the Internet ecosystem. Unfortunately, when the FCC votes to reclassify, it will simply mark the beginning of another long Washington process that won’t end anytime soon.”
Believe it or not, the most frustrating aspect of living in California these days isn’t the traffic, it’s the water. We’re in the third year of a drought. And despite the #HellaStorm pounding the state with much-needed rain, politicians are constantly (and correctly) admonishing us to cut back on water use whenever we can, because these rains aren’t likely to continue.
And yet several times over the past few months, there have been giant water main breaks that dump millions of gallons of water onto the street, water that is completely wasted. Last summer, a pipe burst near UCLA dumping 75,000 gallons per minute onto the street until workers from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) could shut it down. More recently, a water main break in Malibu shut down parts of the busy Pacific Coast Highway because the water pounding the street created a sink hole after spewing thousands of gallons down the drain.
It’s no secret that we’re dealing with antiquated pipes and a bureaucratic system that has been slow to make much-need upgrades and repairs.
Now imagine if the Internet was managed the same way. If instead of innovators constantly looking for better and faster ways to move data, we had the government overseeing the connections that form the backbone of the Internet.
We’re risking that reality. Last month President Obama put forward his vision for net neutrality — and it involved regulating the Internet as a public utility under Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1934. Under this scenario, the Internet would be treated like electricity, gas – and yes, water. With these rules come burdensome regulations and bureaucratic oversight – the kind of red tape that can stop innovators cold and dry up the private sector investment dollars that are fueling our Internet-based world today.
I’m a firm believer in net neutrality. Innovators will struggle to excel if they have to deal with so-called “fast lanes” where Internet service providers charge certain users more to prioritize their data. It’s important that the playing field remains level. But that isn’t happening, and the Internet is working as it was designed to with consumers reaping the rewards.
With hypothetical harms as justification, treating the Internet like a utility is not the right path to net neutrality. Let’s take a look at the way the government manages the pipes that carry water. Martin Adams, the senior assistant general manager of LADWP water system recently defended LA’s average of three pipe leaks per day. In an interview with the KPCC radio show Take Two Adams said:
“The three a day turns out to be not that much. But in a city the size of LA where we have enough pipe that stretches from here to New York and back–about 7,000 miles of pipe in the street–having that amount of leaks per day is really a pretty good record.”
According to Adams, as much as 25% of all LA pipes are getting to the point where they need to be replaced. Many are almost 100 years old. The water department has ramped up to replacing 25 to 30 miles of pipe per year.
Now imagine that kind of performance and maintenance record applied to the Internet: aging infrastructure and wiring that breaks down regularly; a year-by-year replacement program that slowly addresses only the most severe failures.
If the government can’t efficiently and proactively protect and upgrade the pipes that carry our most-important resource, can we trust it with the Internet?
Private industry invests nearly $50 billion per year on tech infrastructure. Are we willing to risk that investment drying up if red tape discourages this private investment?
We need a better option than regulating the Internet under Title II. President Obama’s plan is not law. Rather it was a suggestion to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and his fellow commissioners who are now tasked with figuring out how to maintain net neutrality without impeding innovation and growth. That’s not easy, and given the toxic nature of the debate, it’s not an enviable task either.
The right solution is one that preserves net neutrality (no blocking, no discrimination, no paid prioritization, and full transparency) but also encourages massive build out of what venture capitalist Marc Andreessen calls “more/better/faster Internet to more people in new/different ways.” Busted water pipes today could be the equivalent of busted Internet pipes tomorrow.
Ask anyone in California and they’ll tell you: utilities do not inspire innovation.
The following statement can be attributed to Mike Montgomery, executive director of CALinnovates
Ridesharing companies make great efforts to meet stringent rules of the road as determined by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which has taken on an important leadership role to create a framework for these companies and consumers to coexist. These rules are comprehensive and exhaustive.
Ridesharing companies should – and do – utilize a best practices approach to conducting background checks on drivers in order to ensure consumer safety. Despite this, certain non-CPUC lawmakers have called upon the industry to do it their way or face the wrath of litigation.
CALinnovates urges these lawmakers to adopt a constructive meet-and-confer approach that balances the number one priority of consumer safety with the economic and consumer benefits of these platforms. CALinnovates has long advocated such an approach, which would be far more results oriented than governing – and litigating – via press conference.
Consumers are embracing new business models in order to meet their needs in a safe, convenient and cost-effective way. We put our trust in Transportation Network Companies to provide safe travels. I say with no hyperbole that I feel extraordinarily safe in a rideshare. Through my experiences working with leading rideshare companies, I know that consumer protection and safety are paramount to these organizations and will continue to be a guiding principle in the development of this industry.
*Sidecar, Uber, and Shuddle are members of CALinnovates
Wireless spectrum is something that you probably never think about. You can’t see it, you can’t touch it, and if you’re not interested in the minutia of federal communications regulations, you probably only have a vague idea of what spectrum is.
But trust me; unless you are living completely off the grid, spectrum is a crucial part of your everyday life. It’s what air traffic controllers use to talk to pilots. It lets you use apps, check email on your phone, and make mobile phone calls. It’s how you can see your baby on a monitor from another room. And it is getting dangerously crowded.
Read the rest on Medium
There are few people better equipped to talk about innovation and technology than FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel. She is a frequent visitor to Silicon Valley, which helps inform her understanding of the Valley’s point of view.
So it was a real honor for CALinnovates to sit down with Commissioner Rosenworcel and discuss the opportunities and challenges facing the innovation economy. From the complexity of spectrum policy to what Washington DC needs to learn from Silicon Valley, Rosenworcel is an important voice for the tech community.
Developing countries don’t have the high-tech equipment needed to quickly diagnose the disease, but they do have millions of cellphones. One UCLA professor has a way to turn those phones into diagnostic centers.
There are 6.8 billion cellphone subscriptions in the world. Even when you consider that some people have more than one subscription, that means that an incredibly high percentage of the world’s 7 billion people now have a mobile phone.
Although most of us use our phones for things like texting, taking photos and playing games (in addition to the occasional phone call), there’s a movement out there to harness the power of that giant community of cellphone users to help people living in the poorest countries on Earth.
Dr. Aydogan Ozcan is a member of that movement. The UCLA engineering professor is turning mobile phones into diagnostic centers that can be used thousands of miles away from labs with expensive hospital equipment.
Ozcan has created software and hardware that turn cellphones into microscopes and diagnostic machines. With the addition of a 3D-printed microscope, a field worker in Africa can quickly scan the blood of an HIV patient to see how the virus is reacting to medicine. Workers can take water samples to test for E. coli in a stream or well, and epidemiologists can connect data points to quickly see where diseases are spreading.
Read more on The Huffington Post
What happens when you’re protesting in a place like China where the government stands ready to shut down Internet services or block social networking web sites?