Nope, just the effect of the unfortunate nether-region photo tweet by Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner, which has apparently caused others on Capitol Hill to stop posting as much to the microblogging service.

We all know how much pols love to raid the social media space these days, to garner more attention and, presumably, votes.

But, according to stats compiled by tweetcongress.org in the lovely chart below, titled “The ‘Weinergate’ Effect on Congressional Tweet Frequency,” tweets are down 27 percent by Republicans and 29 percent by Democrats.

Enjoy the number-crunching (click on the image to make it even larger):

Yesterday, the Obama administration dribbled out the news that it was going to nominate current Commerce Secretary Gary Locke as the next ambassador to China.

If approved, Locke will surely have his hands full on a wide range of issues, many of them impacting the tech sector, including piracy, privacy and government-sponsored censorship.

Perhaps more interestingly, the move leaves open a post–which the Obama administration actually had a hard time filling initially–that could get a true turbocharge if it were filled by an exec from the fast-growing digital arena.

It’s not a bad idea, since tech is probably now the most critical business arena in the U.S. and one of the only markets in which this country innovates and excels at.

While the Commerce Department has a huge and disparate domain, from international trade to the census to promoting American businesses, its digital footprint has been much less profound than the industry’s increasing importance to the U.S. economy.

After all, despite some interesting international efforts, most of the current crop of tech stars are U.S. born and bred and leading the way in digital innovation.

In fact, every big trend right now in value creation are all coming out of tech.

Gaming? Zynga.

Social networking? Facebook and Twitter.

Retail? Groupon.

Mobile? Google and Apple.

So, why not pick a business person from the area to lead the government agency dedicated to business?

But that’s where it gets dicey.

One more obvious candidate would be outgoing Google CEO–and Obama favorite–Eric Schmidt.

I would assume he might welcome such a prominent post, although putting him in place at Commerce would be a tough road.

Issue one and only: The investigations of Google’s aggressive business practices by federal regulators make this an awkward decision for Obama, given Schmidt would be open to a lot of scrutiny going through confirmation.

But there is a long list of others who could be considered to serve, especially if you think well outside the box.

What about former Xerox CEO Anne Mulcahy, who certainly has the management cred?

Or mega-VC John Doerr, who–despite his recent social fever–might finally get to push his beloved clean-tech agenda onto a larger stage?

What about Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, who recently showed she could deliver a boffo speech and who might lend some Silicon Valley magic to her former Washington, D.C. rep?

And while Amazon’s Jeff Bezos’ laugh would have a hard time getting Congressional approval, why not consider someone who has profoundly changed the way an entire business sector does business?

In that vein, Reed Hastings of Netflix also fits the bill.

Except these three execs are pretty busy these days. So, what about former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, whose failed bid to be California’s governor as the Republican candidate leaves her without a post.

President Barack Obama had picked a GOP pol as his second choice for Commerce head, in fact, so Whitman or even Cisco CEO John Chambers are not out of the question.

The point is to perhaps move outside the Beltway’s comfort zone and pick a Commerce Secretary who represents the future rather than the past.

The online retailing giant said last week that it would close its center in Irving due to a dispute with the state comptroller, who is demanding that Amazon pay $269 million in sales taxes it should have collected on goods sold to Texas residents.

Comptroller Susan Combs, a Republican, said she was disappointed to see the facility’s 119 jobs go, but her duty was to collect.

That position had caused discomfort for Gov. Rick Perry, who promotes his policies as job-creating. In a rare public disagreement with a fellow Republican, he said Ms. Combs made the wrong call.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Even those who are voting in favor are doing so holding their noses. Of the five voting members of the commission, only one, Democrat Michael Copps, had been considered remotely likely to vote with the two Republicans who had pledged to vote against it. When he announced he would vote in favor yesterday he said he was doing so with reservations.

Republicans, both on the commission and in Congress, sense an opportunity, the size of which you can discern by the size of the headlines topping the Drudge Report during the last few days. Genachowski is being portrayed in 80-point type as the villain “Julius Seizure” out to ruin the freewheeling Internet by shackling it with a list of bureaucratic rules and regulations. The irony is that the current proposal on the table is a dramatic step back from a far more ominous one: Immediately after losing a court case brought by the cable company Comcast over the extent of its legal authority to regulate the Internet, Genachowski considered reclassifying the Internet under the FCC’s Title II authority, which governs regulation of the phone system. This was an extreme response, thankfully abandoned, that would have certainly warranted the nickname. The current proposal is by no stretch of argument so extreme that it amounts to a seizure.

