July 2014

Tech companies’ diversity problems are even worse at the leadership level

Data show that there's a big gap between the executives at the top of the tech pyramid and those who actually make the machines go.

This is true for Twitter, but also at Yahoo, where women account for 37 percent of the workforce but only 23 percent of leadership positions. Whites make up only 50 percent of Yahoo's US employees, but as much as 78 percent of its US-based leadership. Asians make up more than a third of Facebook's overall workforce. Yet only 19 percent have made it into senior-level positions.

There appears to be a ceiling at many of these companies that transcends demography.

Facebook is Silicon Valley's new powerhouse

Facebook said it passed 1.32 billion monthly active users during its ninth straight quarter of boffo financial results, the latest exclamation point in the American success story of Mark Zuckerberg.

The 2010s are shaping up as the decade of the social networking giant, as it immerses itself in mobile and video technology. "Facebook has become a tech powerhouse," says Craig Palli, chief strategy officer at app-marketing tech company Fiksu, pointing to Facebook's flourishing businesses in mobile, video and instant messaging.

Dissenting Statement Of Commissioner Ajit Pai On Grain Waiver

The Federal Communications Commission jettisons this entire framework by waiving the attributable material relationship (AMR) rule -- for the benefit of Grain Management, a private equity firm that leases 100 percent of the spectrum capacity of all of its licenses to the two largest wireless carriers in the country. This decision cannot be justified under the FCC’s waiver law, since waiving the AMR rule here eviscerates -- rather than promotes -- the purpose of the rule.

The FCC’s suggestion that the rationale underlying the AMR rule does not apply when an applicant obtained its spectrum licenses without the benefit of bidding credits simply cannot be squared with either the text of the rule or the reasoning of the FCC decision that adopted it.

In addition, the FCC’s claim that Grain’s leasing agreements do not support any inference of undue influence flatly contradicts its determinations in the context of joint sales agreements among broadcast television stations.

Finally, the decision will likely produce anomalous results, inject needless uncertainty into the FCC’s auction process, and invite arbitrageurs to make creative end-runs around our AMR rules -- all of which is unnecessary given the upcoming DE rulemaking. For all these reasons, I dissent.

Rep Barton: LPTV Bill Is 'Just Right'

The Low-powered TV (LPTV) and Translator Preservation Act of 2014, introduced by Rep Joe Barton (R-TX), was one of the subjects of the July 24 House Communications Subcommittee hearing.

The bill is intended to insure that the Federal Communications Commission takes into account the value of low-power TV stations, TV station translators and boosters when it repacks stations after the broadband incentive auctions.

The bill does not change those stations' secondary status. Some LPTV supporters do not support the bill because the FCC can force the stations to go dark if not to do so would adversely affect repacking. But it would require the FCC to take that value into account when deciding the fate of those stations, which other avowed LPTV supporters say could jeopardize the auction repacking for not much upside given that it does not change their regulatory status.

Sen Rockefeller Wants to Revolutionize How You Watch TV

Sen Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is getting ready to settle into retirement. But before he does, he'd like to upend the entire television industry.

His goal is to boost online video services like Netflix to allow them to become full-fledged competitors to cable giants like Comcast. Although his ambitious gambit is unlikely to pay off in the final few months of his 30-year career, it could lay the groundwork for future congressional action that could change how Americans watch TV.

FCC Chairman Wheeler Announces Stolen Mobile Device Working Group Members

The Federal Communications Commission announced the members of the Technological Advisory Council’s (TAC) Working Group on Mobile Device Theft Prevention.

The Council, comprised of a wide array of leading technical experts, supports the Commission’s identification of areas for innovation and development of technology policies promoting America’s competitiveness in the global economy.

The working group will report its findings and recommendations to the full Technological Advisory Council, which then will bring forward its recommendations to the Commission. The TAC is chaired by Dennis Roberson, IIT.

Chairs of Mobile Device Theft Prevention Working Group

  • Brian Daly, Director of Core Network and Government/Regulatory Standards, AT&T and member of the Technological Advisory Council
  • Robert Kubik, Director of Communications Policy and Regulatory Affairs, Samsung.

