The first was last year in Hillsboro, Oregon, and during the visit, Intel CEO Paul Otellini announced that the new chip plant, or “fab” as they’re usually called, would be built in Arizona.

The main reason that Obama loves Intel is that it’s an example of the kind of manufacturing work that he’d like to see more of in America. As such, the sight of Intel spending $5 billion to build a new plant and adding 4,000 jobs is the sort of thing that any president would like to stand close to, especially at the onset of what looks to be a tough re-election campaign. It’s also one of those rare companies that’s riding high despite an uncertain global economy.

One thing Obama certainly didn’t mention was that Intel added plants in Israel and China in the last year as well. He’s also in no hurry to remind the audience that the chips that Intel makes will be shipped to China and inserted into computers and servers, many of which will be shipped into the United States.

We also learned this week from the New York Times, Obama seemed vaguely baffled by the notion that Apple’s iPhone is manufactured in China, and in a meeting in Silicon Valley last year asked Apple CEO Steve Jobs why they couldn’t be made in the U.S. Jobs’s answer, which is correct: Those jobs aren’t coming back. David Ricardo’s law of Comparative Advantage strikes again.

Anyway, the only video of the full speech that I’ve found came from the local TV station, ABC15, and thankfully they have made it embeddable.

In his remarks, the president is impressed both with the grand scale of things involved in building chips — he remembers seeing an electron microscope at Intel’s plant in Oregon that was powerful enough to display atoms, which is certainly impressive. In Chandler he’s impressed with what he says is the world’s largest land-based crane, which is being used in the construction effort. Enjoy the speech.

(Image is a screen grab from earlier in the video.)

Since leaving the White House, McLaughlin served as executive director at Civic Commons — a nonprofit dedicated to apps for local government — and taught a class at Stanford Law School.

McLaughlin was a key voice in Google’s internal debates about its operations in China five years ago, which is a huge issue for social media companies.

You can find McLaughlin’s Tumblr, where he posts a few photos a month, here.

New York-based Tumblr runs 36.5 million blogs and has a staff of about 60.

Well, Mr. and Ms. Entrepreneur, your friends at IBM are thinking of you today. Big Blue will today announce the availability of $1 billion in new financing options specifically aimed at small and medium businesses to pay for purchases of new tech hardware, software and services.

Now before you roll your eyes, harrumph, and restrain yourself from saying “Who cares about small and medium businesses anyway?” allow me to answer: You do. In the U.S., small businesses account for a huge swath of the economy, accounting for about two-thirds of new jobs created over the last 15 years, and they hired 40 percent of high-tech workers. They also employ roughly 90 percent of the workforce of the entire world.

And get this: According to IBM, the total amount spent on technology each year by small and medium businesses — IBM defines them as having fewer than 1,000 employees — amounts to a quarter of a trillion dollars.

Compared to that, well, a billion is a little slice. But when credit is hard to get from ever-more-cautious banks in a tough economy, CIOs will see it as a welcome move. Half of small businesses crash and burn within five years because they can’t get access to capital.

Not only is IBM making the cash available but it is making it easy to get. Most of IBM’s small and medium business customers interact with Big Blue not directly, but through business partners — third parties like CDW and Ingram Micro — who sell IBM gear and do the heavy lifting associated with getting different bits of hardware and software working right. They also tend not to have huge IT departments as larger companies do, says Andy Monshaw, the general manager of IBM Midmarket Business. “It’s a really fragmented market with literally thousands of local players,” he says. “It’s a market based on long-term local relationships.”

Entrepreneurs are running up against expectations of the so-called “consumerization of IT.” They have easy-to-use technology at home, but the stuff at the office is older and not cutting it. One big thing these companies are looking at is cloud computing. An IBM survey found that 60 percent of them are shopping around for cloud services. That got the attention of IBM’s Global Financing unit, which helps customers pay for new gear and services in much the same way that car dealers help people buy cars — by providing attractive financing packages.

On top of that, IBM has come up with a long list of products and services that are priced in ways that make sense to smaller companies — stuff that gets charged on a per-user or consumption basis. IBM has hacked together a list of products and services to fit with the effort, including cloud services, analytics and security, as well as products from recent acquisitions like Netezza, Cognos and Cast Iron.

Certainly there’s a lot of hand-wringing going on, especially in the U.S., about what it will take to get the economy creating jobs again. In fact, the president of the United States is going to talk about that very subject in an address to Congress and the nation tonight. And a survey done by Pepperdine University and Dun & Bradstreet found that 35 percent of small business owners say their biggest impediment to hiring more workers is access to capital.

President Obama made the appeal in a prime time address to the nation from the White House last night, and it appears that the American people listened. The Washington Post reports that the telephone switchboard at the Capitol is being flooded with calls. And there are reports that the Web servers for certain members of Congress have crashed under a surge in traffic.

Among the sites that went down: That of Speaker of the House John Boehner, the Ohio Republican who addressed the nation after the president. Others down as of 8:30 am Pacific time were those of Elliot Engel, Democratic representative from New York; Sen. Jim DeMint, a Republican senator from South Carolina; and Rep. Michelle Bachmann, the Republican from Minnesota now running for president. (Bachmann’s appears to be variously up and down, but slow to respond.) The Wall Street Journal has more.

Meanwhile, the president’s Web site is operating normally.

But Facebook is still trying to find a path to Washington, where the company has only a fledgling lobbying operation, even though it finds its privacy policies under increasing scrutiny and is trying to navigate a politically sensitive expansion into China.

