By Mike Montgomery
It was crunch time. With less than two hours to go before the U.S. Senate narrowly confirmed the controversial Betsy DeVos as the next secretary of education, a group of prominent Democratic senators huddled on Capitol Hill for a press conference about … something else.
What could have been more important? The so-called travel ban? President Donald Trump’s foreign policy agenda or the onslaught against federal environmental regulations?
No, they gathered to talk about the future of net neutrality and the concern that at some point in the future, the FCC might decide to alter its approach to governing the internet.
Don’t get me wrong: I fully support a free and open internet, but more fundamental issues must take precedence in these trying times, especially when a torrent of constituent feedback can permanently turn the tide on matters of national importance — where focusing on net neutrality today may mean a constituent decides not to weigh in on opposing Steve Bannon’s spot on the National Security Council.
As a parent and a progressive Democrat, I am disappointed to see vital energy and focus diverted from the DeVos vote. On Tuesday, the Senate confirmed the unqualified DeVos to run the department that serves 50 million students across more than 100,000 schools. Why was discussing something like net neutrality, on that day specifically, more important than discussing a contrasting progressive vision for the future of our public school system or supporting actual education voices?
That’s not to say that net neutrality isn’t important. It is and will remain so. But progressives who are also net neutrality proponents should be disappointed that any attention was deflected on an historic and consequential day to discuss what the FCC might do in the future regarding net neutrality.
DeVos was confirmed by the narrowest of margins – and perhaps if senators were focused on that issue and not net neutrality, perhaps there could have been at least one more last-gasp attempt to convince one additional Republican to vote against DeVos. Instead, they were preparing for a press conference that did not need to be held that day.
Unfortunately, what’s done is done. There is no reset button for anyone to push. DeVos is the secretary of education, and net neutrality is in place as firmly today as it was earlier this week.
Net neutrality deserves attention and protection — but it needs a thoughtful legislative conversation to codify an open internet, not press conferences and partisanship. For those who want to preserve the basic principles of net neutrality but are fearful that the FCC will abolish the Open Internet order, it’s time to take this fight to Congress. As we’ve said all along — only by cementing net neutrality into law can the government hope to create a stable environment for consumers and existing and future tech companies alike. We need bipartisan legislation that will remain immune to the whims of any particular administration and survive partisan politics.
Many people I know feel displaced and voiceless in today’s political environment. The last few weeks have shown that activists are finding new ways to express their points of view – but the firehose of issues is unrelenting and daunting. Health care, immigration, education, the Supreme Court, the environment – the list goes on. We all need to remind ourselves that there’s a proper time and place for important debates like net neutrality. Tuesday was not that day.
Mike Montgomery is executive director of CALinnovates, a nonpartisan coalition of tech companies, founders, funders and nonprofits determined to make the new economy a reality.
February 7, 2016
The following quote can be attributed to CALinnovates Executive Director Mike Montgomery:
“To quote Yogi Berra, ‘It’s déjà vu all over again.’ Well into a decade of debate about Net Neutrality, it simply won’t go away. CALinnovates takes very little satisfaction in saying we saw this coming, but we’ve been calling for a Third Way that could affirmatively cement the tenets of Net Neutrality into law forever. Instead, Net Neutrality is apparently back on the table, perhaps having experienced a slightly longer shelf life than a ripe banana.
“By passing bipartisan Net Neutrality legislation, Congress can enshrine lasting laws into place that will remain immune to the whims of any particular administration and survive partisan politics. A regulatory roller coaster makes consumers and the business community queasy. Let’s settle this issue once and for all. The time is now.”
By Tim Sparapani
Innovators and startups welcome the news that policymakers are taking a fresh look at how to protect consumers’ privacy online. While the headlines may try to spin this as just another partisan food fight, in truth it’s an incredibly important opportunity to restore balance and clarity to consumer privacy rules in the online ecosystem.
As we’ve said from the start, the privacy rules adopted late last year by the Wheeler FCC were clearly flawed and the ongoing jurisdictional tussle over privacy needs to be resolved for the benefit of consumers and companies alike. The Wheeler rules created an inconsistent, confusing patchwork, in which consumers’ private information on the internet would be protected differently depending on which servers and routers their data happened to be crossing. Yes, the exact same data would arbitrarily enjoy different levels of protection. 94% of consumers believe that all companies collecting their information online should face the same set of rules – and they’re right. The Wheeler rules break from the bipartisan FTC privacy framework that has seen the internet thrive and grow in other ways, introducing new friction and erecting confusing and unjustified new obstacles to even the most mundane uses of data any consumer would see as non-sensitive. This kind of regulation is bad for consumers, bad for entrepreneurs, and bad for innovation.
In addition, a little known consequence of the Wheeler rules was that they jeopardized the United States’ privacy agreement with the European Union. The Privacy Shield is predicated in part on the United States having a single, lead consumer privacy agency, and the dilution of the FTC’s authority puts this agreement at risk.
We’re glad that policymakers at the FCC and in Congress will have an opportunity to review the rules again and, hopefully, correct these flaws. A return to the FTC’s role as the lead privacy enforcer would allow innovators to do what they do best: innovate. In addition, a consistent set of rules would do well to assuage consumer advocates’ concern that gaps in enforcement would delay critical privacy actions when companies are ignoring or outright abusing their data responsibilities to their customers.
By Mike Montgomery
Cancer, unfortunately, touches almost everyone. Like far too many, I’ve lost friends to this horrific disease. Luckily, there are a number of exciting technologies on the horizon that might help save lives.
