Thanks in part to the finger-pointing of AT&T, Google has to answer the accusations that it does not connect calls to certain rural areas. AT&T believes this is unfair–Google should be made to connect calls to any location, regardless of how expensive it is to the company–but Google is firing back, claiming that it’s only blocking calls to obvious “traffic pumping” numbers.

Now, Google has gone one step further. In a letter to the FCC, it claims it has isolated less than 100 numbers that are responsible for the practice, and is now only blocking those specific numbers. If you’re short on time, here’s the pertinent text from Google’s letter:

In June 2009, Google Voice began noticing extremely high cost calls to a concentrated number of destinations. Our internal investigation revealed that the top 10 prefixes to U.S. destinations (NPA-NXX) accounted for l.l percent of our monthly U.S. traffic by volume – an unusually large number, and some 161 times the expected amount by prefix. In tum, this traffic accounted for 26.2 percent of our monthly U.S. cost – again, an unexpectedly large number. In addition to these grossly anomalous call patterns (which include the frequency and duration of calls to rural areas), we also were aware through various industry sources of certain in-bound traffic stimulation practices, and the identities and locations of some of the carriers in question. Many of these businesses are located in rural areas with local carriers that charge unusually high rates for terminating traffic. Our own underlying carriers would assess Google Voice up to 39 cents per minute for some of this interstate traffic. As a result, based on an application of these data filters to the total universe of our outbound traffic, in August 2009 Google Voice began the practice of restricting calls to certain high-cost destinations. Currently, fewer than 100 U.S. telephone numbers are restricted based on an application of these filters.

For a couple of technology giants, they sure are good at tennis. The ball is now back in AT&T’s court!

Comments

He reports that he nearly tweeted about a delicious bass halibut he cooked this weekend—until he remembered he’d received the cookbook for free review 13 years ago. But the real issue isn’t restricting his free fish speech. It’s

the implication that online social media represent a separate class of communications channels with less Constitutional protection than corporate-owned newspapers, radio stations, or cable television networks is of particularly grave concern.

[We] are not arguing that bloggers and social media be treated differently than incumbent media. . . . Rather, we’re saying the new conversational media should be accorded the same rights and freedoms as other communications channels.

All of us would agree that false and deceptive advertising should be stopped, and penalized when it slips through and is caught. We agree that paid testimonials and endorsements should be labeled. But in taking business ethics and attempting to give it the force of law, the Commission is stretching the definition of remuneration to ludicrous lengths. (emphasis added)

Another interesting take against the FTC guidelines is the fact that book and product bloggers may not give guaranteed access. Unlike in advertising, where you pay for not only airtime but craft the message yourself, in product reviews, you often have no control over when (or even if) the review will be posted, and what the review will say.

(On the other hand, plenty of bloggers will guarantee access simply for shipping a product to them, and plenty of PR and marketing people sign up people for a blog tour slot before sending them a product to guarantee their participation.)

Personally, I’ve received things like books, diapers and paper towels for review on my blog. Not all of them have made it onto a blog, however. It’s hard to imagine Bounty (I can’t even remember if it was them who sent it, but close enough) being fined $11,000 for a review of two rolls of paper towels (you know, <$2 of merchandise).

On the other hand, the FTC is especially concerned with an ongoing relationship—like if you review one publisher’s (free) books a lot. (But at some point, doesn’t the fact that they’re free kind of diminish the impact on your review over time? I mean, after the fifth free book, is it even that big of a deal to get another?)

It’s not going to hurt a book review or a product review to disclose that you got a free one to read/try. It may influence how your readers think about your review—it may influence how you thought about the product, whether you’d like to admit it or not.

What do you think? Should there be some sort of lower limit on the value of products that bloggers must disclose? Should bloggers be more concerned with disclosing relationships? Should the FTC be more concerned with newspapers et al., even though the way they do things is well-established?

Comments

Aside from the obvious anti-competition motive, AT&T is in a tizzy over Voice because GV really does prevent users from calling certain rural exchanges because the fees for phone companies for calls that end there are up to 100 times those of other areas. Google Telecom Counsel Richard Whitt posted on the Google Public Policy blog:

The reason we restrict calls to certain local phone carriers’ numbers is simple. Not only do they charge exorbitant termination rates for calls, but they also partner with adult sex chat lines and “free” conference calling centers to drive high volumes of traffic. This practice has been called “access stimulation” or “traffic pumping” (clearly by someone with a sense of humor). Google Voice is a free application and we want to keep it that way for all our users — which we could not afford to do if we paid these ludicrously high charges.

Google’s underlying argument is that their service is add-on to existing phone services, not a replacement. They say that they shouldn’t be subject to the same regulations as the phone companies that charge for service and build the infrastructure.