In seven years, Facebook has risen from a tiny start-up to an Internet power with a potential market value estimated at more than $50 billion. Now an online forum with more than 600 million users, Facebook faces growing pressure from lawmakers and regulators concerned about the way it uses personal information shared by its users.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

U.S. companies are learning this the painful way.

Multinationals are again complaining to U.S. trade officials about a problem they thought was resolved months ago. When China’s President Hu Jintao met with President Barack Obama in January, he agreed to cancel rules that required foreign companies to design their products in China if they hoped to sell to the government–essentially a forced technology transfer.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

The decision has baffled nearly everyone I’ve talked to about it. While changes were expected at Cisco, especially in light of last week’s letter by CEO John Chambers to employees in which he promised “bold steps” and “tough decisions” and “surgical precision” with regard to what needs fixing at Cisco, it’s hard to see how shutting down the Flip unit, even for its meager size within the giant company that Cisco is, amounts to a good business decision.

If Cisco wanted to be rid of the Flip Digital business, why not try to sell it? I asked a Cisco spokeswoman about this today and the only answer I got back: “We performed a detailed analysis and determined that the best decision was to shut it down.”

It can’t have been much of an analysis judging by the reaction among consumers and other companies who might have been interested in buying it–had they been approached. There are probably several companies in addition to the three who made themselves known to BoomTown’s Kara Swisher who would have been interested in buying the Flip business from Cisco.

Exhibit A: As I noted earlier today, the Flip is the best-selling consumer camcorder in the U.S., according to the market research firm NPD, beating out names like Sony, Kodak and Canon.

And yes, I’ll grant it’s a small business when compared to the rest of Cisco’s large carrier-class and enterprise networking and switching unit business, but look at these numbers from Cisco’s most recent 10-K filing. Cisco reported $40.4 billion in revenue last year. Sales in the Flip business unit were small enough that they got lumped into the “other revenue” category along with sales generated by the newly acquired Tandberg video conferencing business and a batch of others.

This “other revenue” totaled $2.6 billion in Cisco’s fiscal 2010, up from $1.6 billion in fiscal 2009. The biggest single factor for that billion-dollar boost was $317 million in Flip camera sales. You read that right: Cisco just shut down a business that brought in $317 million in sales in its last fiscal year.

And yes, that amounts to less than one percent of Cisco’s overall sales. But it had to be a profitable business. I submit as Exhibit B a teardown analysis of the Flip Mino HD camera conducted by the market research firm IHS iSuppli shortly after Cisco’s $590 million acquisition of Pure Digital in March of 2009.

At that time, a Flip Mino HD cost $54.23 in direct materials to build. The four gigabyte model is still available today and sells for $160 at retail. This suggests that the gross margin on that model was easily in the 60 percent range. Additional costs of distribution and marketing and software can’t have eaten too far into that. Plus? That was two years ago. While flash memory costs are certainly volatile, all the other parts used in the camera have probably come down in cost since then.

On top of that, there’s brand equity that would have added to the potential price a buyer might have paid. Cisco poured considerable resources–though small by Cisco measures–into advertising the Flip camera. As Exhibit C, I submit the long progression of TV ads that Cisco aired to promote the brand. While it’s hard to say they were great ads, they worked, and they showed a lot of potential for the brand. Everyone knows what you mean when you say “a flip,” and as any branding expert will tell you, that kind of recognition doesn’t come easily. It’s also no small thing to get the daughter of the president of the United States to use your product during so momentous an occasion as a presidential inauguration. Oprah Winfrey praised them on her show, and on a day in 2007 gave one to everyone in the studio audience. Make no mistake, the Flip was and is a culturally significant product.

And with broad recognition comes a willingness by finicky retailers to take the risk and put the product on their shelves. Exhibit D: In its relatively short life, Flip cameras wound up in Best Buy, WalMart, Amazon and scores of other stores. A good retail distribution network isn’t easy to build. The Flip camera had it, and in fact most of the heavy lifting had already been done. All Cisco had to do was keep building them.

All this is not to say that the Flip brand didn’t have its challenges, not least of all from the iPhone and numerous other smartphones. But there are lots of products that at least on paper are made obsolete by others encroaching on their territory, yet continue to exist for years. Not everyone has an Apple iPhone, nor even a smartphone, and not everyone has the presence of mind to use their phone to shoot video. Doing one thing well is for some people a virtue.

Take for example the cassette-playing Walkman stereo, which existed alongside the Discman portable CD player for years despite the obvious superiority of the compact disc. Some people without the patience to use or buy a smartphone would have continued to gravitate to the Flip for its simplicity and reliability. With a Flip camera there’s practically nothing to learn: Push the red button to start and stop recording, and plug the camera into your computer when you’re done. Though in the last year the product family had shown a pronounced lack of vision: The Flipshare TV device and the Slide HD camera were not well thought out extensions of the brand. Both were launched on Cisco’s watch, and as an indicator of unannounced products in the pipeline, they don’t say anything good.

Yet it’s hard to imagine that the Flip camera couldn’t improve incrementally over time. One thing its devotees always wanted, but never got? An external microphone port. And given all the professional bloggers and reporters who used Flips to enhance their journalistic efforts–I know at least half a dozen journalism professors who rewrote their lesson plans after their first encounter with a Flip–why wasn’t there ever a Flip Pro?

Cisco paid a big price for Pure Digital: $590 million in stock. Given that it contributed $317 million revenue in fiscal 2010, that valuation may not have been unreasonable. We don’t know what Pure Digital’s revenues were in the prior year. But let’s assume they were, say, $150 million, or less than half in the prior year. That would make the multiple that Cisco paid less than four times trailing revenue. Not a crazy price by any means.

