Benton RSS Feed
Google has made a bid to avoid an antitrust war with Brussels by offering to label information from its in-house services that are included in its search results pages, according to people familiar with the search giant’s submission.
Under the proposal, Google would put its brand on any of its own maps, stock quotes, airline flight details or other pieces of information returned with search results. It is an attempt to resolve regulators’ fears that Google is unfairly squeezing out other specialist information services on the web. However, the idea has drawn complaints privately from some of the company’s fiercest competitors, who said Google could still rob rivals of online traffic by promoting its own services more prominently than others.
Google offers to brand web search results
For more than a year, the Federal Trade Commission has been conducting a broad antitrust investigation into the way Google runs its Internet search and search advertising businesses. But in recent months it has added another investigation into Google’s competitive behavior. This time, the focus is on phones — specifically, on patents that apply to lucrative smartphone technology, and the conduct of Google’s Motorola Mobility subsidiary.
The FTC issued subpoenas in June seeking information from Google and smartphone rivals including Apple and Microsoft, and it questioned representatives of the companies as recently as a few weeks ago, said people briefed on the investigation. Google owns patents covering communications and data-handling technologies that are crucial for the basic operation of smartphones and tablets — what are known as standard-essential patents. The investigators are scrutinizing the company’s policies for licensing these patents and suing other companies that it claims are infringing on them, said these people, who spoke on the condition that they not be identified. Google’s Motorola unit pledged to technology standards organizations that it would license the patents to others on “fair and reasonable” terms to stimulate the growth of the industry, benefiting all companies.
Widening Scrutiny of Google’s Smartphone Patents
[Commentary] Congress has recessed until after the November elections without passing cybersecurity legislation, which a bipartisan chorus of prominent defense and intelligence officials says is urgently needed to protect our country’s economic and national security. Since Congress has not been able to find common ground on cybersecurity legislation, I appreciate the president’s stated intention to fortify the security of critical cybersystems through his executive powers.
We know our adversaries are already stealing valuable intellectual property and exploiting our critical infrastructure to prepare for attack. Under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Department of Homeland Security has clear authority to conduct risk assessments of critical infrastructure, identify the systems or assets that are most vulnerable to cyberattack, and issue voluntary standards for them to maintain adequate cybersecurity. Executive action is not the best way to protect the United States from cyberattacks. Without congressional action, the president cannot offer liability protections to industry to reward compliance with voluntary security guidelines. Nor can he require industry to report major cyber-intrusions. But the president can encourage owners of critical infrastructure to improve their cybersecurity by identifying systems and assets that pose the greatest risk and recommending measures necessary to protect them.
The dangers of delaying heightened cybersecurity
A congressional report that urged American companies to stop doing business with Chinese telecom equipment makers Huawei and ZTE has triggered a fresh wave of complaints against the firms, opening a second phase to the panel's investigation.
A staff member of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee said the panel has been receiving "dozens and dozens" of calls from current and former employees and customers reporting supposedly suspicious equipment behavior, chiefly involving Huawei. "I don't think the companies should expect our attention to stop," the staff member told Reuters, adding that the panel would follow up on new leads.
US panel to probe new wave of complaints against Huawei, ZTE
Congressional critics allege Huawei Technologies Co. relied on state support and stolen technology to become the world's second-largest provider of telecom equipment. Another factor has been crucial to Huawei's rise, say the Chinese company's executives: IBM.
In its report, the House intelligence committee said Huawei only provided a vague description of the advice it got from IBM and other consultants, rejecting Huawei's claim that its success was due in part to those relationships. IBM declined to discuss its relationship with Huawei in detail, saying only that it provides consulting for thousands of clients across the globe. IBM helped teach Huawei Western management techniques and packaged its technology with the Chinese company's products, helping Huawei evolve from a local player into a global competitor, according to Huawei executives and public documents. Its consultants have worked with Huawei since the late 1990s and continue to assist it with important initiatives.
Huawei's Ally: IBM
A scathing U.S. congressional report may make it more difficult for Huawei Technologies Inc. to win new American business. But just across the border in Canada, the Chinese company is enjoying a much warmer reception.
