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.
Tag: regulations
The Millennial Dilemma: Too Many Smartphones And Not Enough Bandwidth
“The Pew Research Center says 100% of Americans age 18 to 29 own a cellphone, with 94% owning a smartphone,” writes CALinnovates’ Mike Montgomery on Modernize California. “A separate survey from Pew found that 89% of smartphone users go online daily, while nearly four out of 10 18- to 29-year-olds go online ‘almost constantly.'”
He continues: “While the increased use of connected technology has certainly made our society more efficient, we are at a tipping point where our networks and infrastructure must be modernized to deal with the massive demand for data.”
Read Montgomery’s proposed solution to this issue here.
The 3 Words Shaking The Tech Sector: President Donald Trump
Donald Trump’s election to the U.S. presidency was a political earthquake that leaves the structural integrity of Silicon Valley’s economy in question.
“It’s the dawn of America that I think everyone is trying to put their finger on,” CALinnovates Executive Director Mike Montgomery told Chief Evangelist Kish Rajan on a special post-election episode of their podcast, “A Step Ahead.”
Right now, it’s hard to say what a Trump presidency portends for innovation, technology and public policy. Whereas Clinton had a detailed section in her policy platform dedicated to technology and innovation policy, Trump’s campaign hasn’t offered such guidance.
One thing we have some insight into, however, is Trump’s stance on immigration, which Montgomery says could have grave implications for talent acquisition, entrepreneurism and economic growth in California. For example, the H-1B visa program brings in a large portion of the talented coders who keep Silicon Valley humming. If he restricts skilled visas to make jobs available to Americans, that could hinder growth at high-tech companies. And the lack of a robust talent pipeline, already a concern for the tech sector, could become even more dire if the state’s top universities no longer matriculate STEM students from foreign countries.
If the new administration doesn’t show a commitment to creating conditions that appeal to businesses here in the U.S., might we see a tech drain out of the U.S.? “I certainly hope not,” says Rajan. “But I think it’s something that we have to think about.”
Listen to the full interview below:
https://soundcloud.com/user-90169041/ep-6-the-night-after-the-election
Like what you hear? Subscribe to A Step Ahead on iTunes.
A Step Ahead: The Night After the Election
Hey everyone Kish Rajan, Chief Evangelist at CALinnovates. This time, joined by our fearless leader, Executive Director of CALinnovates, Mike Montgomery. We welcome you to this special edition of A Step Ahead, the CALinnovates podcast. It’s special because we are recording this the day after Election Day 2016 and wow.
Hey Mike, how are you doing?
Mike Montgomery: All right Kish, how are you?
Good. I’m up here in San Francisco and you’re down in world headquarters in southern California. How about that election?
You know, I don’t think it’s what many people expected. I think it’s taken a lot of people by surprise. It’s really interesting that I talked to a lot of adults, a lot of grown ups today and so many people seem like they are having trouble stringing sentences together and thoughts together. They’ve really been kind of taken by surprise…
No doubt.
and are not quite sure what this means, what the implications are. We have a very unique perspective because we’re in California, which may be very helpful and maybe also shows why so many people didn’t expect this result.
Well, there’s no doubt. I mean, let’s be clear. This thing is a political earthquake, right? I mean, no one…well, I shouldn’t say no one, but very few people in the popular media, pundits, academics, all the standard experts, very few people were willing to come out and predict that this would happen. Now that it has happened, it’s a massive shock, it seems to me, to the United States political landscape and certainly as it relates to the issues that CALinnovates focuses on.
Yeah, I think it’s the dawn of a new era that everyone is trying to put their finger on.
Yeah, it’s the dawn of dawn, right?
Dawn of dawn.
What I think what we wanted to do here, was there’s going to be a lot more to talk about, and we’re looking forward to it, a lot more of A Step Ahead, many more episodes where we’ll talk about these issues in more depth. But I think here, we wanted to just kind of have some immediate reaction as best as we can to discern what this portends for innovation and technology and public policy issues that we concentrate on here. So. let’s just kind of talk about that for a minute.
You tell me, but I think the first thing that comes to my mind is, frankly, the lack of certainty about where this new Trump administration is going to go on innovation and technology issues. At least with the Clinton campaign and her policy platform, she had a detailed section in her policy platform that talked specifically about innovation and technology policy and the types of things that she would do in a Clinton administration. We don’t have any such guidance from the Trump campaign. Do we?
No, we’ve got a fairly blank slate. The Trump ticket talked about cyber. We’ve got a pretty decent understanding, we think, of where President Elect Trump stands on immigration, but the rest of the overall tech agenda is TBD.
No kidding. So, let’s talk about what we kind of do know, right? So, take immigration for a minute. I mean, given his incredibly strident approach to immigration during the campaign, if he even begins to implement that type of approach or philosophy, what does that mean for the innovation community?