So what price could it command now? That’s harder to say. There is, I admit, a pretty good chance that Cisco might have ended up selling it for less than it paid. Certainly no company wants to do that. On the day the acquisition was announced, Cisco shares were trading at $16.23, a dollar and change lower than they are trading today. I’m no accountant, but I have to wonder if there’s some kind of tax advantage to shutting it down versus selling it. (Feel free to leave suggestions in the comments.) But it’s also possible–if not likely–that a sale would bring in more than the $300 million restructuring charge that Cisco is taking to shut it down, re-align other business and fire 550 people. Though for a $40 billion company, it hardly seems worth the effort: $300 million amounts to three-quarters of one percent of revenue, making the potential proceeds mere pocket change.

Which brings me to my final point: Why did Cisco buy the Flip business in the first place? Ostensibly it was about consumer video or something. Cisco floated this utopian vision of consumers flocking to buy ?mi video conferencing systems for their homes and carrying Flip cameras in their purses and pockets and sending videos of school plays and soccer games to Grandma over Cisco-made home networks that were in turn connected to an Internet largely powered by Cisco’s industrial-strength routers and switches.

It wasn’t necessarily the wrong vision (well, maybe ?mi was, but let’s leave that aside for the moment). It may be that Cisco was simply the wrong owner. Cisco’s purchase was puzzling in 2009 and still seems puzzling now. But more puzzling is why Cisco seems to have gone to no effort whatsoever to find the Flip–and the several hundred people responsible for making it–a suitable home.

“Modern technology allows private entities to observe the activity of Americans on a scale that is unimaginable, and there is no general law” governing the collection and use of that data, Sen. Kerry told the Senate Commerce Committee.

The Massachusetts lawmaker said he was working with others and soon planned to introduce a “privacy bill of rights.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Lawrence E. Strickling, an assistant secretary of commerce, is expected to call for the legislation at a hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee, said a person familiar with the matter.

This person said the administration will back a law that follows the outlines of a report issued by the Commerce Department in December. The administration wants any new rules to be enforceable and will look to expand the Federal Trade Commission’s authority, this person said.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Earlier in the day Intel CEO Paul Otellini agreed to join the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, which is chaired by General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt. Otellini announced some more good news: Plans to build a new $5 billion-plus chip factory in Arizona and hire 4,000 workers there. (Yay, America…meanwhile Oregon still gets D1X) The text of Otellini’s prepared remarks is below the video.

What a difference a year makes. At this time last year, Intel was preparing to defend itself against an antitrust lawsuit brought by Obama’s Federal Trade Commission. A settlement last August brought an end to that. Now Obama and Intel totally heart each other, as you can see in the video below, shot by The Oregonian.

The visit followed last night’s dinner at the home of venture capitalist John Doerr with numerous Silicon Valley execs, where POTUS sat between Apple CEO Steve Jobs and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

Video streaming by Ustream

Remarks (as prepared) by Paul Otellini, President and CEO of Intel Corporation, during President Obama’s visit to Intel’s campus in Hillsboro, Ore., on Feb. 18, 2011.

Good morning and welcome. And Governor Kitzhaber, thank you for being here. I’m excited to be here today to celebrate American innovation and American manufacturing.

Our country and this company have been built on innovation – and manufacturing has been at the heart of America’s economy for over a century. Technology and the semiconductor industry have been driving economic growth for the last 50 years. In fact, when averaged over the last 5 years, the semiconductor industry is the nation’s #1 exporter.
Today we celebrate the construction of Intel’s new semiconductor manufacturing plant called D1X.

For the past 2 years I have been discussing the need to re-ignite innovation in the U.S as a means of creating jobs and wealth in our society.

I believe the world of technology and a vibrant manufacturing base lies at the heart of creating this future. This is one of the reasons for our continued investment in Oregon, and our commitment to build Fab D1X.

This new factory will play a central role extending Intel’s unquestioned leadership in semiconductor manufacturing. The transistors and chips it will produce will be the most dynamic platform for innovation that our company has ever created.

Together they will enable more capable computers, the most advanced consumer electronics and mobile devices, the brains inside the next generation of robotics, and thousands of other applications that have yet to be invented.
I’d like to pause for a moment to give you a glimpse of what will be involved in creating such a technologically advanced operation.

D1X will be a vital addition to what is already one of the largest and most advanced semiconductor research and manufacturing sites in the world. Building it we will create approximately 3,000 construction jobs over 2 years. The structure will require 19 tons of steel, 40 miles of pipe, and 13,000 truckloads of cement. When finished, D1X will have a cleanroom as big as 4 football fields. It is scheduled for start-up in 2013; and it will be the first 14-nanometer microprocessor factory in the world.

Intel is a global company today, and proudly so. Yet, we think of ourselves as an American enterprise. Intel generates three-fourths of its revenues overseas, yet maintains three-fourths of its manufacturing here in the United States. The company sets the bar for world-class manufacturing around the world.

We believe in this country’s power to create a future where America maintains its unparalleled global leadership and where jobs in 21st century industries are created and flourish. I am pleased that the President and his Administration have taken a number of steps to invest in innovation and education so that we are building the skills needed to achieve success in the 21st century and grow the economy. At Intel, we believe that we will help create this future.