But rules they are, and no one likes new rules where none existed before, least of all multibillion dollar corporations like Comcast and Verizon. Having established in the courts that they have the right to control the use of certain applications that impact the performance of their network–or, more precisely, the fact that the FCC has no legal authority to tell them not to exercise such control–they’re now going to be required to disclose how and why they exercise such controls.

The rules allow for “reasonable network management” by service providers, which is a squishy phrase. Internet companies like Amazon and Skype, which aren’t service providers themselves, argue that the new rules are weak and don’t protect them from service providers that may “reasonably manage” their products and services out of existence. Get your stopwatches ready, because there will almost certainly be several lawsuits over what constitutes “reasonable network management.”

The scenario is easy to imagine: Embittered broadband customers band together in a class-action lawsuit complaining that their provider refuses to allow them to experience the latest video streaming or video chat application. They argue that the provider favors another inferior application that it happens to own. The provider argues that it’s only engaging in “reasonable network management” allowed under FCC rules, leaving judges to tease out what that means. Lawyers are probably already shining up their Ferragamos as they polish their legal briefs.

These cases are already appearing. Comcast and Level 3 Communications are sparring over the terms under which Comcast conveys to its customers video streaming traffic sent by Level 3 associated with its relationship with Netflix. Level 3 has turned to the FCC and the U.S. Department of Justice at a delicate time for Comcast: It wants federal approval for its takeover of NBC Universal, and wants it now.

The FCC’s new rules, rightly or wrongly, make Comcast and companies like it more vulnerable to similar threats by regulators in response to actions taken in their own reasonable self-interest. Until today, this sort of dispute between companies would normally be worked out by negotiators in private, not regulators on the public dime. No matter whose side you tend to favor, the prospect of government gumming up the work with endless busywork isn’t a happy side effect.

The rules themselves may also be challenged. There’s still a huge question–as FCC commissioners Meredith Atwell Baker and Robert McDowell have both argued in recent newspaper op-eds (one in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, the other in today’s Washington Post)– about the FCC’s legal authority over the Internet. House Republicans are already making noise about jumping into the policy fray, and another court challenge is probably likely.

The one overarching mission concerning the Internet that the FCC can undertake with some measure of agreement is that of widening the availability of the network to places it doesn’t adequately reach and to people who don’t have broadband access for economic or other reasons. In an age where so much of daily public business–from applying for a job to becoming an informed voter in the presidential election–all but requires a broadband link, far too many remote and rural areas are the victim of market forces where the investment to build infrastructure in sparsely populated areas outweighs the potential for a reasonable return.

Genachowski has argued that by adapting the Universal Service Fund (which helped the telephone network penetrate these same underserved areas) for broadband, providers could get this otherwise impossible job accomplished. Extending broadband availability was one of President Obama’s campaign promises, but the $7.8 billion in federal stimulus funds awarded under the auspices of the National Telecommunications and Infrastructure Administration and the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service have not and will not make a significant dent in the problem.

Why not focus on what is clearly the more important problem and without question in the national interest, and leave the finer points of how service providers and Web companies carry content to sort themselves out? Like it or not, a new, more legally complicated Internet is here.

Democratic Commissioner Mignon Clyburn said in a separate statement that she plans to vote in favor of the rules, while Republicans Robert McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker have both promised to vote against them.

Copps’s statement is below.

“These past three weeks have been devoted on my part to intensive discussions about ensuring the continued openness of the Internet and putting consumers, not Big Phone and Big Cable, in maximum control of their online experiences. I have been fighting for nearly a decade to make sure the Internet doesn’t travel down the same road of special interest consolidation and gate-keeper control that other media and telecommunications industries–radio, television, film and cable–have traveled. What an historic tragedy it would be to let that fate befall the dynamism of the Internet. The item we will vote on tomorrow is not the one I would have crafted. But I believe we have been able to make the current iteration better than what was originally circulated. If vigilantly and vigorously implemented by the Commission — and if upheld by the courts–it could represent an important milestone in the ongoing struggle to safeguard the awesome opportunity-creating power of the open Internet. While I cannot vote wholeheartedly to approve the item, I will not block it by voting against it. I instead plan to concur so that we may move forward. I do thank the Chairman for his engagement, and I owe a special debt of gratitude to Commissioner Mignon Clyburn for her thoughtful and creative work to improve this item.”