One of the things that Hilary Clinton was very clear about, like you said, was her stance on tech issues. I think comprehensive immigration reform was an issue that Silicon Valley, in particular, really cared about. Trump kept saying that the United States got drug dealers and the criminals and the murderers, but there is a great value to, at the very least, the H-1B visa program that helps bring a lot of people who write code and do the high tech work that’s so valuable for a number of these different companies from startups all the way to the big boys. Is that in danger, I mean, for the future of entrepreneurialism in America? What does that mean to the talent base that comes into the United States to help build these companies? There’s probably a direct correlation to the future of education in America, but we can’t fill that gap in a matter of a few years.
I mean, this is the thing, right? It’s been a vexing challenge for technology companies already about a lack of a robust work force pipeline, either domestically created through the type of education programs that you’re talking about or through the utilization of the immigration rules, specifically H-1B. Now, we just don’t know if or how either of those will be priorities for the Trump administration, let alone whether we know that he would be supportive of the types of actions that will help deal with that pipeline issue, right?
Right. You know Kish, one question for you is during your time running business economic development for the state of California, you got to witness first hand why companies stayed in California and decided to leave to go to Texas or they’ve left the country or whatever. We want to do everything that we can to keep those companies headquartered in California. If they’re not in California, we want to keep them in the U.S., but we have foreign founders coming over. They hit Sand Hill Road, they raised their money, they maybe go to 500 startups or whatever. We don’t want them to found a company and go leave, right? We want them to stay.
Yeah, you’re totally right. I have to tell you that when…what we would deal with in California was trying to be competitive relative to our other states in the union and present that we had favorable conditions for those companies to come here or to be formed here and to grow here. Talent acquisition and retention, human capital was one of the great advantages that California had and it continues to be one of the reasons why California remains the epicenter of innovation and technology nationally and one of the global epicenters. It’s funny that you bring it up because I thought about that this morning and thought, “Not only were we trying to retain that business in California, and we faced real competitive threats, I’m worried about now, just trying to retain that in the United States.”
One question I’m going to add is, if we don’t show, if the new administration does not show a commitment to creating the types of conditions that businesses want to invest in here in the United State, might we start to see a tech drain out of the U.S. to other places that appear more favorable? I certainly hope not, but I think it’s something that we have to think about.
Yeah, absolutely. So, that’s on the table. One other thing that’s very obvious, of course, is that President Trump will be able to make some very important appointments in Washington to run different agencies and commissions. We spend a lot of time at CALinnovates, of course, on the FCC and the FTC. So, those agencies play major roles in the tech industry and they’ll have new leaders sometime after the first of the year. So, that’s something we’re going to have to follow and we’re going to have to pay close attention to and try to figure out what those policies may look like with the new chairmen, what it means to rules that have been put into place but weren’t enshrined in law by congress. So, it’s going to be an interesting next few months as we start to understand what this all means.
Well I think the last issue for now, and I think we’re going to…over time, we’re going to want to unpack all of this as the days, and weeks, and months unfold and continue to talk about it. But I think the last thing on my mind, are the political implications and that is to say, Trump has been elected President, I think, on a populist movement, it’s fair to say. I guess the question is politically speaking, how is the Silicon Valley…I’m using that as a metaphor, how is the innovation and tech community going to fair, politically, given this prevailing wave that has brought Donald Trump to the presidency?
Well, I think Silicon Valley has a little bit of a problem on its hands. Other than Peter Thiel, Silicon Valley at large was with Hilary Clinton.
Right. I remember that letter that was signed by…sorry, how many tech people signed…
By everyone.
That letter? 100 or 150 tech leaders? Yeah.
Yeah, by everyone. Those issues won’t go unnoticed, at least in the stories that have been running today in terms of the Trump transition team. For the people that they’re considering right off the bat, there was a full scrubbing of what people had written on social media. Certain people would bounce from the list for consideration for important jobs because they may have said something critical. If any industry thinks they’re going to get off scot free if they weren’t with Trump, then they probably have something else coming to them, which means it’s going to take a new approach, right? There’s got to be a new approach. There’s got to be a new way of thinking about this relationship or moving forward and perhaps messaging as well.
Well, I’m with you. Well look, there’s so much more to talk about and I think so much more to dive into. I think the political challenge that you’ve raised is a big one. I think there’s another dimension here that we’ll talk about more, which is the opposite side of the equation, places like California, that will, I think, have a very strong counter reaction, or reaction I guess, to prove that it can grow an economy and force technology and innovation companies to deal with the challenges of broader opportunity and prosperity. There could be a lot more heavy hand of government in the way of regulation and other ways they’ll want to compel that type of behavior. So, that’s going to be another reaction to this election that I think we’re going to have to watch, as well.
Boy, there’s going to be a lot going here. But look CALinnovates, we’re going to be involved, right? I think this is going to be a continuation of the work that we’ve been doing and thinking about. What is the right agenda and the right way to communicate to policy makers in D.C. and California and beyond about how innovation and technology can be a constructive force here and not something to be battled against?
