Today’s political arena tolerates hypocrisies with a greater degree of acceptance than many would like, though the public absolutely draws a line at shady backroom deal-making.
This is why we ought to be aghast at the process surrounding Gigi Sohn’s nomination to the FCC. Recently, Sohn announced that, if confirmed, she would recuse herself for several years on matters related to retransmission consent or television broadcast copyright. These issues are of great importance to FCC and to broadcasters, and broadcasters were worried about Sohn’s record on them.
Sohn had been in hot water about these matters since late 2021. In November of 2021, the National Association of Broadcasters expressed that while they did “not currently oppose the nomination of Gigi Sohn, we have serious concerns about her involvement as one of three directors of the illegal streaming service Locast.” That streaming service had essentially fleeced the broadcasters by illegally streaming their content for free. Sohn was a board member and supported the activity.
Thereafter, Sohn’s nomination hit choppy waters, and suddenly, she couldn’t be on the wrong side of the broadcasters anymore. Thus, her recent gambit: Recusing herself from big issues pertaining to broadcasters.
Her recent bending-of-the-knee led to this: “NAB appreciates Ms. Sohn’s willingness to seriously consider our issues regarding retransmission consent and broadcast copyright, and to address those concerns in her recusal. We look forward to the Senate moving forward with Ms. Sohn’s confirmation and are eager to work with her and the full complement of commissioners in the very near future.”
From “serious concerns” to “eager”—welcome to rank regulatory corruption in 2022. Here is the bottom line: An embattled nominee for a regulatory position just announced that she would not regulate so that she could comfortably earn her regulatory posting. There is a fitting Latin expression for this, one that doesn’t wear well in the halls of Congress: A quid pro quo.
To put it bluntly, Sohn’s job as an FCC Commissioner would be to regulate the broadcast industry. And yet, at a moment of maximum peril for her nomination, she promised the broadcast industry that she’d be hands-off for a few years.
Set aside the flagrantly unethical nature of this. Consider a more practical problem with Sohn recusing herself on retransmission and copyright issues, a conundrum best articulated by the Wall Street Journal: “These subjects consume a large share of the FCC’s regulatory bandwidth, which means the agency could be deadlocked for good or ill on many issues.”
The decision to press ahead with Sohn’s nomination is a galling dereliction of duty. There are issues of real concern including media ownership, retransmission, and broadcast copyrights that require a fully operational Commission. By giving up her ability to regulate broadcasters on these issues, Sohn has neutered her own position—even before she’s been confirmed. And because she’d have to refrain from voting on these matters, she’s also neutered the FCC.
This is unacceptable. There were already questions swirling about Sohn’s backroom wheeling-and-dealing and her questionable record on minority media ownership, among other worries. But this quid pro quo is simply the last straw. Congress cannot and should not move forward with a nominee for a regulatory position who has abdicated all regulatory authority.
There are certainly other qualified nominees for the FCC post. Perhaps most importantly, any new candidates shouldn’t campaign for the job by saying they won’t do the job. This FCC Commission seat should be filled by a regulator who can actually regulate.
Blog
Montgomery on CircleID: Now We Know Why It’s Hard to Get a .COM
The following originally was published Feb. 10, 2021, on CircleID.
As executive director of CALinnovates, an organization that advocates for innovation and startups, as well as a new business owner myself, I know how important a .COM domain name can be to a new company’s online presence and marketing strategy. That’s why I read with interest a new Boston Consulting Group report on how the .COM market is changing. I have a much better understanding of why new businesses find it hard to get relevant .COM domain names.
According to a Boston Consulting Group report, domainers — speculators — are on the verge of becoming the biggest players in the .COM market. Here’s what BCG said: “The net result is that, on a dollar basis, the secondary market, at $2.1B/year, is almost as big as the primary market, at $2.3B/year, and nearly double the size of the registry’s wholesale revenue of $1.1B/year. In other words, nearly half of the dollars end-users spent buying new domains go to domainers.”
That has broad implications for anyone trying to get a .COM domain.
First, it means that many currently registered .COM domains are locked up by domainers. That in itself distorts the market and makes it challenging for a startup, organization, or person to get a domain that closely matches their online business or purpose.