AT&T claims that Google is acting as a telecom (not, as they claim, an application), and should be subject to the same rules and regulations—specifically the neutrality rules. While it’s no surprise to see AT&T and Google on opposite sides of a neutrality battle, the roles they’re cast in this time are at least a little humorous—Google as the one trying to restrict access and AT&T as the fair-minded, open-access alternative.

What do you think? Should Google Voice be subject to the same regulations as other telecos? Or are they splitting hairs when they claim they’re exempt?

Comments

We need a federal cloud computing service to help modernize government and see realizable cost savings over the older and error prone way of doing business. Combine this with the data that a person can use at the government spending dashboard it.usaspending.gov you get a potent tool for people who monitor budgets. Not just people, but comptrollers, CIO’s and CFO’s across a broad range of government institutions. The cost savings can in turn be used to manage or run other government programs that help further reduce the costs of government. Many companies have no idea how they have invested in it, or the cost realization that can be obtained from Cloud Computing. Adding these two programs to the government portfolio is one of the smartest things to come out of Washington DC in a while.

The only real major hitches in this will be adoption amongst the GS workers and managers. Is government service truly ready and willing to embrace systems that they have no physical control of? That is a question that will only be answered in time to see how these systems and ideas are adopted. I would expect to see that a new team of leadership and users will form a core group within an agency that uses and adopts these systems and ideas regardless of what senior management or non-adopters will choose to use. We are at our most comfortable when we are using something tried and true, we are at our most uncomfortable when we are dealing with change. The Federal Cloud Computing Services platform and Cloud IT Services is a radical departure from the one datacenter one organization rule that CIO’s, CFO’s and others have grown used to. That is where the challenge lays, how to get government agencies to adopt changes that will reduce the IT budget, open the door to interactions with civilians on a one to one basis, and fundamentally alter how transparent and accountable a government organization is.

This is a major step in the right direction, what remains to be seen is the adoption of these services will look like within the government.

Comments

What is interesting is that while the military is busy trying to hunt down military bloggers, or trying to find ways of minimizing access to social networks is that there is always a way around any form of road block put in the way. Anonymity to a certain point can also go a long way in ensuring that military bloggers can stay on the net and talk about the military. There are always going to be people who hate what they do, the military is no different. This does not mean that the voices of dissent should be silenced, if anything it makes the public view of the military better rounded. Bloggers should be talking about the real military, the one that the troops live with on a day to day basis. It is the personal stories that are interesting, we all have bad bosses, the senior master sergeant is no different. We all make friends on social networks with our management, and wish that we could back away from them later on in life, even the troops do this. There is already a panopticon on the things we do online when it comes to where we work and who we interact with, the military should be no different.

The military though, and since I served and loved about 80% of it I believe that I can say this, should take some lessons away from the RIAA/MPAA and the BSA. RIAA/MPAA have gone after sites where people are doing things that violate copyright. Using many of the same tactics that the military has done by finding out who people are and shutting them down. What this has done is fractured the file sharing community into other systems, that are harder to find, harder to infiltrate, and harder to track. File sharing has gone underground to such a point that the RIAA/MPAA have had to alter tactics to break apart smaller and smaller segments of the file sharing community. The RIAA/MPAA have also set up an artificial scarcity of goods, making it impossible or nearly impossible for people to find what they are looking for anywhere.

The BSA on the other hand has embraced openness, you can purchase software anywhere at any time for any purpose. There is no reason to steal, because the products are ubiquitous. The BSA is also only interested when it looks like it is a major player, but this does not mean that they will not go after individual file sharers either. Rather from what the BSA has done in the past is go after the majors, while issuing take down notices on individual files. The BSA has not been involved in any of the major lawsuits against file sharing systems preferring a more surgical approach to the dragnet approach that the RIAA /MPAA have used in the past.

The Military stands at the same cross roads, they can use the dragnet approach like the RIAA/MPAA to try to keep the troops from blogging or using social networks. They can put up filters, road blocks, URL Filtering systems, even make it official policy that no one can use a blog or social network from a military system. Or they can embrace the BSA approach where they know where everyone is, they know what people are talking about, and try to engage people, inform, and as a last resort try to do something about people being stupid. Depending on which way the military goes the troops will find a way around the process. The military can embrace, track, and help people make better decisions, or the military can attempt to silence, deter, detract, and stop the troops from blogging or using social networks. Of course I prefer that the military embrace, because if they embrace they stand a much better chance of engaging with troops on all levels and possibly avert another major problem like Abu Ghraib in the future. If the participants in Abu Ghraib had blogged, or even if bystanders had blogged about what was going on there, and the military was aware of those sites, the train wreck could have been spotted much earlier before it became a national tragedy.

