Although in ninety percent of the cases we already know whom we want to invite for a particular speaking spot and we invite him or her directly, we are always happy to review proposals that are sent to us via email (info at techpolicysummit dot com) or the online contact form at the Tech Policy Summit site. In fact, each year, we've added a few experts to the speaking program as a result of these submissions.

Whether you receive an invitation directly, or you contact us asking about speaking opportunities, one of the key criteria is a willingness to participate in the Q & A format that is at the heart of the Summit. With the exception of a handful of 'traditional' keynotes, the sessions are either unscripted roundtable discussions or one-on-one interviews. And even the keynote speakers are required to take questions from the other participants after their talk.

There are no prepared presentations allowed. Instead, we look for outspoken and knowledgable speakers who are comfortable fielding questions from people who both agree and disagree with them. It's a nonpartisan forum where different personalities and opinions get to mix it up, in the spirit of 'collaborating to drive technology innovation and adoption.'

So, if you're passionate about technology policy issues and want to throw your hat into the ring for consideration as a speaker or session host, we look forward to hearing from you. Just send us a brief bio and an overview of the policy topic(s) you're interested in addressing. Even if you don't want to speak yourself, feel free to send us your recommendations for speakers and topics you think will add value to the 2009 Summit. 

Previous speakers include Qualcomm CEO Paul Jacobs, BitTorrent president Ashwin Navin, digg CEO Jay Adelson, Verizon CTO Dick Lynch, craigslist founder Craig Newmark, YouTube chief counsel Zahavah Levine, EFF senior staff attorney Fred von Lohmann, Congressman Howard Berman, USPTO Director Jon Dudas, FCC commissioner Robert McDowell, M2Z Networks founder Milo Medin, former FTC chairman Deborah Platt Majoras and MySpace chief security officer Hemanshu Nigam -- to name a few.

More information on the previous two Summits are available on the Tech Policy Summit site, and we'll announce details of the next conference here soon.

It recounts how, impressively, the TechCrunch founder landed interviews with almost all of the presidential candidates back when the field was still crowded. What's more, if the accompanying photo is representative, Arrington was able to reach those political heavyweights while working (barefoot) from his home office in Silicon Valley. A testament to how the Internet has indeed changed politics.

Throughout last fall, Arrington asked Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain, along with other candidates at the time like John Edwards and Mitt Romney, for their views on tech policy issues such as the annual cap on H-1B visas and net neutrality. He also hosted an online presidential primary for his readership, after which he endorsed Sens. Obama and McCain, even though TechCrunch's crowd favorite was overwhelmingly Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). 

According to the LA Times, "Arrington says now is the time for techies to have a greater voice in politics as Facebook, YouTube and other technologies shake up how candidates campaign."

Hear, hear!

Let's just hope they wear shoes.

Mr. Karr posted a recap of the discussion today at SavetheInternet.com, the organization's pro-network neutrality site, that echoes the group's argument in favor of net neutrality legislation. Below is an excerpt; click here to read the post in its entirety.

"This country is too addicted to the phone companies and cable companies as a source of bandwidth," Wu said. "I think we're in the early days of a movement -- not unlike the one in the alternative energy world -- to develop alternative, realistic sources of bandwidth that are under our control."

Our Last Hope

Wu pointed to experiments with grassroots fiber-optic networks, municipal Wi-Fi and innovations using unlicensed spectrum such as white spaces.

Susan Crawford, the founder of OneWebDay, said the "Titanic battle" for the future of the Internet pits two competing forces against one another: the network operators, and groups and people who want to democratize the Web.

Let us know if you have a different perspective that you'd like to share here.

As part of the agreements, the companies will for the first time ban customers' access to all child porn newsgroups. In addition, they will delete known child porn sites from their servers using data provided by the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC), and they'll increase the speed with which they react to customer complaints about offensive material.

New York's attorney general's office and NCMEC will also receive a total of $1.125 million in funding from the three ISPs. NCMEC chief exec Ernie Allen applauded attorney general Cuomo and credited his office with developing a "new and effective system that cuts online child porn off at the source, and stops it from spreading across the Internet."

As for the Attorney General's investigation, it remains "ongoing." Which means other companies may be making similar moves in the future.

At issue is the FCC's 2003 ruling that probited the use of selectable output control (SOC) technology. SOC enables content providers or distributors from remotely blocking digital video recorders, and MPAA is asking the Commission for a permanent waiver that would allow its member companies like Sony, Disney and Warner Brothers to use SOC as part of a new distribution scheme.