Reactions are quickly coming from net neutrality advocates. First out of the gate is FreePress, a nonpartisan advocacy group. Its Managing Director Craig Aaron isn’t happy.

“We are deeply disappointed that this Commission appears to be moving forward with deeply flawed rules that don’t live up to the promises of the president or the FCC chairman to protect the free and open Internet. These rules appear to be flush with giant loopholes, and the FCC chairman seems far more concerned with winning the endorsement of AT&T and the cable lobbyists than with listening to the millions of Americans who have pleaded with him to fix his proposal. This short-sighted decision is all too familiar to those who have watched the Obama administration and its appointees squander the opportunity for real change in favor of industry-written compromises that reward the biggest players from Wall Street to health care and now the Internet. There is overwhelming public support for real Net Neutrality, and this setback won’t stop those fighting to save the Internet.”

Next up is Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge–another advocacy group:

The actions by the Federal Communications Commission fall far short of what they could have been. Instead of a rule that would protect everyone, from consumers to applications developers from predatory practices of telephone and cable companies, the Commission settled for much less. Instead of strong, firm rules providing clear protections, the Commission created a vague and shifting landscape open to interpretation. Consumers deserved better. The FCC should have fought for consumers, not put the burden on them to fight for their rights.

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:

Here’s the list of Twitter’s top “Trending Topics” for the U.S., via a screenshot I took after 6 pm New York time. Unless I’m missing something (Lily Allen didn’t join the Tea Party, right?) there’s nary a political term there:

The folks over at Trendrr, who make a living sifting through social media for interesting data, definitely do show a big surge in political Tweets**. These three charts show the spike in usage for Republican candidates’ names, Democratic candidates and election-related terms in general (click to enlarge):

Roll all that up together, and you’re at perhaps 23,000 mentions per hour. Which is a lot–but it’s no iPhone 4: On the day that Apple rolled out its latest phone last spring, it was generating a peak of 55,000 mentions per hour, says Trendrr.

Still, this data comes from the mid-afternoon on the day before elections, and we can assume it will increase throughout the next 24 hours. The Washington Post certainly thinks it’s worth paying attention to Twitter during the election: The paper is buying the word “election” as a Promoted Trend tomorrow. We’ll check back in with Trendrr on Tuesday for an update….

*Hope I got that right. **That’s right, right?

[Image credit: Library of Congress via Flickr]

After all Meg Whitman’s moneybagging and all those demon sheep thrown by Carly Fiorina, polls right now are showing that it is unlikely either of them is going to emerge victorious in tomorrow’s elections in California.

While the pair might pull it out, given how the GOP is surging this election cycle, most expect them not to do so.

Whitman has handed over a giant pile of her eBay-generated fortune in an attempt to be the Republican governor of the Golden State, which seemed to have been working–until it didn’t.

In fact, it seems as if her wealth–and various controversies around it, such as IllegalMaidGate–has diminished her efforts to paint herself as CEO of California.

While she was way up over the summer over Democratic rival Jerry Brown, she has been trailing him recently.

And, although the race has tightened up, surveys show Brown is still ahead, such as a Rasmussen Reports survey that showed him up 49 percent to Whitman’s 45 percent.

In the Senate contest, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Fiorina seems to be more certainly headed for defeat.

A new Field Research poll gives Democratic incumbent Barbara Boxer 49 percent to Fiorina’s 41.

And while both candidates drastically oversold their business credentials as just the thing the troubled state needs, it seems the magic of tech in California does not necessarily transfer to voter enthusiasm quite so neatly.

But, let’s not end this election without another look at the infamous–and accidentally hysterical–”Demon Sheep” television ad by Fiorina against her GOP-nomination opponent Tom Campbell.