Second, the scarcity created by locking up so many domains warps prices. According to BCG, the typical domainer price ranges from $1,700 – $2,500, but the average registrar retail price is only $16.58. And the price of a .COM domain is only $7.85 from the registry.
I found this out firsthand when searching for a domain name for a venture that I launched in 2020. The ideal domain was registered but not in use. If I were willing to pay GoDaddy $119, they would try to get it for me, but they calculated it would likely cost me $5,146. That’s a lot of money for any startup to pay, but it is consumers who ultimately have to pay these costs.
Speaking as a person who advocates for technology policies that foster innovation and enable new businesses to emerge and flourish, the .COM market seems upside down — it’s much more likely going forward that new businesses will be forced to deal with domainers than regular registrars.
And as a new business owner myself that doesn’t seem right that entrepreneurs like me will be diverted to the secondary market that charges 150-200 times the retail price (according to BCG) just to establish a preferred online presence.
I don’t know what the answers are here, and I’d encourage anyone interested in the domain world to read the BCG report. But it does seem that in the future, those looking for the right domain name are likely to spend more time digging deeper to pay a domainer.
Statement On Net Neutrality Ruling
CALinnovates issued the following statement on today’s net neutrality ruling:
In the wake of today’s ruling, the best way to restore meaningful open internet protections is for Congress to pass bipartisan legislation that permanently locks in prohibitions against blocking, throttling, and unfair prioritization. Today’s ruling is just the latest reminder that leaving net neutrality up to the discretion of the FCC – where policies can shift every time a new party takes over – is the best way to ensure the lack of net neutrality. The only way to permanently protect consumers is for Congress to pass net neutrality through statute, and the only way that can happen in this Congress is for members of both parties to come together in good faith, drop their demands for unrelated poison pills, and pass a bipartisan bill that can finally put this debate to rest after 15 years of false starts.
Letter Of Support For CHANCE In Tech Act
A number of the nation’s foremost technology organizations have formally pledged their support for H.R. 1733/S. 777, the Championing Apprenticeships for New Careers and Employees in Technology (CHANCE in Tech) Act. In a letter sent today to Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Charles Schumer and Kevin McCarthy, the organizations urged the House of Representatives and Senate to pass the legislation during the 116th Congress. We’ve published the letter in its entirety below:
Re: H.R. 1733/S. 777, the Championing Apprenticeships for New Careers and Employees in Technology Act
Dear Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader McConnell, Democratic Leader Schumer, and Republican Leader McCarthy:
We, the undersigned organizations, write in strong support of H.R. 1733/S. 777, the Championing Apprenticeships for New Careers and Employees in Technology (CHANCE in Tech) Act, and urge the House of Representatives and Senate to pass this important legislation during the 116th Congress.
As the nation’s foremost technology organizations, we speak on behalf of many of the world’s most innovative companies. These companies are creating jobs, spurring economic growth, and helping ensure the United States remains the most competitive economy in the world.
The CHANCE in Tech Act would make commonsense reforms to the Department of Labor’s registered apprenticeship program and generate job and economic growth. The proposal would create technology apprenticeships and help forge public-private partnerships to serve as intermediaries between employers participating in the registered apprenticeship program, industry, training partners, and government entities. Each intermediary would assess and train potential apprentices in coordination with local and regional workforce demands. The intermediaries would lessen the regulatory burden on participating employers by tracking success indicators and managing other reporting requirements. The proposal would also establish a program to recognize those high schools providing exemplary IT training and counseling. Collectively, the plan put forward would better align workforce upskilling with local and regional demands.
While today’s economy is increasingly dependent on the technology industry to create jobs, the skills gap is slowing further growth. In 2018, the industry contributed nearly $2 trillion to the U.S. economy, employed more than 11 million workers, and added more than 260,000 new jobs. However, there were nearly 4 million job openings in this arena, nearly 400,000 of which were in emerging technology areas, in large part due to the skills gap.1 What is more, it is estimated that nearly 800,000 IT workers will retire between now and 2024, and almost half of technology business leaders believe the skills gap has grown over the past two years.2
The CHANCE in Tech Act would help shrink the skills gap by revitalizing the registered apprenticeship program and provide students and workers with the hands-on, experiential learning needed to compete in today’s economy. It is for these reasons that we support H.R. 1733/S. 777 and urge the House of Representatives and Senate to pass this important legislation during the 116th Congress.