Let us hope that the military embraces openness in blogging and social networks, it is the best of all possible outcomes. Otherwise, fear of being exposed, or steps at censorship will simply drive troops to alternative methods of communication, or so fracture the community that the military will never know what is being said where. Roadblocks and hurdles have always been overcome by enterprising people, and I can think of dozens of ways of breaking out of the sandbox that the military will put on a network. The more the military embraces openness, the less fear, the less censorship, the better change the military will have in getting the pulse of the troops. The better a change people on the sidelines will have a better idea of what is happening at the troop level and the more integrated the military will be in the internet social community.

Comments

Ah yes. What would a day in business be these days without the long arm of the government making sure that everyone plays by their rules rather than the rules that might stimulate a recovery? MediaPost tells us that the FCC has decided that the wireless industry needs to be looked into because, well, here’s their reasons.

After months of controversy surrounding wireless companies, the Federal Communications Commission voted unanimously on Thursday to launch a wide-ranging probe of the wireless industry.

“We are transitioning from a voice-centric world to a world of ubiquitous, mobile Internet access,” said FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. “This transition promises to increase the pace of innovation and investment, but only if we have an open and competitive marketplace that gives every great idea a chance to make its way to consumers so that the best products or services win.”

So we are to assume that the same government that hands out money to big business who totally screwed the pooch in the financial sector will have the competitive best interests of all in mind? Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

The investigation, which could pave the way for new regulations, will encompass a variety of matters, including spectrum availability, wireless networks, devices, applications, and business practices. In addition, the FCC said it’s seeking comments about “how the public has used wireless services and technology to solve real-world problems in areas such as health care, energy, education, and public safety.”

Other concerns have been expressed about keeping net neutrality across the wireless spectrum. What advocacy groups are concerned about is pricing and roaming charges across networks etc. As long as the government doesn’t hinder our ability to actually use these services (and make the CHOICE to pay for them if we so wish) they can do what they want.

The US government is more of an M & A machine these days than an overseer. That’s not going to work in the wireless industry because it is growing and not dying. No saves need to be made here. Of course, there needs to be protections for consumers but at what cost? We are in the middle of an economic morass that has very few bright lights but the Internet and wireless services are among them. The last thing we need is the government coming in and making sure everything is working correctly. If that’s not the classic case of ‘those who can’t do teach’ then I don’t know what is.

So let’s here it Pilgrims. Where should the government be on the wireless industry? Will an FCC probe serve to accelerate growth and open up competition or will it grind things to a halt and stymie progress? I have to suspect that there are more than a few differing points of view out there so let’s solve the world’s wireless woes right here and now. Or we could just call it an early Friday and start the weekend? You make the call (but maybe on a landline so you won’t be ‘probed’).

Comments

The Guardian says that the move is being pushed through by Lord Mandelson, the business secretary, in a bid to deter the estimated seven million people who illegally share films, music and games online in the UK.

[…] It has been reported that the new measures, which include severing the internet connection of anyone suspected of illegal filesharing, came after Mandelson dined with record and film executive David Geffen earlier this month. A spokesperson for the Department of Business denied that Geffen, a vocal critic of internet piracy, had influenced the proposals […]

Call me cynical but Geffen represents an entire global industry whose interests would be served very nicely indeed by actions such as the government is proposing; undoubtedly no harm was done to those interests in the purely-casual-of-course conversation(s) he and Mandelson would have had.

You can read the governments intent in a PDF file you can download from the Consultation on Legislation to Address Illicit P2P File-Sharing page on the Department’s website. This was published in June.

Among the many reports, commentaries and opinions I’ve seen out there about today’s announcement , the most thought-provoking comes from  Tom Watson, the MP and former Cabinet Office Minister, who proposes a course of action that seems to be to be quite novel.

Let’s openly ask citizens for their opinions!

[…] Instead of consulting on the best way to criminalise 6 million UK citizens, wouldn’t it be better if civil servants in the Department for Business spent its time asking these questions? Then we might have more chance of coming up with interventions that will nurture 21st century creative talent in the UK, and not just restore 20th century incumbents to their position of power.

Leaving a comment on Watson’s post is one way to say what you think: there are some great opinions there already.

Another way is to tell the government by sending in your views after you’ve read that PDF I mentioned earlier.

It’s not the clearest of texts to help you quickly grasp the issues, though. Luckily, there’s a wiki that can help you.

[…] These official documents are often complicated, which means only large companies and organisations tend to respond – the public’s views can easily be ignored.

To make it easier for all of us to respond, this webpage lists all the questions the government is consulting on and, where relevant, gives some suggested responses setting out some concerns about the proposals.

If you agree with the suggested responses, please feel free to copy them and send your responses to the officials who are dealing with them.

A final word from MP Watson:

[…] We’re at a stage where attempts to bring all-you-can-eat digital services to music fans might just be about to pay off. Civil servants might better serve the nation if they were to establish what conditions drive these Internet success stories.