That video is followed by a very funny rejoinder, “Demon Sheep II: The Fleecing of California.”

Enjoy:

It was no accident. An online tracking company called RapLeaf Inc. had correctly identified her as a conservative who is interested in Republican politics, has an interest in the Bible and contributes to political and environmental causes. Mrs. Twombly’s profile is part of RapLeaf’s rich trove of data, garnered from a variety of sources and which both political parties have tapped.

RapLeaf knows even more about Mrs. Twombly and millions of other Americans: their real names and email addresses.

This makes RapLeaf a rare breed. Rival tracking companies also gather minute detail on individual Americans: They know a tremendous amount about what you do. But most trackers either can’t or won’t keep the ultimate piece of personal information—your name—in their databases.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

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.

Here’s one very kooky political performance, by a Republican nominee for Stark County, Ohio, treasurer named Phil Davison.

Davison did not win, but he does manage to finally top former Democratic presidential candidate and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean in the intensely crazy and deeply awkward speech department.

Enjoy, with the infamous Dean clip below it for comparison:

The Internet likes to spoof on politicians who make digital faux pas, such as former Vice President Al “I invented the Internet” Gore and Internets-loving former President George W. Bush.

And former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, who was tragically killed in a small airplane accident Monday, was no exception, never able to shake a speech in which he called the Web a “series of tubes.”

Said Stevens at a hearing in Congress in 2006:

“The Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It’s not a big truck. It’s a series of tubes. And if you don’t understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it’s going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.”

The death of the hard-charging 86-year-old Republican pol, of course, revived the many online videos of him related to this non-geek malapropism, and “series of tubes” made it as a trending topic on Twitter.

Here is one of the more famous videos from Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show,” and another rap based on Stevens’ speech:

It’s worth checking out an article in the New York Times today that points to a very questionable, but–as it turned out–politically savvy angel investment made by former eBay CEO and now Republican candidate for California governor Meg Whitman.

The piece, by Michael Luo, alleges that Whitman’s $1 million investment in late 2008 in a Hollywood entertainment company called Tools Down! Productions was made to ease a prominent Republican strategist away from working for her rival for the GOP nod.

That would be Steve Poizner, who lost to Whitman in the recent primary and who was close to working with Mike Murphy. Instead, with a little help from the piles of cash Whitman made from eBay (EBAY) stock, Murphy never took the job.

Well, not the Poizner job, at least. After telling people he was sick of politics and then getting the Whitman money days later for his still credit-free movie production company, Murphy became an adviser to Whitman a year later.

The bigger story the Times is touting, but does not quite deliver, is the advent of super-rich candidates in races this round, including another tech exec, former Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) CEO Carly Fiorina. She won the California GOP Senate primary.

This kind of thing has happened before, of course.

But what’s interesting is to see Silicon Valley’s digitally enabled moneybags step up to the very stained political table and jump right into the game.

What’s next? Google (GOOG) co-founder Sergey Brin buying everyone in San Francisco lattes for life to become mayor? Facebook CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg’s bid for president of the United States, via the leveraging of embarrassing photos from the social networking site?

And thank goodness Bill Gates of Microsoft (MSFT) never wanted to run for office.

The Whitman campaign told the Times that the investment was disclosed and justified in that she had ample entertainment interest from her days as a strategic planning exec at Disney (DIS) and also as a board member of DreamWorks Animation SKG (DWA).

Which is exactly what they would say, of course.

Thus, perhaps it is time to take a moment with Jimmy Stewart in a video clip from the classic film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” of his most potent “Lost Causes” scene:

While there have been politicians running for office in California before who have worked in the tech sector, there’s no doubt that the prospects for two of Silicon Valley’s more prominent execs–Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman–represent an unusual and interesting situation in the state’s history.

With the tech sector a beacon of hope in a very rough economy and a symbol of health compared with a debt-saddled government, it’s no surprise that both candidates are touting their time as CEOs of two of California’s better known digital giants.

Whitman ran eBay (EBAY) and Fiorina helmed Hewlett-Packard (HPQ).

And, as they both did in their Republican primary races, they’re pushing that business experience very hard.