Respectfully,
ACT | The App Association BSA | The Software Alliance CALinnovates
CompTIADevelopers Alliance
Engine
Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) Security Industry Association (SIA)
Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) Wireless Infrastructure Association (WIA)Cc: U.S. House Committee on Education and Labor; U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
1 “Cyberstates 2019.” CompTIA. March 2019. https://www.cyberstates.org/
Statement on Save the Internet Act
The following statement regarding Save the Internet Act can be attributed to Mike Montgomery, executive director of CALinnovates:
“The backwards-looking bill paraded before the cameras does little to accomplish the important goal of enshrining net neutrality into a law that will stand the test of time. This bill is the textbook definition of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Lasting net neutrality regulations require a modernized, bipartisan and bicameral approach and the Save the Internet Act, unfortunately, falls short.”
USC Study: Rooftop Digital Advertising On Taxis & Rideshare Vehicles Could Stimulate The LA Economy Up To $16 Million Annually
**NEWS RELEASE**
USC Study: Rooftop Digital Advertising on Taxis & Rideshare Vehicles Could Stimulate the LA Economy Up to $16 Million Annually
Study Joins Growing Chorus of Economists and Taxi Industry Opposing Councilmember Blumenfield’s Proposal to Ban Rooftop Digital Advertising
Los Angeles, CA, February 12, 2019 — A new economic analysis by Professor Greg Autry with the USC Marshall School of Business finds that rooftop messaging smart screens (RMSS) on taxis and rideshare vehicles “promise to upend the traditional paradigm of mobile advertising in a positive way, delivering significantly greater returns to individual drivers and offering a real- time, mobile messaging platform for public entities.”
The rooftop messaging smart screens such as those deployed by Firefly offer supplemental income for taxi and rideshare drivers with no capital or additional time required of drivers. Professor Autry finds that rooftop messaging smart screens (RMSS) have promise to significantly stimulate the Los Angeles economy. For example, “equipping the Los Angeles taxi fleet with RMSS could stimulate up to $16 million in primary spending with a significant multiplier effect resulting in secondary economic activity of many tens of millions of dollars. The ride-hailing fleet offers an even larger impact.”
This economic study offers a grim analysis of the pending proposal by Los Angeles City Councilmember Blumenfield that would ban taxi drivers from equipping their vehicles with rooftop digital advertising. The proposal will be considered on Wednesday, February 13th at 1pm in the Council’s Transportation Committee.
According to Kish Rajan, Chief Evangelist of CALinnovates, the group that commissioned the study, “We reject this proposal to ban innovation in the taxi industry, especially given the well documented harm it would inflict on drivers and their families. This technology offers taxi drivers countless possibilities to improve the services they provide riders, helps them compete, and raises their incomes without increasing fares on riders. It is a no-brainer that City Officials should reject this ban.”
Professor Autry joins UCLA Professor Gary Blasi, author of, “Driving Poor: Taxi Drivers and the Regulation of the Taxi Industry in Los Angeles ” in objecting to the proposed ban. Professor Blasi’s research found that taxi drivers in Los Angeles worked very long hours for much less than a living wage and he stated, “For the City of Los Angeles to deny these drivers and their families the ability to add a few hundred dollars to their meager incomes would be a disgrace.”
Councilmember Blumenfield’s proposal would disadvantage taxi drivers by eliminating the opportunity to earn additional income without working longer hours. The presidents of the Independent Taxi Owners Association, LA Checker Cab and the United Independent Taxi Drivers, Inc. have asked the Council’s Transportation Committee to reject the proposal. A letter they submitted states:
The elimination of our drivers’ right to install rooftop taxi advertising signs, even the traditional lighted taxi toppers that have been safely deployed in this City for over 30 years, would take away a potential source of meaningful extra income for hardworking taxi drivers. This would be a critical blow to the competitiveness of our industry, which has struggled in an increasingly competitive market. And it would cut short an opportunity for the City of Los Angeles to encourage innovation and growth in the taxi industry.