Building such a future requires more than just investments in technology and manufacturing. We need to also invest in educating and training the workers that will invent and manage the industries of the future. At Intel, for example, over half of our 82,000-person workforce has technical degrees and nearly 8,000 hold a Master’s degree or Ph.D. Looking forward, we are concerned that there may be a shortfall of qualified experts in science and math in this country to meet the needs of our industry.

There are two fundamental solutions to this problem. First, revitalizing math and science education will generate qualified, interested and motivated students, and drive increased enrollments in our great graduate schools. Then, government and businesses need to make sure all of these graduates are given an opportunity to work in this great country.

I want to commend the President for his leadership and focus on improving our science, technology, engineering and math education. He has taken actions — including key steps like making STEM a priority — in his $4 billion Race to the Top competition and his Educate to Innovate campaign.

I’m proud to tell you that over the last decade, Intel has invested nearly $1 billion in education around the world, especially math and science education. Our Intel Teach program has already trained more than 9 million teachers worldwide — with nearly half a million right here in the in the U.S. — to integrate technology into and the learning process. The result is improved critical thinking and problem solving skills. We view these efforts — and our many other education initiatives — as vital investments in the next innovators, thinkers, scientists, and entrepreneurs.

This investment comes full circle when we can then hire the people we are investing in.

I’m proud to announce that this year Intel will hire 4,000 new permanent, highly skilled employees in the U.S. above and beyond the factory jobs that I previously mentioned.

These new employees will focus on areas that span the exploration of new materials to create even smaller transistors, to products that we believe will transform the way that healthcare and education are delivered, to “future technologies” that involve augmented reality and computers that can read minds, or at least anticipate your needs!

The investments I’ve discussed today are long-term investments in the things that make innovation possible. They also send a clear message that the United States will remain the location for Intel’s most advanced technology development and manufacturing.

And, I’ve saved the best news for last.

I’m happy to announce another NEW multi-billion dollar investment in America. Intel will soon begin construction in Arizona on a greater than $5 billion manufacturing facility called Fab 42 that will focus on 14-nm silicon process technology and beyond. When completed, Fab 42 will be THE most advanced high-volume semiconductor factory in the world. This activity will create thousands of construction and permanent manufacturing jobs in this country above and beyond what I’ve described earlier.

My closing message is that the best way forward for us is to unleash the unmatched creative energies of the people of this country to transform our manufacturing base for the 21st century. Intel is proud to do its part to create this promising future.

With that, ladies and gentleman, I’m pleased to introduce the President of the United States.

Nestled within that amount was $350 million to draw a map showing a detailed, block-by-block inventory of the existing broadband infrastructure in the U.S. It took two years, but the results were unveiled by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration today on the Web site Broadbandmap.gov.

This is far from the first time someone has tried to tackle the problem of mapping existing broadband pipes in order to show where service is lacking. But prior attempts have generally been haphazard because service providers tend to carefully guard the precise maps of their physical plant as competitively sensitive. And prior federal efforts fell short because the maps were based on ZIP codes. If one person in some geographically large but sparsely populated rural ZIP code had access to service, prior federal maps showed that area as “served,” even if the majority of the population didn’t have access. The new map uses the far more granular census tracts.

The map shows some new data that shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who’s been following the saga of broadband in America: Anywhere from 5 to 10 percent of Americans lack access to broadband at acceptable speeds. Recall that the Federal Communications Commission last July set a benchmark of 4 megabits per second downstream and 1 MBPS upstream as what it considers acceptable.

Another key finding is that so-called “community anchor institutions” are going without adequate access to broadband. These are schools, libraries and hospitals, where different kinds of services are needed. As a rule of thumb, a school needs about 50 to 100 MBPS for every 1,000 students, and most of the schools surveyed had speeds of 25 MBPS or less, and precious few libraries reported speeds approaching that.

When residential service isn’t available, these are the institutions that people turn to when they need to use the Internet. A few years ago I visited a rural county in Tennessee where the local library had broadband and provided free wireless. If you watched the parking lot after the library was closed you’d often see people pull their cars up with laptops and use the Wi-Fi to work on homework assignments with the kids. Even the local sheriff’s deputies would pull up and use it to check their email.

There was some good news. Alongside the map, the NTIA released a separate report on broadband adoption. It found that 68 percent of households have access to a cable modem, a DSL line or a home fiber connection, up from less than 64 percent a year ago. The usual demographic disparities remain: People living on low incomes or with disabilities, along with seniors, minorities and those with low educational attainment, tend to lag behind other groups in home access. The city-country divide remains as well: 70 percent of city dwellers, versus 60 percent of rural residents, access broadband at home.

But here’s a stat that should surprise you: 28.3 percent of all the people in the nation do not use the Internet, period. That’s down about two percentage points from a year ago, but still means that out of every 25 Americans, seven don’t use the Internet at all. I don’t know about you, but that surprises me.

The closed-door meeting is a chance for Mr. Obama to discuss how the government and business community can work together to strengthen the economy and support entrepreneurship. Still, for many in the tech community, the bigger focus might be on Mr. Jobs, who has been on medical leave since last month.

Other business and technology executives will also be at the meeting.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The president flew to Michigan to deliver his remarks on the subject and saw a demonstration of WiMAX technology in use at Northern Michigan University.

Obama hopes to build this network with money raised from two key sources, thankfully neither involving any additional direct burden on taxpayers. First he’d like to make changes to the Universal Service Fund, which has historically been used to help connect remote and rural areas to the telephone network. Some $5 billion from that fund that currently goes to subsidize phones in rural areas will instead be put to work building wireless towers and other related infrastructure in places where such networks don’t yet exist. Police, firefighters and other emergency workers would get access to their own wireless network built with another $10 billion. Yet another $3 billion would go toward research and development on other ways to use wireless networks.