“Career politicians in Sacramento and Washington, D.C., be warned: You now face your worst nightmare,” said Whitman in her victory speech after winning the GOP primary for governor, referring to herself and Fiorina, who is vying for a Senate seat. “Two businesswomen from the real world who know how to create jobs, balance budgets and get things done.”

But will their narrative of outsider, maverick, high-tech corporate execs versus entrenched career politicians–Democratic candidates Jerry Brown and Sen. Barbara Boxer, who are facing Whitman and Fiorina respectively–play well with voters, and, more importantly, how accurate is their depiction as can-do techies?

That’s something to pay attention to, since a lot will surely be riding on their golden portrayal as business successes in the Golden State versus their opponents’ ability to paint a more cloddish picture of their corporate tenures.

And, just from a quick reading of their Web sites, both Fiorina and Whitman have to tread very carefully.

For example, the bio for Fiorina on her site notes:

“Carly served as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Hewlett-Packard Company from 1999 to 2005, leading the reinvention of the legendary company, successfully steering it through the dot-com bust and the worst technology recession in 25 years. During her tenure, HP’s revenues doubled, from $44 billion to $88 billion, with improved profitability in every product category. Today, HP is the largest technology company in the world.”

That certainly–and not surprisingly–leaves out the layoffs, the myriad controversies over her leadership and, as has been depicted in much press coverage and several books, her none-too-smooth heave-ho from HP with a big fat exit payout to cushion the blow.

In fact, it has been current CEO Mark Hurd who has deservedly gotten a lot of the credit for getting HP moving again.

In addition, while HP is certainly the largest tech company in terms of employees, it is nowhere near the largest in terms of anything else that counts, such as stock market valuation.

HP’s market cap is currently $112 billion, compared with $230 billion for Microsoft (MSFT), $251 billion for Apple (AAPL) and even $168 billion for IBM (IBM).

On her Web site, the tale of Whitman is also rich in wow:

“At eBay, Meg made history. Meg steered eBay through the dot-com rise and fall that saw the vast majority of high-flying start-ups crash and burn, while eBay turned in one quarter of dramatic growth after another. When she joined eBay, the company had just $4.7 million in revenues and 30 employees; when she retired in March of 2008, ten years later, the company had nearly $8 billion in revenues and 15,000 employees worldwide–with millions of users in California alone.”

It’s all pretty much true, and throwing in California auction fans is a nice touch, too.

But it also leaves out a laundry list of problems Whitman left behind, from eBay’s slowness to innovate after its initial success, thereby almost totally missing Web 2.0, to its struggles to reinvigorate its main market business to a series of questionable acquisitions–Skype calling!–made in her decade in charge.

To be fair, any CEO tenure is a mixed bag, and there is not one tech exec who has not presided over a disaster or two.

That said, if both Fiorina and Whitman are selling themselves as Silicon Valley wunderkinds who can fix what’s broke in California, they are going to have to get ready to defend their business records over the next five months just the same as the career pols they are aiming to unseat.

The FCC’s five commissioners voted 3-2 to launch its re-regulation effort, with the agency’s two Republican members dissenting. The proposal would reverse a 2002 decision by the FCC that deregulated Internet lines.

The vote basically kicks off the FCC’s effort to change the way it regulates phone and cable companies’ Internet lines. After a few months of public comment, the agency is expected to issue an order this fall that would implement its changes.

“We need to reclaim our authority,” said Democratic FCC Commissioner Michael Copps. “I, for one, am worried about relying only on the good will of a few powerful companies to achieve this country’s broadband hopes and dreams.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site

It’s hard to explain this riveting mashup video, so you should just watch it.

In a nutshell: A mashup of Will.i.am’s “Yes We Can” online video from the primaries, and Republican Rep. John Boehner screaming on the floor of the House, referring to the Obama administration’s health-care bill, “Hell no, you can’t!”

As it turned out: Yes, he did.

Here’s the video, which pretty much explains the state of political bipartisanship in the United States right now:

Last night, I jetted east to Washington, D.C., for an unusual confluence of events: The 25th anniversary of the .com Internet domain name and the Federal Communications Commission’s release of the much anticipated National Broadband Plan.

Both are set for tomorrow in the nation’s capital and both concern the impact of the Web on the United States in the past and the future.

Incredibly, .com was almost .cor, for corporate.