** Media interviews are available with Professor Autry and Andrey Minosyan, President of the Independent Taxi Owners Association.
Media Contacts:
Anna Williamson Mobile: 843-408-7125
Kish Rajan Mobile: 415-570-9303 kish@calinnovates.org
###
Click image to read full study.
New Poll Shows LA Voters Overwhelmingly Reject Proposal To Harm Taxi Industry And Driver Well-Being
**NEWS RELEASE**
New Poll Shows L.A. Voters Overwhelmingly Reject Proposal to
Harm Taxi Industry and Driver Well-Being
Anti-innovation proposal from Councilmember Blumenfield would eliminate income opportunities for drivers
Los Angeles, CA February 7, 2019 – A new poll released this week shows that a majority of Angeleno voters, by a margin of 55-26 percent, oppose banning digital rooftop advertising for taxi drivers along with any policy that may negatively affect the ability of taxi drivers to earn income. Sixty-six percent of those surveyed said that the Los Angeles City Council and the Taxi Commission should be helping drivers earn more money without raising fares for riders.
Highlights of the survey include:
- Seven out of 10 Los Angeles voters agree that limiting new innovative opportunities for taxi drivers keeps them from competing and being competitive with rideshare.
- 66% surveyed feel the Los Angeles City Council and Taxi Commission should help drivers earn more money without raising fares for riders.
- 67% of the City’s registered voters would have a less favorable view of any official who votes to ban taxi drivers from earning more money by displaying taxi top advertising.
- Six out of 10 voters believe that a new policy to prevent taxi drivers from earning up to 20% more money would have a disproportionately harmful impact on minorities and immigrants.
- 71% surveyed agreed that limiting new innovative opportunities for taxi drivers would keep them from competing and being competitive with rideshare drivers.
“We need to be allowed to modernize and provide new opportunities for drivers to make additional income and compete,” said Andrey Minosyan of L.A. Independent Taxi. “Innovative digital mobile rooftop advertising allows drivers to earn more without working longer or increasing prices. Any ban would directly harm taxi drivers’ opportunities and the viability of the industry.”
The poll results come on the heels of a motion filed last week by Los Angeles City Councilmember Bob Blumenfield to repeal Taxi Board Rule 415(c), a section of the code allowing for mobile rooftop advertising on vehicles. This would remove steady income from drivers and eliminate opportunities for taxi drivers to earn additional income without driving longer. The motion would effectively ban any form of advertisement that exceeds the height of a vehicle.
“As the taxi industry embraces innovation and attempts to improve conditions for drivers and passengers alike, this motion is nothing more than an attack on those who cannot afford regulatory barriers to further harm their industry, prosperity and livelihoods,” said Kish Rajan, CALinnovates’ Chief Evangelist.
UCLA Professor Gary Blasi, author of the study “Driving Poor: Taxi Drivers and the Regulation of the Taxi Industry in Los Angeles ” stated, “Our research found that taxi drivers in Los Angeles worked very long hours for much less than a living wage. Since then, their situation has only grown worse as they have faced stiff competition from ride share companies. For the City of Los Angeles to deny these drivers and their families the ability to add a few hundred dollars to their meager incomes would be a disgrace.”
The poll, completed by John Zogby Strategies, surveyed a selection of registered voters in the City of Los Angeles from February 3-4.
** Media Interviews with John Zogby are available upon request.
Media Contacts:
Anna Williamson Mobile: 843-408-7125
Kish Rajan Mobile: 415-570-9303 kish@calinnovates.org
5G Rollout Will Maximize San Francisco’s Competitive Edge
San Francisco boasts a young, diverse and highly educated workforce. The Bay Area receives a whopping 45 percent of the total venture capital investment in the entire United States, and residents are embracing everything from robotic deliveries to autonomous cars. It seems like a no-brainer that San Francisco should lead in the deployment of the next generation of fast, reliable, state-of-the-art mobile technology known as 5G. But as it stands today, San Francisco doesn’t even have a commitment from all major 5G infrastructure providers to deploy in the city.