That’s almost $19 billion. Where will it come from? Spectrum auctions. The administration hopes to raise nearly $28 billion by re-auctioning some of the spectrum currently held by TV broadcasters but no longer actively used. (About $10 billion would go toward reducing the deficit.) The rub is that TV broadcasters are resisting pressure from the president and the Federal Communications Commission to voluntarily give that spectrum back. Under the plan being considered, broadcasters would get some portion of the proceeds from the auctions–no word yet on how much.

These give-backs are supposedly going to be voluntary, and one priority the National Association of Broadcasters hopes to see in this plan is a provision that allows broadcasters to opt out of the process without penalty. This suggests that the administration will get some spectrum back in some places, but not in others, creating the potential for a sort of inconsistent patchwork. More on the particulars of the plan here.

Building out the Internet is certainly a laudable goal. As I’ve written before, an Internet connection is now as essential to modern life as electric lights and running water. Places without adequate network coverage are essentially locked out of participating in the economic and cultural discourse that so many of us take for granted every day.

Consider for a moment how much of the recent political campaigns was conducted on the Web, and then ask yourself how well-informed a voter you’d be without relatively fast access to the Web day in and day out. As the Communications Workers of America pointed out in a recent study, roughly one American in three doesn’t have access to broadband at home; some choose not to have it, but other want it but can’t get it.

I thought about this a bit when I read that a new undersea fiber-optic Internet cable had been laid to improve access to the Internet in Cuba, courtesy of an international aid program paid for by Venezuela. As it stands right now, Internet connections there are handled via slow and cumbersome satellite links, and so only about three percent of the population has access to the Web. The new cable will allow connections 3,000 times faster than currently possible.

Say what you will about the ultimate political aims of Venezuela in financing the cable, or what controls the Cuban government will likely impose upon those who use it, but you can’t deny that any improvement in getting people in Cuba connected to the Internet is a good thing. Who knows what changes a better connection might bring?

Here my thoughts turn once again to Egypt and the changes unfolding there. During the past several weeks we’ve seen the power of the Internet brought to bear in Egypt, where what’s been widely called the Facebook Revolution seems on the cusp of toppling President Hosni Mubarak. It was Mubarak who shocked the world by cutting his country off from the Internet, and it so irritated people both inside and outside Egypt that they banded together to find ways around the digital curtain he tried to erect around his borders. The same chain of events has turned a humble Google marketing exec into a national hero.

It’s at moments like this that I’m struck by the immeasurable power of the Internet to be turned into a powerful force for good and for the empowerment of people in all walks of life, with better information, better communication, more economic choices. Without passing judgment on Obama’s proposal–it’s likely to spark a fight with congressional Republicans and with various constituencies in the broadcasting and telecom industries–it’s hard not to agree with his intent. It’s unfortunate that in 2011 the country that gave birth to the Internet hasn’t yet found a way to extend its many benefits to every sector of its population.

Here are a few highlights from the president’s speech today, courtesy of the Associated Press.

Worry no more, Mr. President. Your government is on the case. The U.S. Department of Energy announced today that it has cut a deal with IBM to bring a 10-petaflop supercomputer, named “Mira,” to the Argonne National Lab in Illinois.

Mira is a Blue Gene/Q and it will be up and running in 2012. It’s 20 times faster than the current system in use at Argonne, named Intrepid, which can do 557 teraflops–or 557 trillion calculations–a second, and as recently as 2008 ranked as the third most powerful computer in the world.

Meanwhile, another even more powerful computer, also an IBM Blue Gene Q, is going to Lawrence Livermore Labs next year. This one will be a 20-petaflop monster named “Sequoia.” And there’s more where that came from. These “petascale” computers are helping scientists get their heads around the idea of “exascale” computers that would be faster yet by a factor of a thousand, performing quintillions of calculations per second. (I think a quintillion is 1 followed by 18 zeroes.)

What can you do with 10 or 20 petaflops? Meteorologists could predict local weather down to the 100-meter range with a 20-petaflop system. And running a simulation of how a beating human heart reacts to new medicine, which takes two years of computing time today, will get done in two days on a 10-petaflop system.

Take that, China.

After reminding the nation that “South Korean homes now have greater Internet access than we do,” he went on to call for a national wireless broadband network.

Within the next five years, we’ll make it possible for businesses to deploy the next generation of high-speed wireless coverage to 98 percent of all Americans. This isn’t just about–(applause)–this isn’t about faster Internet or fewer dropped calls. It’s about connecting every part of America to the digital age. It’s about a rural community in Iowa or Alabama where farmers and small business owners will be able to sell their products all over the world. It’s about a firefighter who can download the design of a burning building onto a handheld device; a student who can take classes with a digital textbook; or a patient who can have face-to-face video chats with her doctor.

It’s the latest attempt by Obama to try to solve the difficult problem of broadband penetration in America. In many places, most of them rural areas with low population density, cable and telco companies can’t make back the investments required to build out network infrastructure, and so they don’t build at all. As I’ve said here before, for Americans in those places, the options for participating in the digital culture the rest of us take for granted are few, and it often means the difference between participating and not in so much of the daily discourse that occurs online.

Part of the answer lies in taking back some radio spectrum that’s used for other things. In June, Obama signed a memorandum calling for the freeing up of certain radio frequency spectrum in the 500 MHz range. This is a block of spectrum largely owned by TV broadcasters for free over-the-air TV transmission. Broadcasters have been under pressure–and so far they are resisting–to voluntarily give those licenses up so that the spectrum can be re-auctioned off.