Members of the Mobile Device Theft Prevention Working Group

  • Asaf Askenazi, Director of Product Management, Qualcomm
  • Jay Barbour, Certified Information Systems Security Professional and Security Director, Blackberry
  • Brad Blanken, Vice President of Industry Development, Competitive Carriers Association
  • Craig Boswell, President, Hobi
  • Eric Feldman, Associate Deputy Assistant Director, Cyber Crimes Center, Department of Homeland Security
  • John Foust, Special Assistant, Executive Office of the Chief of Police, Washington (DC) Metropolitan Police Department
  • Les Gray, Chief Operations Officer, Recipero
  • Joe Heaps, Policy Advisor, National Institute of Justice
  • Gary Jones, Senior Director and Head of Technical Standards Policy, T-Mobile
  • Sang Kim, Principal Researcher, LG
  • Jake Laperruque, Fellow on Privacy, Surveillance, and Security, Center for Democracy and Technology
  • John Marinho, Vice President of Technology and CyberSecurity, CTIA – The Wireless Association
  • Special Agent Samuel Messinger, US Secret Service
  • Jason Novak, Manager of Privacy Engineering, Apple
  • Kirthika Parmeswaran, Principal Solutions Architect, Ericsson
  • Greg Post, President, Recipero (Alternate)
  • Ian Robertson, Vice President of Security, Engineering, and Innovation, Motorola Mobility
  • Deepti Rohatgi, Mobile Security Policy Advisor, Lookout
  • Mark Romer, Senior Director, Asurion Mobile Applications
  • Mike Rou, Senior Manager, eBay
  • Matt Rowe, Vice President and General Counsel, Gazelle
  • Special Agent Christian Schorle, FBI Newark, Cyber Task Force
  • David Strumwasser, Principal Member of Technical Staff, Verizon
  • Maxwell Szabo, Legislative Affairs and Policy Manager, Office of District Attorney George Gascón
  • Nick Tucker, Program Manager, Microsoft
  • Samir Vaidya, Director of Technology, Verizon (Alternate).

China’s digital transformation

For China’s small enterprises, greater digitization provides an opportunity to boost their labor productivity, collaborate in new ways, and expand their reach via e-commerce.

New applications of the Internet could account for up to 22 percent of China’s labor-productivity growth by 2025. Greater adoption of web technologies in China could lead to the introduction of entirely new products and services if government and industry take the right steps to maximize the potential.

A new report from the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), : The Internet’s impact on productivity and growth, projects that new Internet applications could fuel some 7 to 22 percent of China’s incremental GDP growth through 2025, depending on the rate of adoption. That translates into 4 trillion to 14 trillion renminbi in annual GDP in 2025.

Behind Comcast’s truthy ad campaign for net neutrality

[Commentary] Comcast has been engaged in a public relations battle lately to convince policymakers and the public that it is all in favor of network neutrality, or the idea that Internet traffic should be treated equally by Internet service providers no matter where it came from or what's contained in it.

In an ongoing ad campaign, Comcast touts that it's the only Internet service provider (or ISP) legally bound by "full" net neutrality and that the company wants to expand that commitment to even more people.

None of what Comcast has claimed is factually untrue. But the company omits some facts in its advertising that gives the impression that it is unconditionally committed to "full" net neutrality, whatever that might mean, when the bigger picture is somewhat more complicated.

What Comcast doesn't say is that its commitment to "full" net neutrality expires in 2018. After that, it will no longer be legally bound to follow the 2010 rules, and it'll be free to abandon that commitment literally overnight. Comcast does not note this detail in its ads; nor does it explain how its policies may change in 2018.

ISPs are spending less on their networks as they make more money off them

It turns out that, as a percentage of the money they pull in, Internet service providers (ISPs) have generally spent less on infrastructure over time -- from a high of 37 percent of revenue in some cases to a low of around 12 percent more recently. This affects how reliable your connections are, what kind of speeds you get and the amount you pay for service each month.

Some companies are building out fiber directly to the home. But not all; fiber is expensive. The question now is whether ISP spending will rise again to meet the new demand.

Title II is the only path to net neutrality. Here’s why almost nobody thinks the FCC will take it

[Commentary] This is the Federal Communications Commission’s dilemma as it tries to design rules to prevent broadband providers from playing favorites when they deliver web traffic: It has a big stick, called “Title II,” but most people think the agency lacks the political juice to wield it against some very powerful companies.

And while some have proposed “light touch” options to avoid a confrontation, that may be wishful thinking: FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler will have to go all-in and swing the Title II stick, or just it lay down altogether. Simply put, Chairman Wheeler won't wield his only weapon because Title II advocates just don’t have the money and lobbying firepower to challenge the telecom industry