That’s right. Whether you’re happy about the results of the presidential or you’ve been reduced to tears, there’s got to be a way that we move forward. We’re going to be there every step of the way. We’re going to try to continue chopping this up. We’re going to come to some interesting conclusions and pass forward. I hope that everyone listening will be with us every step of the way because it’s going to take a great effort to help the tech industry forward on its new advocacy path.
Well, it’s going to be an interesting path indeed. We’ll look forward to more discussions. So for you, Mike Montgomery our Executive Director, this is Kish Rajan Chief Evangelist of CALinnovates. Thanks so much for listening to this edition of A Step Ahead.
Los Angeles Times – Readers React: Yesterday’s taxi and hotel laws don’t work for today’s Uber and Airbnb
To the Editor: Dave Rochlin’s op-ed article on the sharing economy misses the mark. (“When ‘innovation’ means rule-breaking,” op-ed, July 27)
Rochlin ridiculously compares the sharing economy to the drug trade, saying both are “gray markets” that form when there is an unmet need within regulated industries. The sharing economy is bringing desperately needed jobs and innovation to regulated markets while serving consumers’ needs. It’s not a dangerous underground market.
Rochlin insists that regulations need not stifle innovation, but that’s exactly what we’ve seen in the taxi and hotel industries. Uber and Airbnb are dragging these industries into the modern world and bringing economic opportunity along with them.
Of course we need regulations, but those regulations need to be smart and modern. Regulating new companies under laws that were written for bygone eras is old-school thinking that will limit society and the economy. Sharing-economy companies are exposing the need for modernizing government. This is the way change happens.
Mike Montgomery, Pacific Palisades
CALinnovates’ Statement on DC Court’s Denial of Title II Stay
The following statement can be attributed to CALinnovates’ Executive Director Mike Montgomery:
“This is the first of what will be many court decisions with regard to Title II and Net Neutrality. Unfortunately, these decisions will take several years and leave a great deal of uncertainty in their wake – uncertainty that will hinder innovation, business planning and ultimately the growth of the Internet and the future of the new economy.
“Today’s legal decision changes nothing about the policy imperative, which is why it is essential for Congress to take action in a bipartisan fashion to settle the issue around Net Neutrality once and for all in a way that moves beyond Title II and takes a 21st-century approach to technology policy.”
TechCrunch: Zombie Ridesharing Bill Comes Back To Life In California
From a March 5, 2015 article posted on TechCrunch:
“A bill designed to regulate ridesharing companies in California is back. State Assemblymember Adrin Nazarian has submitted a bill aimed at placing new rules on companies like Uber and Lyft. Assembly Bill 24, however, is incredibly similar to Assembly Bill 612, which failed in committee in 2014. Nazarian notes in a release on the bill that 24 is “similar” to 612, which is understatement.”
…
“Others weighed in along similar lines. CALinnovates, a group that works to connect technology firms with the “slower moving […] public policy communities in Sacramento and Washington, DC,” said the following:”
It is outrageous that any legislative energy will be spent on this new bill, a practical carbon copy of Assembly Bill 612, a bill that didn’t even make it out of committee last year. […]
Nazarian’s bill is a blatantly anti-competitive example of regulatory capture at its very worst that will only serve to pile on bureaucratic redundancy and red tape while choking innovation.
FCC Commissioner to Tech Industry: It’s Time to Reinvent Textbooks, Teaching
FCC Commissioner to Tech Industry: It’s Time to Reinvent Textbooks, Teaching
After increasing spending by $1.5 billion on Internet broadband projects for schools FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel asks the tech industry to innovate for education.
SAN FRANCISCO — On the heels of its Dec. 19 decision to raise Internet connectivity funding for schools by $1.5 billion, the Federal Communications Commission urged Silicon Valley to couple funding with innovative educational material.
FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel spoke to the audience of tech entrepreneurs at Airbnb’s San Francisco headquarters on Jan. 8, highlighting the FCC’s recent efforts and encouraging the digital disruption within teaching and the textbook industry. The event was hosted by the tech advocacy group CALinnovates.
Click here to read the rest of the story in GovTech.
Gary Shapiro: War on Innovation?
There are few people more bullish about the innovation economy than Gary Shapiro, the president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association. Indeed, Shapiro is so enthusiastic about the sharing economy that he compares them with American revolutionaries in their commitment to improving the status-quo.
And the regulators who want to stifle sharing networks like Uber and Airbnb, Shapiro says, are akin to the 18th century British government who sought to control their North American colony. It’s a typically forthright position from the always entertaining Shapiro whose take on innovation is itself innovative.
Navigating the Virtual Battlefield
For those who advocate for a free and open Internet governed by the multi-stakeholder approach, treaties proposed at the 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai were a potential disaster, giving countries greater power to limit the rights of their citizens. But the proposed treaties also highlighted another important issue, one that touches every nation regardless of its stance on free expression.
That issue is cybersecurity.
Read the full article from Mike Montgomery and James Wigginton on The Huffington Post