And the first .com address handed out–Symbolics.com–belonged to a now-defunct Massachusetts computer company.

(It signed up via the domain registrar, Network Solutions, which was bought by VeriSign in 2000. The Symbolics.com domain was sold in 2009 to Missouri-based XF.com, which “operates commercial real estate and premium domain properties.”)

In honor of the anniversary, VeriSign (VRSN), which administers the .com registry, is hosting a policy forum in D.C. It includes a keynote address by former President Bill Clinton, as well as some panels.

I will be moderating the one in the afternoon titled “The Next Generation.” The panelists, looking to the future, include, among others: Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post; Aneesh Chopra, Federal CTO of the U.S.; and Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures.

There will be another gala event to honor Internet innovators in San Francisco in late May.

While the growth of .com was slow until the browser became popularized–numbering under 15,000 in 1992–there are now close to 85 million .com domains. This commercial one is clearly the most important of the designations, both financially and perceptually.

Still, despite how much impact the Internet has had globally, spurred mostly by innovation in the U.S., this country still remains woefully behind in high-speed access to the Web.

While it is easy–and fun–to blame the greedy telcos and cable companies (and they do deserve some of the blame), the lack of a federal imperative has been the most appalling explanation.

It is as if the federal government had decided dirt roads were preferable to the highway system or tin cans and string were better than universal telephone access.

Will making broadband access easy, fast and cheap for most people in the U.S. be the end result of the National Broadband Plan, to be officially unveiled by the FCC tomorrow?

As I wrote last week:

“The two key questions about the effort to get the United States up to speed, so to speak, with decent digital access: Will it be toothless or not and will there be any money to pay for it, given the cash-strapped federal government?”

A possible highlight of the plan concerns whether spectrum should be allocated for a free or inexpensive high-speed wireless service, as well as restoration of some regulations lifted in the previous Republican administration.

But the main focus will be that the U.S. needs high-speed access to improve dramatically across the nation, especially for poorer citizens and in rural areas.

After a quarter-century of .com, the growth of a trillion-dollar industry from one punctuation mark and three letters, and badillions of page views, you would think this would be glaringly obvious to our federal government.

You should think it would.

Finally, after much advance leakage, the Federal Communications Commission will unveil its National Broadband Plan on Tuesday, March 16.

The two key questions about the effort to get the United States up to speed, so to speak, with decent digital access: Will it be toothless or not and will there be any money to pay for it, given the cash-strapped federal government?

A possible highlight of the plan concerns whether spectrum should be allocated for a free or inexpensive high-speed wireless service. It was a notion mentioned by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski at a meeting in Washington, D.C., earlier this week.

This is not an idea that telecom providers have warmed to in the past, of course, since they so enjoy sticking it to consumers with spotty service and high prices.

And if the report proposes the restoration of some regulations lifted in the previous Republican administration, you can be sure the Prada-wearing political lobbyist brigade will be at the ready.

What the FCC opus will surely point out is the obvious: The U.S. needs high-speed access to improve dramatically across the nation, especially for poorer citizens and in rural areas.

As BoomTown and many others have pointed out many times, our high prices and low speed make the U.S. the laughingstock of the digital world.

And the federal government’s lack of attention to the one innovative arena this nation shines in–tech–is appalling.

The plan will be the first big move by Genachowski, the longtime Internet exec who will appear as a speaker at the eighth D: All Things Digital conference in June.

One certainty about the latest plan: It will be a long document of hundreds of pages, so save some trees and get it online here at the aptly named Reboot.FCC.gov site.

In fact, the FCC open commission meeting, where the plan is being unveiled at 10:30 am ET on March 16, will be streaming live on the Web at the site.

A recent FCC report noted that two-thirds of consumers in the U.S. have some sort of broadband connection. On average, they pay $41 for this sometimes dubious privilege.

Incredibly, six percent of Americans still use dial-up access and four percent have no broadband at home at all.

Not surprisingly, poor people access the Web a lot less, although longtime gaps among races are closing, with African-Americans and Hispanics gaining in access and usage.

So whatever the FCC proposes, at least it will shine a light on this critical issue.

And a new plan is better than none at all–I think–so let’s see what’s what on Tuesday.