News Center

The Dangers of a Geofenced Internet

By Tim Sparapani

A big part of the appeal of the World Wide Web has always been the first two words — “world” and “wide.” The internet represents an almost utopian ideal of a place where people around the globe can come together to share new ideas, create new products and even argue.

But as a privacy advocate, I fear we are rapidly hurtling toward the worst of all future states for the internet: one in which your present location dictates how much online privacy or free speech you enjoy. The current trend of carving up the country, and the globe, into an inconsistent patchwork of privacy and online speech laws benefits few and leaves too many exposed.

I’m a frequent traveler to California, and Assemblymember Ed Chau’s bill to mandate baseline privacy protections for consumers’ data got me thinking about the sorry state of privacy rights and the mistaken direction we are headed. If you are lucky enough to live in a state like California that favors privacy rights, you know that the region also favors policies that support innovation and places few limits on speech online.

But, since most of the world doesn’t live in such a digital utopia as California, many are likely to live, work and spend most of their time in a place that provides, at best, only moderate protections, while limiting what people can see, read or say online.

In the U.S., my fellow privacy advocates are seeking local regulations in reaction to failures at the federal level to enact wise data privacy and online speech policies. But Asm. Chau’s well-intentioned pro-privacy proposal is, unfortunately, only a bandage. It saps energy for the enactment of strong, nationwide policies to protect the privacy of consumers’ data — something we should all favor.

If the bill is enacted, when I visit California the ISPs I’ll encounter will protect my data more rigidly than those I use when I visit family in Wisconsin or am at my home in Washington, D.C. That leaves me less protected everywhere else and gives Californians an inflated sense of security while potentially leaving them exposed when they leave the state. That makes little sense. While I applaud California’s tradition of progressive privacy leadership, I deplore the fact that we don’t have basic privacy nationwide. For example, last year New Mexico became the 48th state to enact basic consumer protections for data breaches that leak consumers’ private data. But what about the residents of Alabama and South Dakota, or all of us when we visit those states for business or pleasure?

The danger of well-intentioned efforts that impose policy restrictions on the structure and content of the internet is real. While these proposals are laudable, personal privacy rights shouldn’t change from state to state. When Californians move around the country for work, to visit family or for vacation, they shouldn’t limit their travel based on states where they can privately and safely transmit medical or financial information, for example.

The same principle should hold true for Californians’ ability to access content or speak online as they travel the world. Restrictions in places like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, China and even across the European Union mangle the internet and make a mockery of the phrase “World Wide Web.”

Don’t mistake my message — I’m not saying we should get rid of all regulations. Instead, wise policies for the internet age — the kind that made California a beacon of innovation — should favor national and global norms that protect data while encouraging free speech. Consumers shouldn’t be left to fend for themselves under the lowest common denominator of protections. Instead, meaningful privacy protections need to be baked into national law.

If anything, the legislation should include more rigorous, broader privacy protections. The legislation should apply to offline businesses as well, instead of singling out ISPs, as retailers routinely obtain similarly sensitive information. The legislation should mandate that an ISP continue protections for Californian customers no matter where they travel to when using the same ISP, so that privacy protections would follow Californians across state lines at least some of the time. It should explicitly prohibit ISPs from obtaining roughly equivalent information about their customers by buying it from other companies that have it.

Most importantly, we need to give the Federal Trade Commission and the Office of the Attorney General of California the resources they need to protect consumer privacy both off- and online. We need robust enforcement of existing privacy laws coupled with a push for strong, nationwide protections.

The real danger in the internet age is states and countries erecting barriers that turn the web into a series of fiefdoms with different rules.

California can lead by example by promoting regulations that are robust and nationwide or global. But by enacting well-intentioned limitations on privacy, it gives encouragement to other well-intentioned rules. It prevents U.S. companies from arguing that rules on the web should be universal. After all, the rules in China to limit Chinese people’s access to the internet in the name of promoting security are also well-intentioned. The same is true for calls from French and Belgian national security agencies to force back doors in encrypted software and to limit speech in the name of potentially preventing radicalization. These types of regulations are always justifiable, but they turn the World Wide Web into a broken map full of unknown consequences.

That’s a destination that none of us wants to visit.

Tim Sparapani is Senior Policy Fellow at CALinnovates, a non-partisan technology advocacy coalition of tech companies, founders, funders and nonprofits.

This Attempt to Protect Internet Users’ Privacy Should Get an Error Message: Guest Commentary

By Mike Montgomery

Sometimes a good idea can come with unintended consequences. Take. for example, Assembly Bill 375, which is working its way through the California Legislature in the last few weeks of the session.

The bill, introduced by Assemblymember Ed Chau, D-Monterey Park, is well intentioned. It aims to limit how internet service providers (also known as ISPs) can use people’s personal data. Consumers would have to give opt-in consent before the ISPs could anonymize their data and then use it to learn about trends in the marketplace or TV viewing patterns.

But here’s the problem. If the Chau bill passes, it sets different standards in California than it does in other states. And implementing a different set of rules for Californians won’t create better online privacy for consumers. If anything, it will give residents in California a false sense of security.