As MPAA explained in its petition, the film studios it represents are interested in partnering with multi-channel video programming distributors to release high definition movies for in-home viewing prior to the normal release date for DVDs. And they argue that SOC is a necessary safeguard to ensure that films aren't "exposed to unauthorized copying or redistribution" in advance of them becoming available on DVD. MPAA believes it's a win-win because consumers will receive access to major theatrical releases sooner, and the high definition content will offer an additional incentive for consumers to upgrade to HD televisions as part of the switch to digital TV.

Not everyone is buying that argument though. Ars points out that the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Home Recording Rights Coalition, led by Consumer Electronics Association president and CEO Gary Shapiro, have been outspoken opponents of SOC restrictions.

The MPAA's petition is available here, and the FCC is seeking public comments through June 25th (the docket number for the proceeding is 08-82).

While it's been a worthwhile break from our day-to-day routine, we look forward to returning to the office -- and regular blogging -- on Monday. Until then, we invite you to explore other areas of the site like our Who's Who directory. We're always looking to add tech policy-related associations, coalitions and think tanks to the list, so let us know if you work with an organization that isn't already featured.

You can also follow us on Twitter (member name: TechPolicy).

In fact, we'll be announcing a new project later this summer that is designed to help bring more upstart Silicon Valley entrepreneurs into the fold. After all, why should the big players like Microsoft, IBM, Google and Intel have all of the fun?

I believe there's another missing ingredient though, and a series of recent occurrences reminds me just how critical it is: Collaboration, with a capital C.

It's no accident that Tech Policy Summit's tagline is Collaborating to Drive Technology Innovation and Adoption. From the outset, our goal has been to create an open forum where key stakeholders from the various 'us vs. them' camps can come together on neutral ground to share their perspectives and to find new ways to work together. We launched TechPolicyCentral.com last October to extend that vision to the Internet, and hopefully to more people.

Of course, we know better than to harbor Pollyannish beliefs that a single conference or Web site is enough to bridge the chasms that still divide D.C. and Silicon Valley, or Hollywood and just about everyone else. The cold, hard truth is that there are different interests with different goals that don't always align.

But what about the dozens of tech policy-related organizations vying for the attention of techies and politicos that do share similar goals? Our experience has been that some (not all) would rather go it alone -- even if that means reaching fewer people or having less of an impact.

Wouldn't it be more effective for advocacy work in D.C., and less confusing to individuals on the sidelines in Silicon Valley, if those who carry the mantle of advancing tech policy figured out how to work with each other instead of competing with one another? To be clear, there are some organizations that get this and are 110% committed to collaborating in order to effect change.

It is the others that I find baffling.

Ars Technica reports that, because of Apple's exclusive five-year agreement with AT&T, consumers in over a dozen states where service isn't available in rural areas haven't been able to become iPhone customers. And, according to the Rural Cellular Association (RCA), such exclusivity agreements between wireless carriers and handset manufacturers harm the rural telcos it represents -- and their customers who aren't able to buy many of the latest cellphone devices. Not just the iPhone but other popular models like LG's Voyager that is only sold through Verizon Wireless and Samsung's Ace that is offered exclusively by Sprint Nextel.

RCA outlined its grievances yesterday in a petition to the Federal Communications Commission, asking the Commission to investigate and, as necessary, to prohibit exclusivity agreements. The group characterized such deals as anticompetitive and said they create "yet another 'digital divide' between urban and rural America." You can download a PDF of the group's petition here.

What do you think?

Is not having access to certain cellphone models a 'digital divide' issue, or a matter of lifestyle (meaning that people who live in urban communities will have access to different types of products and services than their counterparts in rural America)?

While fees currently vary by carrier and the two largest cellphone providers AT&T and Verizon Wireless already prorate early termination fees, $175+ penalties to cancel a cellphone contract have outraged some consumers and prompted class-action lawsuits against the cellphone industry in states like California and New York.

According to the AP, an agreement with the FCC "would let cell phone companies off the hook in state courts where they are being sued for billions of dollars...[and]...also would take away the authority of states to regulate the charges."

Verizon Wireless introduced the proposal, which calls for prorating and capping early termination fees, and allowing customers to cancel cellphone service without penalty up to 30 days after contract signing or within 10 days of receiving their first bill. 

Ars Technica quoted a statement by EarthLink CEO Rolla Huff, who described the situation as follows: "EarthLink has worked diligently for many months to transfer our WiFi network to a new owner--at no cost...Unfortunately, our hope that we could transfer our network to a nonprofit organization that had planned to offer free WiFi throughout Philadelphia will not be realized."