If you do want to add your voice to this issue, act soon – the closing date for responses to the government’s consultation doc is September 15.

Comments

No, not Eric Schmidt. Not Steve Jobs. Nope, it’s Arthur Levinson.

Levinson remains on the board of both companies, leaving the door wide-open for the FTC to warm-up its various probes. In fact, if it were not for Levinson, the rectal tension would have already been relieved for both companies:

“Generally it would have shut down the investigation because they (regulators) achieved what they wanted to achieve,” said Gary Reback at the law firm of Carr & Ferrell.

So why is Levinson still on the board of both companies? Well, with the lack of any statement from Mr. Levinson, we’ll go with the obvious: corporate greed.

You see, according to public records, Levinson stands to lose a considerable amount should he give up either position. If he quits the Apple board, he stands to lose total compensation of $711,434. Quit Google and he’ll lose $189,606. Any bets on which seat he’ll likely give up?

Of course, you can’t really blame Levinson for wanting to eat from both sides of the buffet line. After all, $900k for a few days work each month, would be hard for anyone to give up! Throw in the fact that both companies are equally high on the “cool” chart and you compound the decision.

Still, if Levinson truly loves both Apple and Google, he must ditch one to spare both of them a colonoscopy.

Comments

In order to comply with Canadian privacy law, Facebook must take greater responsibility for the personal information in its care, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada said today in announcing the results of an investigation into the popular social networking site’s privacy policies and practices.

Excuse me while I take a deep breath. Ok. So the Canadian government is now telling a private American company just how they are to conduct business to their standards? I can see where the Canadian government may be concerned to one degree but there is a rub. Everyone who puts a profile on Facebook opts in and agrees to the privacy policy. It’s that little thing about people making their own choices. If they were concerned about privacy issues do you think anyone would be on Facebook? Some people treat it like they live in a glass house that shows everything they do all the time; by choice.

For all of you fans of more regulation of everything I hear where there may be concern that something may happen that could upset a citizen or two. At what point though do you stop telling the general public that they simply are not smart enough to make a decision on their own so the government will make it for them?

Yes this is a bit of a rant but I think this is ridiculous. Here is some of the press release on the Canadian government site:

An overarching concern was that, although Facebook provides information about its privacy practices, it is often confusing or incomplete. For example, the “account settings” page describes how to deactivate accounts, but not how to delete them, which actually removes personal data from Facebook’s servers.

The Privacy Commissioner’s report recommends more transparency, to ensure that the social networking site’s nearly 12 million Canadian users have the information they need to make meaningful decisions about how widely they share personal information.

The investigation also raised significant concerns around the sharing of users’ personal information with third-party developers creating Facebook applications such as games and quizzes. (There are more than 950,000 developers in some 180 countries.) Facebook lacks adequate safeguards to effectively restrict these outside developers from accessing profile information, the investigation found.

So the Canadian government has told Facebook to make changes. Facebook has made some but not all. The story says that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada will have 30 days to review any changes that Facebook has made then Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart can take the issue to the Canadian federal court for enforcement.

I’ll say it again, people are opting in and with that comes inherent risk. At what point will the Canadian government feel comfortable with how well the data is protected and if it isn’t will they stop their citizens from using the service? Maybe I’m getting Canada confused with another country that starts with a C and their Internet policies: China.

Comments

Let’s start with the good news. Both California and Hawaii look set eject the planned affiliate nexus, with vetoes from their respective governors.

CA’s Arnold Schwarzenegger stated:

“After passing the largest tax increase in California history, it makes absolutely no sense to go back to the taxpayers to solve the current shortfall – that’s why yesterday I vetoed the majority vote tax increase passed by the legislature.”

Meanwhile HI’s Governor Linda Lingle says:

“I am vetoing this bill immediately to help ensure Hawai‘i is not economically hurt by legislation that was not well thought-out and would have negative consequences for non-profits such as the University of Hawai‘i bookstore, and businesses throughout our State”

Both actions were enough for Overstock.com to announce the reinstatement of affiliate programs in both California and Hawaii. There’s no news on a reversal from Amazon, but I suspect it will happen this week.

On to the bad news.

North Carolina still seems set to pass its Amazon Tax legislation and Rhode Island looks to be the next state to make the blunderhead move.

So, what exactly is the Amazon Tax? It’s not that these states plan to add new taxes for those affiliates earning income from these online retailers–they already pay their income taxes. Nope. The Amazon Tax effectively claims that, by having affiliates in a state, the retailer has an obligation to collect sales tax on all its online purchases from that state.

When you consider that an affiliate isn’t even close to being a contractor–which employers are not obliged to collect income tax–let alone an employee, you see why this legislation is nothing but a desperate money-raising effort by states that over-spend and can’t otherwise balance their budgets.

Comments