The rules the state Legislature is proposing only apply to ISPs. This piecemeal approach means a website or app that you use frequently or only once can still collect, share and sell your data. Those ads you see after searching for a pair of shoes or a vacation destination online? Well that information is still being tracked by sites and vendors that would not be impacted by this bill.

A patchwork of regulations creates confusion for consumers, 94 percent of whom say they want their online data subject to a consistent set of privacy rules that apply to all reaches of the internet, according to data submitted to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Inconsistent rules create confusion for consumers as well as entrepreneurs building internet companies in California and elsewhere. The startup community, which provides immense value to our state, would prefer to focus on consistent regulations when building and growing their platforms, not whether or not they are abiding by regulations that change from state to state.

That’s why CALinnovates continues to call for a single, federal policy to protect internet privacy across the country with one set of rules for innovators to follow and consumers to understand.

There is some good news, though. Not only does the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) still have oversight of privacy rules, but Californians are already protected by our “Little FTC Act,” which allows California’s attorney general to enforce federal privacy regulations. Additionally, there are numerous federal laws protecting sensitive consumer information around things like children’s data as well as financial and health-care information.

By enacting this legislation, California also risks its position as a progressive policy leader by setting restrictions on internet companies that don’t exist in other states. The law sends a message that our state is more interested in passing laws opposing the current presidential administration than in passing laws that protect consumers and create conditions for an ongoing virtuous cycle of investment, competition and job creation.

Privacy is essential. That’s why it needs to be tackled in a comprehensive manner by Congress. We need consistent regulations around privacy that apply to everyone, and across the entire internet ecosystem, no matter what state they live in or what their business model says about data collection and use.

Mike Montgomery is executive director of CALinnovates, a non-partisan technology advocacy coalition of tech companies, founders, funders and nonprofits.

This piece was originally published in LA Daily News.

Day of Action Should Not Just Be One Day

By Mike Montgomery

As many know, today is a day of action on net neutrality. For everyone who believes in the principle of net neutrality, however, we shouldn’t reserve just one day. That’s because for nearly a decade a cloud of uncertainty has hung over the future of net neutrality. It is time for that uncertainty to end but it will take a sustained effort, not just one day of protest to fix this. For too long the fate of net neutrality has been subject to whomever sits in the White House and nominates the FCC chairperson.

As we have been saying since 2014, we need to translate today’s day of action into a sustained effort to get Congress to write into law the principles of net neutrality, which are foundational in the digital age. That will protect entrepreneurs and provide a level playing field. This isn’t a new approach for CALinnovates as it is for many engaged in the debate. We have said for 3 years that legislation is not only important, but that it is vital. As one of the first voices to argue for legislation to codify these important principles in stone, we didn’t push the easy button and accept temporary regulations.

We know there are some who don’t see it that way. They would rather rail at the FCC for once again reversing its position. But what good does that do? If a Republican is in charge, the FCC sees net neutrality implementation one way; if a Democrat is in charge, the FCC sees implementation another way. Either way the other party raises campaign funds arguing that when they are in charge next they will switch things up. Meanwhile, consumers and entrepreneurs lack certainty that legislation would provide about fair, clear rules of the internet road.

This back and forth is the worst of all worlds because it creates uncertainty: for consumers, for entrepreneurs and for the infrastructure providers. Here’s what we know: the current FCC is going to go in a different direction when it comes to net neutrality. Whether you agree with that — and there are a lot of technologists and policymakers on both sides of the issue — that’s the political reality. So where do we go from here?

CALinnovates has long sought a third-way on net neutrality — one that ensures it is a guiding principle but doesn’t lock into place provisions that freeze future innovation. A lot of the focus has been on the FCC’s use of

Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. And it’s not just CALinnovates that is concerned with Title II — a large group of Internet pioneers have raised serious concerns (the list of these tech leaders is below).

Here’s what one leader, John Perry Barlow — the co-founder of the Electronic Freedom Foundation — wrote: “Telecom regulations give a lot of leverage to organizations whether governmental or corporate to close down the right to know. My long experience says as soon as you give government the authority to impose regulations on the Internet you are doing something to frustrate the right to know. People tend to presume on theoretical grounds a little right minded regulation will help people build beneficial architectures and organizations. I do not think there is anything to support that theory. Every time I have seen any sort of regulation of the Internet the results have been mayhem. Declaring the Internet and the telephone network to be the same thing is like declaring a Buick and a symphony to be the same thing because they both make noise.”

The problem with Title II is that although it does, in theory, ensure that all data is treated equally and that companies can’t carve out fast lanes, it also opens the door to the internet being frozen into a time capsule that discourages network modernization, which supports the next wave of innovation and increased competition among providers. The digital world moves at the speed of light. To slow growth to the speed of bureaucracy would have serious negative effects on the tech industry that is continually transforming.