Julius Genachowski, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, essentially telegraphed that this is going to be the commission’s major policy priority in comments at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas earlier this month. He has said he’d like to offer broadcasters incentives to give up their spectrum, but this would require a new law passed by Congress, and those in Congress have their own ideas about how this should be done. You can expect a lot of debate about this in Washington this year, but probably not a lot of progress.

In a 4-1 vote–Commissioner Michael Copps dissented–the FCC is allowing the deal to go through, but with some conditions, most of them relating to the online video business. One key requirement that’s not happening: Comcast isn’t being required to divest itself of its equity in the Web video site Hulu, which a few lawmakers had called for. It will however be required to give up its role in managing Hulu. NBC U jointly owns it with the Walt Disney Co. and News Corp. (which also owns this Web site).

In a statement, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said the conditions imposed “include carefully considered steps to ensure that competition drives innovation in the emerging online video marketplace.”

Among those conditions, the FCC will also require Comcast to offer Web versions of its TV shows to what it calls “bona fide online distributors” under the same terms it offers them to cable and satellite providers. This would indicate that shows appearing on Hulu will probably end up on Apple TV or YouTube or elsewhere, meaning, as MediaMemo’s Peter Kafka suggested last month that Hulu’s exclusive rights to NBC content are over.

Comcast will also be required to offer broadband to some 2.5 million low-income households for less than $10 a month, and will be required to extend its network to reach 400,000 homes, build out service in six rural communities and provide free video and high-speed Internet access to 600 schools and libraries in underserved areas. This will allow Genachowski to claim some kind of victory on one of the Obama administration’s signature technology policy issues, which is spreading the availability of broadband.

In a dissenting statement, Copps called the merger “a transaction like no other that has come before this commission–ever,” and said “It confers too much power in one company’s hands.”

Harold Feld, legal director at Public Knowledge, a Washington, D.C.-based public interested group, said the organization was largely satisfied with the conditions except for one. It would have liked to see Comcast required to sell broadband service on a wholesale basis. “As longtime supporters of wholesale access, we believe such a condition would go a long way to help consumers by increasing broadband competition,” he said.

There are of course a lot of moving pieces surrounding this debate, and however the chips fall, it’s going to have a long-term effect over how the Internet operates over the next several years.

Earlier this year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski was dealt an important setback when the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC doesn’t have the legal authority to impose net neutrality rules on broadband providers. In hopes of still finding a way to rein in the providers, he’s since circulated new proposed rules that would require providers to disclose what kind of traffic they intend to throttle and why, giving consumers a little more information so they can make a more informed choice when picking a provider. And in a speech on Dec. 1, Genachowski also expressed support for “usage-based pricing,” which would essentially allow providers to charge variable pricing plans where consumers would pay higher fees for using higher amounts of bandwidth.

Certain Internet companies that aren’t providers, but who rely on having unfettered pipes through which they can deliver their services, aren’t happy with the proposed rules either. Companies like Amazon, Skype and Netflix, want stronger rules that would prevent the providers from slowing down traffic from their sites or blocking them altogether. They’ve even pushed the FCC to reconsider regulating the Internet outright as a telecommunications service, as it does the telephone system today, an idea that Genachowski briefly considered, then abandoned.

No surprise, they’ve been lobbying the FCC heavily, as have the telecom providers. According to Capital Business, a Washington Post publication, 150 organizations have hired 118 lobbying firms to try to influence the outcome of tomorrow’s vote.

The pressure isn’t stopping there. Republican commissioner Robert McDowell has pledged to vote against the rules, saying, as he did in a Wall Street Journal op-ed today, that imposing regulations would threaten everything that makes the Internet a source of innovation. Commissioner Meredith Baker Attwell, also a Republican, has attacked the proposal and similarly pledged to vote against it, arguing that only Congress, not the FCC, has the authority to regulate the Internet.

Congressional Republicans, with their heads full of steam after their November electoral wins, are rushing into the fray. Michigan’s Republican Representative Fred Upton, who will chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee when the new Congress comes into session early next year, wrote Genachowski and called his proposal “the most controversial item the FCC has had before it in a decade.”

Meanwhile, Congressional Democrats are pressing fellow Democrat Michael Copps to vote for Genachowski’s rules, fearing that a vote against them would hurt President Obama politically, as Sara Jerome wrote in Hillicon Valley. In the end, he is expected to fall in line and vote in favor.

Perhaps a harbinger of things to come is the spat between Level 3 Communications and Comcast. Level 3, which operates much of North America’s fiber-optic network, last month accused Comcast of “trying to set up a toll booth” by charging Level 3 recurring fees whenever a Comcast subscriber streamed content that got delivered by Level 3. This happened right after Level 3 cut a deal to become the primary delivery network for Netflix.

The dispute has reached sufficient intensity for Level 3 to ask federal regulators to impose conditions on Comcast in its efforts to acquire NBC Universal, arguing that Comcast’s demand for the fees “adversely changes the nature of the Internet.” The FCC may yet get serious about reviewing the merger, as Politico reported last week.

Comcast for its part has argued that Level 3 is gaming network peering rules, and has “demanded unlimited capacity at our cost.”

Whatever the outcome of tomorrow’s vote, expect lots of unhappy people.

The U.S. Commerce Department’s report stopped short of calling directly for specific privacy legislation. Instead, it recommends a “framework” to protect people from a burgeoning personal data-gathering industry and fragmented U.S. privacy laws that cover certain types of data but not others.

