Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski shared the following yesterday:

Today, the FCC issued a Public Notice seeking comment on concerns and issues related to intentional
interruptions of wireless service by government authorities for the purpose of ensuring public safety.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said:

“Our democracy, our society, and our safety all require communications networks that are available and
open. Any interruption of wireless services raises serious legal and policy issues, and must meet a very
high bar. The FCC, as the agency with oversight of our communications networks, is committed to
preserving their availability and openness, and to harnessing communications technologies to protect the public.”

Honestly never heard of Megaupload before this news broke. Their services remind me of those lockers you see at airports and bus stations. You rent a box and the box owner probably warns you up front not to put anything in there that you wouldn’t want seen on the evening news.

Megaupload could probably claim that it did not know that copyright material was being uploaded and downloaded, but that would be a bit naïve on their part, especially since their technology was replacing an older, less efficient file sharing technology. The “I didn’t know” argument may not hold up against the prosecution’s argument of willful blindness, however. Time for their attorneys to take a look at the Pentalpha and Grokster cases for further guidance on litigation strategy or better yet, guidance on a settlement. Not only won’t willful blindness hold, but their file sharing business model may have induced more consumers to infringe on copyrights.

Fortunately these guys aren’t a public company or else investors would be seeing shares tank.

The Wall Street Journal reported last Saturday about President Obama’s discomfort with the Stop Online Piracy Act. Seems even if it passes Congress, Mr. Obama will veto it.

Is the Obama Administration saying it’s more concerned about protecting content delivered by rogue web sites? If what is currently on the books was effective against infringement on American copyrights, would this legislation have been brought forward? What alternative legislation has the Obama Administration offered?

Sounds like Expedia, Nextag, and Yelp need to create their own version of “Mad Men.” According to The Wall Street Journal, the companies will be on Capitol Hill today ganging up on Google, and making their case that the Internet’s biggest search engine unfairly diverts search engine consumers to its online properties while forcing Expedia, Nextag, and Yelp below the consumers eyeball levels.

Sometimes I believe these companies are so locked into “the cloud” that they are oblivious to the rest of their environment. Rather than seeking out innovative methods of competing, the allegedly sophisticated companies would rather have the government intervene thus making a competitive market look more like a regulated utility industry.

Forcing a middleman like Google to behave the way you want them to is a waste, and I don’t see how government intervention is going to aid competition. Competitors are not guaranteed survival.

Rather than look at Google primarily like a competitor, these companies, and the government, should look at Google like Whole Foods. If you want a higher eyeball level, pay a higher shelf fee.

In addition, whatever happened to going directly to the consumer. If Expedia, Nextag, and Yelp value their services that much, maybe it’s time for them to do some more old fashioned face time with the hotels and airlines.

A couple days ago I had a flashback to the 1970s. It happens more and more as one approaches eligibility age for AARP benefits. Anyway, as I started buckling up, I thought about the freedom I enjoyed as a child from not having to buckle up. Freedom. Back then it was an integral part of the driving experience.

On the information superhighway we also have to buckle up. To avoid a negative experience while surfing the Web, we are encouraged to change our passwords, update our firewalls, and only go to websites we trust. These precautions make sense. But the question is, should these precautions include a driver’s license for the Internet?

That appears to be what the Obama administration is proposing. According to a blog post published in The New York Times, the administration is currently drafting a proposal that allows consumers to voluntarily sign up for a national electronic identification card. This one piece of ID will allow you to sign in to a multitude of websites. The alleged rationale behind the voluntary requirement is that a national ID will help the U.S. crack down on fraud and identity theft.

I don’t know. I can buy in to putting on my seat belt to reduce my chances of physical injury. I can’t buy into a driver’s license keeping me safe on the road. Driver’s licenses are issued in order to regulate who gets access to the road. I am also concerned that what is voluntary today becomes mandatory for accessing an increasing number of websites, particularly government websites like those of the Internal Revenue Services or your local tax collector.

When you add a national Internet ID to the Federal Communications Commission’s recent rules on managing access to the Internet, it does not add up to freedom.