During a visit to Beijing earlier this year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper presided over an official announcement that Huawei had agreed to help BCE Inc.'s Bell Canada unit and Telus Corp. update their wireless networks. The two companies are, respectively, Canada's No. 2 and No. 3 carrier by subscriber base. Earlier this year, Huawei opened a 46,000-square-foot, 300-person Canadian headquarters in Ontario. It has a research and development center in Ottawa and recently received a grant of 6.5 million Canadian dollars (US$6.7 million) from the Ontario government to invest in the center. Huawei says it has "procured" more than $400 million from Canadian companies for local and global operations.
Huawei's Business Grows in Canada
Canada indicated strongly it would exclude Chinese telecom equipment giant Huawei Technologies from helping to build a secure Canadian government communications network because of possible security risks.
Canada has invoked a national security exception to let it discriminate, without violating international trade obligations, against companies deemed as too risky to be involved in putting together the network for carrying government phone calls, emails and data center services, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's spokesman told a news conference. "The government's going to be choosing carefully in the construction of this network, and it has invoked the national security exception for the building of this network," Andrew MacDougall, spokesman for the Conservative prime minister, said. "I'll leave it to you if you think ... Huawei should be a part of a Canadian government security system," MacDougall said.
Huawei faces exclusion from planned Canada government network
How much money would Washington save if it stopped subsidizing Big Bird?
It should come as no surprise that cutting Big Bird off the US dole would save very little money, relatively speaking. In part that’s because Sesame Workshop, the company that produces “Sesame Street,” gets most of its money from sources other than Uncle Sam. Sesame Workshop’s total revenue for 2009 was about $130 million. Of that, about $7.9 million came directly from government grants. So, a rounding error in a Pentagon checkbook. Now, Big Bird gets program fees from stations, too. Sesame Workshop lists $27 million in content distribution revenue. Some of that comes from federal dollars funneled to local PBS entities. Let’s figure that 8 percent of Sesame Workshop’s total budget comes from the government. That’s the figure the company has quoted in recent media reports. Given a $130 million overall budget, that comes in at about $10.4 million. Given that this year’s federal deficit is $1.1 trillion, Big Bird is nothing but speck of dust on a mote on a dandelion that Horton the Elephant is trying to save from being boiled in oil. Of course, “Sesame Street” is only one program.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting – funding partner of PBS and National Public Radio – got about $445 million in 2012 from the federal budget. Axing that, as Romney promises to do, would save a bit more. Still, even $445 million wouldn’t pay for a computer system on one of the new ships Romney wants to add to the Navy. So why bother to go after it?
Presidential debate 101: How much would US save by cutting off Big Bird?
President Barack Obama’s campaign has transformed an 8-foot yellow Muppet into its mascot — but Democrats remain divided over whether the idea is big or bird-brained.
For Obama aides, mocking Mitt Romney’s pledge to cut funding for PBS and Big Bird means more than throwing up a flutter of feathers to distract from the rising anxiety among Democrats since last week’s debate. And it means more than just using a children’s character to turn Romney into a caricature of a big, bad budget-cutting Republican. The Obama campaign is trying to do what the president failed to do in Denver: Pin down Romney for being short on specifics and act a bit silly themselves to highlight what they say is a lack of seriousness on the other side. Romney’s response, and that of worried Democrats, is that if Obama wants to recover from the first debate and win a second term, he’s going to need more than a giant 6-year-old bird who sleeps in a nest with a teddy bear.
Obama's Big Bird bet
CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Romney whether he regretted mentioning Big Bird during last week's presidential debate, a statement that was ridiculed in an ad released by the Obama campaign. Far from showing any sign of regret, Romney doubled-down.
"We've got 23 million Americans out of work, or struggling to get a full time job. We've got one-out-of-six Americans now in poverty, 47 million on food stamps, and the President is spending his time talking about saving Big Bird," Romney told Blitzer. "I think people understand that we can't keep on spending like there's no tomorrow, we can't keep on borrowing and spending massively more than we take in every year," Romney went on to say. "Big Bird is going to be just fine, Sesame Street is a very successful enterprise. I don't believe CNN gets government funding, but somehow ya'll stay on the air." "I just think that PBS will be able to make it on its own, and it does not require us to go to China to borrow money to keep PBS on the air," he said.
Romney doubles-down on Big Bird