Ars goes on to recount EarthLink's muni Wi-Fi woes, which culminated in Mr. Huff's announcement last November that he was trying to sell off the company's muni Wi-Fi business. According to the Associated Press, the Philly network has less than 6,000 subscribers, out of a projected minimum of 100,000, and EarthLink claims that it has been losing up to $200,000 each month to operate the network.

EarthLink will soon pull the plug on muni Wi-Fi in New Orleans as well, and it's moving forward with plans to turn over control of other networks to cities like Milpitas, Calif. and Corpus Christi, Texas.

The future of public wide-area broadband was the topic of one of the breakout sessions at Tech Policy Summit '08 in March. You can listen to the podcast here.

The company filed the challenge with the European Union's Court of First Instance, stating that it's doing so "in a constructive effort to seek clarity from the court." The UK's Guardian newspaper called the decision to appeal "surprising" but spoke with a group of antitrust lawyers who suggested that Microsoft's approach is that it has nothing (more) to lose.

You can read more here.

Federal law allows states to collect sales taxes from out-of-state retailers with a "physical presence" and, according to The Dallas Morning News, the Texas Comptroller's Office is investigating whether or not Amazon.com owes taxes because it operated a distribution center in Irving, Texas.

The newspaper explains: "The issue came to light last month after Amazon.com Inc. sued the state of New York over whether it should begin charging customers state sales taxes, citing the federal law it appears to be breaking in Texas."

No official response yet from Amazon.com, but you can read the full article here.

The policy was announced by Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal as part of the ongoing efforts of a coalition called the Multi-State Attorney General Executive Committee. Mr. Blumenthal gave the following statement in a press release: 

"We are raising the safety bar, first for MySpace and now Facebook, and soon for other sites as we fight for an industry gold standard. Facebook and MySpace are showing how to aim higher and keep kids safer. Our ultimate goal is age and identity verification technology -- safeguards against child molesters and inappropriate material. Checking ages and identities is vital to better shielding underage users from predators and pornography."

It's that last point about using age verification technology that concerned Internet safety expert Adam Thierer when the MySpace agreement was made earlier this year. As he wrote in this January post on the Progress and Freedom Foundation blog, "even assuming we could find a way to make it [age verficiation] work, there are many other considerations that must be taken into account, such as the burden it might impose on freedom of speech or individual privacy."

More details on Facebook's agreement are available at TechCrunch.

That quote is from Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL), who held a press conference in his Illinois district yesterday to "call for federal action to protect kids from child predators and registered sex offenders" on social networking sites and in virtual worlds. Internet safety continues to be a hot-button topic, especially since it's an election year, and Congressman Kirk seems to have set his sights on Linden Lab's Second Life.

In February of last year, Congressman Kirk reintroduced the infamous Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA), a version of which passed the House in July 2006 by a vote of 410-15 but died in the Senate. As you may recall, DOPA sought to restrict minors' access to social networking sites and chat rooms in libraries and schools that received federal funding, unless the sites were being used for an educational purpose with adult supervision.

In renewing his call for DOPA-like measures, Rep. Kirk also sent a letter to Federal Trade Commission chairman William Kovacic, urging him to advise parents about the "dangers and sexually explicit content found on Second Life." The full text of that letter can be read in the Congressman's press release, and Anne Broache of News.com has this report.

After a rocky partnership that was put on hold last November with the announcement that the two had ended their agreement to develop a nationwide WiMAX network, Sprint and Clearwire are once again on the WiMAX bandwagon together. And they're not alone.

The "new" Clearwire has help in the form of a $3.2 billion investment from Intel, Comcast, Google, Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks. According to the Associated Press, the deal is expected to close during the fourth quarter with Clearwire founder Craig McCaw serving as chairman and the chief execs of Sprint, Time Warner Cable and Comcast getting board seats. Clearwire's CEO is Benjamin Wolff and Sprint's CTO Barry West will serve as president (Sprint Nextel will have a 51% equity stake in the company). 

AP reports that Clearwire's targeting 120 million to 140 million U.S. customers by the end of 2010.

UPDATE: Google, which contributed $500 million to the new venture and will partner to offer apps and services to Clearwire customers, has high hopes for its investment. In a post on the company blog this morning, Googler Larry Adler explains: "As we've supported open standards for spectrum and wireless handsets, we're especially excited that Clearwire intends to build and maintain a network that will embrace important openness features."