The report marks a turning point for federal Internet policy. During the past 15 years of the commercial Internet, Congress and executive branch agencies have largely taken a hands off approach to the Internet out of a concern that a heavy government hand would stifle innovation.

The report cites comments from some major technology companies, including Microsoft Corp. and Google Inc., expressing concerns about the current patchwork of rules and guidelines governing online privacy.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Everyone has something to say about today’s speech by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski on the subject of net neutrality (video below). Having been blocked in the courts from imposing sanctions on Comcast for throttling users of BitTorrent, the commission has been spinning its wheels trying to find a way to nudge the broadband industry in a direction toward treating all Internet content fairly.

To Genachowski and network neutrality proponents, a bit is a bit is a bit, and your broadband service provider should have nothing to say in blocking you from using the services and applications that you choose and saying what you want to say so long as you’re not breaking any laws.

It makes sense until you hear rebuttals from the providers who spend billions to build the networks, arguing that they should have some right to protect their networks from cases where the heaviest users–video-downloading BitTorrent users are the classic example–can degrade the experience of other users. Think of it as “My network, my rules.”

Without the legal authority to force net neutrality on the providers, Genachowski has circulated draft rules that would instead require them to disclose what they intend to throttle and why, so that consumers can more intelligently choose whom they’re going to do business with. If there are going to be rules, put them on a sign where all can see them before walking in the door, he’s saying here.

Gone is the talk of reclassifying broadband, which some had described as a sort of “nuclear option” that would potentially give the FCC the authority to force net neutrality on the carriers, and would have probably led to more pointless, expensive lawsuits.

The big shift came when Genachowski said he’d be open to “business innovation to promote network investment and efficient use of networks, including measures to match price to cost such as usage-based pricing.”

That means broadband providers can start creating variable price plans under which consumers will pay more for using more.

Oh, and the wireless Internet? It’s too early in its lifetime to impose any rules on it. The FCC, he said, “would closely monitor the development of the mobile broadband market and be prepared to step in to further address anti-competitive or anti-consumer conduct as appropriate.”

The reactions have been predictable:

It’s “not perfect,” but it’s reasonable, says Kyle McSlarrow, president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association. If the order changes materially, however, the group reserves the right to fight it.

It’s a step in the right direction but needs to be “strengthened,” says Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge, a Washington, D.C., public interest group.

Tyrone Brown of the Media Access Project says he is “very disappointed.” By taking the reclassification option off the table, the FCC loses a key piece of the legal authority it would otherwise need to require service providers to extend broadband service to people who don’t currently have access, which has been a key objective of the Obama administration.

Josh Silver, president of FreePress, another policy organization that advocates for net neutrality, called it “fake Net Neutrality” and said that “Genachowski is taking the same exact approach to splitting the open Internet into fast and slow lanes that Verizon and Google proposed last summer.”

Republican FCC Commissioners Robert McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker essentially promised to vote against the proposal when it comes before the commission on Dec. 21. Only Congress, Baker said, should decide if the Internet is to be regulated. Unlikely with the GOP taking control of the House in less than a month. “We don’t have authority to act,” he said.

After all that: Comcast stock is up 4 percent today; Verizon shares up one percent; Time-Warner shares are up more than two percent; Cablevision shares are up about 1.5 percent. This news will be a boon to broadband providers, says Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett in a research note issued today.

Usage-based broadband plans are probably soon to follow, which would be good for business because consumers would probably embrace them. One question for all the critics: Would that be so bad?

Here’s the video of the speech:

The strategy is expected to be unveiled in a report being issued by the U.S. Commerce Department in coming weeks, these people said. The report isn’t yet final and could change, these people said.

In a related move, the White House has created a special task force that is expected to help transform the Commerce Department recommendations into policy, these people said. The White House task force, set up three weeks ago, is led by Cameron Kerry, the brother of Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) and Commerce Department general counsel, and Christopher Schroeder, assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice.

The initiatives would mark a turning point in Internet policy. Recent administrations typically steered away from Internet regulations out of concern for stifling innovation. But the increasingly central role of personal information in the Internet economy helped spark government action, according to people familiar with the situation.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

“I can’t control what people think this was. I can only tell you my intentions. This was not a rally to ridicule people of faith or people of activism or to look down our noses at the heartland or passionate argument or to suggest that times are not difficult and that we have nothing to fear. They are and we do. But we live now in hard times, not end times. And we can have animus and not be enemies.

But unfortunately one of our main tools in delineating the two broke. The country’s 24 hour political pundit perpetual panic conflictinator did not cause our problems but its existence makes solving them that much harder. The press can hold its magnifying glass up to our problems bringing them into focus, illuminating issues heretofore unseen or they can use that magnifying glass to light ants on fire and then perhaps host a week of shows on the sudden, unexpected dangerous flaming ant epidemic.

If we amplify everything we hear nothing. There are terrorists and racists and Stalinists and theocrats but those are titles that must be earned. You must have the resume. Not being able to distinguish between real racists and Tea Partiers or real bigots and Juan Williams or Rick Sanchez is an insult, not only to those people but to the racists themselves who have put in the exhausting effort it takes to hate–just as the inability to distinguish terrorists from Muslims makes us less safe, not more. The press is our immune system. If it overreacts to everything we actually get sicker–and perhaps eczema.