For instance, right now, women depend on monthly home exams and annual mammograms to detect breast cancer. Soon, though, they may have another option. Cyrcadia Health, a cancer therapy startup, has developed a sensor-filled patch that can be inserted comfortably under a bra for daily wear. Connecting through the woman’s smartphone or PC, the patch uses machine-learning algorithms to track the woman’s breast tissue temperatures and analyze this data at the Cyrcadia lab. If it detects a change in pattern, the technology will quickly alert the woman — and her health-care provider — to schedule a follow-up with her doctor.
“This technology is fully automated in the cloud,” says Rob Royea, CEO of Cyrcadia. The patch, whose predicate is FDA cleared, is expected to hit the market next year and had a greater than 80% historical trial success rate in detecting tumors, even in dense breasts (which are typically tough to read in a mammogram).
Cancer therapy startups that use artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms are proliferating. While some parts of the tech industry are coming under fire for creating products and services that only help the wealthy (most people don’t really need things like on-demand liquor delivery), this is one area where technology is being used to help everyone.
Read the full article here.
by Mike Montgomery
t’s hard to see what’s missing at Disney. The giant entertainment company (one of the biggest companies in the world with a $147 billion market cap) already has Lucasfilm, Marvel, Pixar, ABC, ESPN, theme parks, hotels and TV channels galore.
But even Disney, as big and powerful as it is, must make deals with distribution partners such as Comcast, Netflix and Apple to get its movies and TV shows delivered to consumers in the manner they desire. So it wasn’t a huge surprise to many media watchers when Disney CEO Bob Iger announced earlier this month that the company was considering buying Netflix or Twitter in order to have its own distribution platform.
“The biggest thing we’re trying to do now is figure out what technology’s role is in distributing the great content that we have,” Iger told the crowd at the Boston College Chief Executives Club. “It’s one thing to be as fortunate as we are to have [our content] but in today’s world, it’s almost not enough … unless you have access to your consumers.”
Now, Disney may never actually buy either Netflix or Twitter, but the point is that when smart people in the media world are thinking about how to get close to the consumer, they are coming up with creative, market-driven solutions – not by asking the government for favors.
Over the past few years the way we consume entertainment has changed in unimaginable ways. People can watch what they want where they want when they want. Children coming of age today have no concept of a linear TV schedule where you have to be in your living room at a certain time to watch your favorite show. To them the world of TV and movies is just an endless giant living library that can be accessed from almost anywhere.
This kind of creative disruption is healthy for an industry and it’s exciting to see creators and innovators rising to the challenge.
And it’s crucial that this movement not be stopped by the FCC.
Read the full article here.
by Mike Montgomery
Every minute of the day, eCare21, a remote patient-monitoring system, collects thousands of pieces of health data about more than 1,000 senior citizens. The telehealth system uses smartphones, Fitbits, Bluetooth and sensors to collect information about things like blood pressure, physical activity, glucose levels, medication intake and weight. The information is then compiled on a dashboard so that the patients’ doctors, loved ones and caregivers can keep an eye on them and provide proactive care, even from hundreds of miles away.
This is proving to be a valuable service for individuals managing complicated health situations. But Vadim Cherdak, CEO and president of eCare21, says we are only scratching the surface. Once his company partners with a big data analytics service, it will be able to glean even more useful insights from the intense amount of data flowing in.
Cherdak expects to be able to deeply analyze the data to provide better alerts and tailored recommendations for patients and caregivers. Cherdak has been looking at big data systems such as IBM Watson, Cloudvara and Hortonworks, but the industry is still in the pioneering stages. No one yet knows the best way to make sense of the vast troves of data.
This kind of telehealth — which eliminates geographical constraints by using technology to help people receive timely medical care no matter where they are — is on the upswing. In fact, according to the National Business Group on Health, nine in 10 large employers will provide telehealth services to their employees in 2017. By 2019, NBG predicts, this number will leap to 97%.
Telemedicine may alleviate some of the struggles currently facing the health-care industry. We have an aging population, a shortage of physicians and an increasing need to manage chronic diseases. We also need to keep burgeoning health-care costs in check. Thanks to “constant technological innovation, increasing remote patient monitoring and rising use of treatments that require long follow-ups,” Mordor Intelligence predicts that the global telemedicine market will reach more than $34 billion by 2020.
Read the full post here.
October 7, 2016
“This version, like the first, falls woefully short in its noble goal to safeguard consumer data and increase transparency for the public. Subjecting the exact same data to different and arbitrary rules depending upon a company’s primary offering in today’s era of vertical integration does not increase consumer privacy. It is also blind to the realities of the marketplace. We need 21st Century privacy rules to govern a 21st Century data market.” said Tim Sparapani, CALinnovates’ senior policy counsel.
“Chairman Wheeler has indicated that some favored companies will be allowed to practice permissionless innovation outside the FCC’s jurisdiction while other disfavored entities must operate under the microscope despite the fact that the data is one in the same. Businesses of all types today are data companies first and foremost, whether they make software or deliver internet access – or both. And innovation can and should spring from all types of companies, ISPs included.”
“Today, Verizon owns Yahoo, AOL and Huffington Post, and the line between ISPs and edge providers has been increasingly blurred. Consumers will be no better off under this scheme than the previous one, but they may be worse off than they are today.”
“This is a referendum on innovation and an affront to consumers who expect more and demand better. No matter how Chairman Wheeler tries to spin it, his latest iteration of the FCC’s privacy proposal is nothing more than lipstick on a pig,” said Mike Montgomery, executive director of CALinnovates.
“CALinnovates encourages Chairman Wheeler to return to the drawing board to rewrite the rules one more time. Better yet, the FCC should seek further public input as well as guidance from Congress and the FTC, which has the longstanding privacy expertise the FCC lacks.”
CALinnovates is a non-partisan coalition of tech companies, founders, funders and non-profits determined to make the new economy a reality.