So, what is 5G? 5G is the next evolution of mobile technology, which Accenture projects will create up to 3 million new jobs and boost GDP by $500 billion. 5G could be up to 100 times faster at data transfer and significantly more reliable than our current 4G, or LTE, standard. 5G is also expected to reduce latency, the time between clicking a link and the page loading, to around a millisecond. Further, Accenture estimates that cities deploying 5G networks in conjunction with the Internet of Things (IoT) will have shorter commute times, improved public safety and other efficiency improvements.
The first step in realizing our 5G future is robust infrastructure deployment. 5G requires the installation of thousands of small wireless antennae known as “small cells.” 5G needs an immense amount of capacity and close proximity to the end user, so it requires much denser networks than what we currently have powering 4G and LTE services. Small cells typically are installed on utility poles, street lights or other existing right-of-way infrastructure. Because small cells are much smaller, easier and cheaper to install than a traditional macro site, and can be camouflaged to mimic the aesthetic of the areas where they are placed, the technology is the ideal solution to meet 5G’s capacity requirements.
However, instead of creating the proper conditions to foster a highly competitive environment for 5G build out in San Francisco by encouraging small cell deployment, the city is throwing up unnecessary roadblocks. To be fair, companies such as Verizon and Mobilitie are building out 5G infrastructure in San Francisco, but several other big providers have not yet started to build in the Bay Area due to unreasonable fees for small cell attachment to municipal infrastructure. Without robust competition in small cell deployment from all of the major players, it is highly unlikely San Francisco will be able to deploy the number of small cells necessary to be at the front of the 5G line.
To date, San Francisco hasn’t been willing to make the full commitments to 5G but the city certainly isn’t alone. While San Francisco has chosen slow deployment with high fees, other municipalities have made it difficult to install small cells through long wait times for permits or unreasonable aesthetic guidelines for the devices. One wireless CEO lamented that in some cities, small cells require only two hours to install, but need 18 to 24 months for a permit to be issued. Other Bay Area cities, such as Mill Valley and San Rafael, are passing laws designed to entirely block the installation of 5G small cells.
San Francisco hasn’t attempted to ban small cells and in fact its permitting process, run by the Department of Public Works, is smooth and efficient. But the price of $4,000 for each small cell attached to non-wooden utility poles is acting as a serious deterrent for deployment.
However, change is coming in the way of a new Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order aimed at streamlining small cell deployment for 5G.
On January 14th, 2019, new rules governing the installation of 5G infrastructure officially went into effect which, in theory, will drastically reduce the fee San Francisco will be able to charge for small cell attachments and create more competition.
Only time will tell how San Francisco officials will choose to react to the new FCC rules, but there is no doubt that creating an environment where all the major players are deploying next generation infrastructure in San Francisco can only be a positive for businesses and residents as the city continues to try to maintain its competitive edge in our connectivity driven global economy.
Small Cells For The Win: Powerful Connectivity During Major Events is No Longer a Wish List Item — It’s Now a Must
“As anyone who has been to a sporting event, concert, rally or even a large graduation ceremony recently can attest, the absence of even a single bar or two of connectivity can be a frustrating experience,” writes Mike Montgomery of CALinnovates. “Networks quickly get bogged down when thousands of people with thousands of devices compete for the attention of the local communications infrastructure.”
An extreme case in point: the Super Bowl. In 2015, Verizon handled 7 terabytes of data at Super Bowl XLIX. That number reached 11 terabytes two year later.In 2017, that number was up to 11 terabytes.
Simply put, our current infrastructure can’t handle this load. See Montgomery’s piece about the problem and its solution here.
As FCC Net Neutrality Rules Expire, Internet Survives — For Now
“This is not doomsday at all. The internet hasn’t broken today,” said Mike Montgomery, executive director of CALinnovates, in a San Francisco Chronicle piece about the expiration of the Federal Communications Commission’s old net neutrality rules. “Consumers aren’t going to see or feel anything changing in their internet experience.”
But what about the future? Read more about Montgomery and other net neutrality advocates’ concerns here.