And yet, with that being said, I feel good–strangely, calmly good. Because the image of Americans that is reflected back to us by our political and media process is false. It is us through a fun house mirror, and not the good kind that makes you look slim in the waist and maybe taller, but the kind where you have a giant forehead and an ass shaped like a month-old pumpkin and one eyeball.

So, why would we work together? Why would you reach across the aisle to a pumpkin assed forehead eyeball monster? If the picture of us were true, of course, our inability to solve problems would actually be quite sane and reasonable. Why would you work with Marxists actively subverting our Constitution or racists and homophobes who see no one’s humanity but their own? We hear every damn day about how fragile our country is–on the brink of catastrophe–torn by polarizing hate and how it’s a shame that we can’t work together to get things done, but the truth is we do. We work together to get things done every damn day!

The only place we don’t is here or on cable TV. But Americans don’t live here or on cable TV. Where we live our values and principles form the foundation that sustains us while we get things done, not the barriers that prevent us from getting things done. Most Americans don’t live their lives solely as Democrats, Republicans, liberals or conservatives. Americans live their lives more as people that are just a little bit late for something they have to do–often something they do not want to do–but they do it–impossible things every day that are only made possible through the little reasonable compromises we all make.

Look on the screen. This is where we are. This is who we are. [points to the Jumbotron screen which shows traffic merging into a tunnel]. These cars–that’s a schoolteacher who probably thinks his taxes are too high. He’s going to work. There’s another car-a woman with two small kids who can’t really think about anything else right now. There’s another car, swinging, I don’t even know if you can see it–the lady’s in the NRA and she loves Oprah. There’s another car–an investment banker, gay, also likes Oprah. Another car’s a Latino carpenter. Another car a fundamentalist vacuum salesman. Atheist obstetrician. Mormon Jay-Z fan. But this is us. Every one of the cars that you see is filled with individuals of strong belief and principles they hold dear–often principles and beliefs in direct opposition to their fellow travelers.

And yet these millions of cars must somehow find a way to squeeze one by one into a mile long 30 foot wide tunnel carved underneath a mighty river. Carved, by the way, by people who I’m sure had their differences. And they do it. Concession by concession. You go. Then I’ll go. You go. Then I’ll go. You go then I’ll go. Oh my God, is that an NRA sticker on your car? Is that an Obama sticker on your car? Well, that’s okay–you go and then I’ll go.

And sure, at some point there will be a selfish jerk who zips up the shoulder and cuts in at the last minute, but that individual is rare and he is scorned and not hired as an analyst.

Because we know instinctively as a people that if we are to get through the darkness and back into the light we have to work together. And the truth is, there will always be darkness. And sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel isn’t the promised land. Sometimes it’s just New Jersey. But we do it anyway, together.

If you want to know why I’m here and want I want from you, I can only assure you this: you have already given it to me. Your presence was what I wanted.

Sanity will always be and has always been in the eye of the beholder. To see you here today and the kind of people that you are has restored mine. Thank you.”

*Note that this isn’t coming from the most obvious sources: Viacom’s own Daily Show site, which carried a live stream of the event but doesn’t have any record of it anymore, or C-SPAN, which is running a loop of the rally, but doesn’t have a handy way to excerpt the three-hour event. Too bad Hulu can’t help here….

[Image credit: Cliff1066]

The question is: Which movie was Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg thinking about when he decided recently to fork over $100 million to public schools in Newark, New Jersey?

Was it a bid to spiff up his image–with a splashy announcement on Oprah Winfrey’s popular television talk show tomorrow?

That would be the very same day of the New York premiere of “The Social Network,” a movie that rakes the now-26-year-old Silicon Valley wunderkind over some very hot coals in the sordid tale of how he founded the powerful social networking site while at Harvard University.

Or was it actually the impact of another film, “Waiting for Superman,” a just-released gripping documentary about the crisis in public education?

It’s become a topic that has apparently become of great interest to Zuckerberg, as he has been considering his approach to big-time philanthropy in anticipation of huge wealth after Facebook eventually has its long-anticipated IPO.

In fact, said sources, the timing of the donation was hotly debated within the company, with worries that it would look like Zuckerberg was trying to counter the flood of negative press from “The Social Network.”

And for good reason.

After seeing a screening of the movie recently, MediaMemo’s Peter Kafka noted that “the film portrays him as an insecure jerk who screws over people and becomes a much-richer insecure jerk…He’s the bad guy in his own creation myth.”

In fact, said sources, Zuckerberg actually has been cooking up the deal since he and high-profile Newark Mayor Cory Booker started kibitzing over the idea while both attended the Allen & Co. conference in July.

From there, Zuckerberg decided it was best to flood the zone–in this case, the deeply troubled Newark school system, which had previously been taken over by the state.

Now, it will instead get a big dose of friending–um, funding–from a foundation that Zuckerberg is funding with $100 million worth of Facebook stock, which will be sold off in secondary markets as needed.

Sources said his interest in the area was apparently sparked by watching the up-and-down experience of his longtime girlfriend, Priscilla Chan, whose first job out of college was as a teacher. She is now a medical student.

It’s all an unusual bipartisan effort, with Zuckerberg working with the Democratic Booker and also New Jersey’s new Republican Governor Chris Christie.

The pair of politicians, who will formulate a plan, pushed for the announcement this particular week on “The Oprah Winfrey Show,” in order to give the topic national attention.

Winfrey has been focusing on education reform this week on her show, and the Obama administration is reportedly going to do the same in the weeks ahead.

Thus, Zuckerberg himself decided to move forward now, sources said, apparently concluding that even if a prominent movie was portraying him as the villain, he did not have to act like one in real life.