When others were calling for regulations, we argued for legislation. We were ahead of the curve while others engaged in the food fight that defines the net neutrality debate. Now, though, we are glad others are finally echoing what we’ve been saying since 2014. Bipartisan legislation would end for once and for all the endless cycle of FCC rule-making, litigation by those who oppose it, more FCC rule-making, repeal of FCC rule-making, protests, more protests and counter-protests. Our position hasn’t made us popular with those who profit from protest, but it has been the right thing to do the whole time. Today, we reiterate our call for Congress to enact commonsense legislation that put flexible but important principles into law that protect consumers and give some direction to entrepreneurs.

If net neutrality is as important as we all say it is, it should be the law of the land, not a political hot potato resting on the third rail of American tech policy for another decade.

Tech leaders concerned about Title II regulation of the Internet :

1. John Perry Barlow, lyricist, activitist, and co-founder EFF

2. Gordon Bell, researcher emeritus, Microsoft

3. Mark Cuban, founder, AXS TV & Owner, Dallas Mavericks

4. Tim Draper, co-founder, Draper Fisher Jurvetson

5. Tom Evslin, founder & former, CEO ITXC

6. Dave Farber, Professor Emeritus, CMU & Board Member ISOC and EFF

7. Toby Farrand, VP Engineering, Ooma

8. David Frankel, founder ZipDX, Jetstream, & HD voice pioneer

9. Martin Geddes, former BT Strategy Director

10. Charlie Giancarlo, Sr Advisor, Silver Lake & former Chief Development Officer, Cisco

11. George Gilder, futurist and author

12. John Gilmore, activist and co-founder EFF

13. Bryan Martin, Chairman and CTO, 8×8

14. Doug Humphrey, co-founder Digex, Cidera & first east coast ISP

15. Joe McMillen, founder Complex Drive & lead developer first carrier grade VoIP gateway

16. Scott McNealy, co-founder SUN Microsystems

17. Bob Metcalfe, Professor, University of Texas & co-founder 3Com, inventor of Ethernet

18. Andrew Odlyzko, Professor, University of Minnesota

19. Ray Ozzie, creator of Lotus Notes & former CTO Microsoft

20. Jeff Pulver, cofounder, Vonage & Zula

21. Sandra Rivera, VP Data Center Group and GM Network Platforms (leads SDN/5G initiatives)

22. Michael Robertson, CEO, MP3.com

23. Les Vadasz, former EVP, Intel

Mike Montgomery is Executive Director at CALinnovates.

Why Elon Musk Chose South Australia For His New Battery Project

By Mike Montgomery

When Elon Musk announced that he plans to build the world’s biggest ion battery to power to South Australia, it was a sign that the state truly has made a stunning turnaround.

Things looked grim for South Australia back in 2013, when GM announced it would stop manufacturing cars in Australia as of fall 2017.

Adelaide, the biggest city in South Australia, had prospered after World War II as a manufacturing hub for automobiles, appliances and textiles. Local industry was protected by high tariff walls — as high as 54 percent for automobiles in the 1980s. In Adelaide, the largest employers were tied to the auto industry.

That shattering 2013 announcement was a wake-up call, according to Jay Weatherill, South Australia’s premier. “It was a signal moment for us,” he says. “It’s been the impetus for massive change.”

Weatherill decided to pin the state’s future on tech and innovation rather than go looking for a volume-based manufacturing industry to replace GM. In fact, he started looking to make South Australia the next Silicon Valley.

As more cities look to reinvent themselves in the wake of factories closing, Adelaide is an appealing model. The first step was a review of commercialization and venture capital investments in South Australia. The news wasn’t good. The state received less than 0.2% of the venture capital investment in Australia. The review also found that a lack of coordination between government departments and agencies hindered private investment opportunities.

The solution was to spend money to make money. Weatherill used state funds last year to establish a $38 million venture capital fund to promote innovation, attract new VC and encourage tech companies to move to South Australia. The state also committed money to support new businesses from conception to product development and early commercialization, and gave more money to the local university’s innovation incubator to underwrite initiatives in the advanced manufacturing and engineering spaces.

South Australia also has invested in promoting its agribusiness sector and developing private export markets in high-quality foods, particularly to serve the exploding middle class in Asia. “Our wine and food are attracting huge investment from overseas,” says Andrew Cullen, managing partner of Deloitte in South Australia.

Weatherill also hired American transplant Tom Hajdu as his “Chief Advisor on Innovation.” Hajdu — founder of both music production company tomandandy and Disrupter, a Los Angeles-based startup incubator — says the state needed to upgrade its infrastructure to attract new tech businesses and the jobs that come with them. He led the effort to make Adelaide the first international city to join the Smart Gigabit Communities Program, which in part requires members to install sensors throughout the city and develop applications to connect those sensors and the data they collect to the cloud. So-called “gig cities” also have high-speed internet that is up to 100 times faster than the national average. The SA government paid $3.5 million for the upgrades.

But the biggest sign that the economy has turned the corner came in May, when all of South Australia’s efforts to modernize paid off. The Australian government picked the state as the primary location for its new defense shipbuilding program. Australia committed $66 billion to build submarines, frigates and offshore patrol vessels for the Australian navy, and to upgrade and modernize Adelaide’s existing naval shipyard. The government also will open a school in Adelaide to train shipbuilding workers.

Building and maintaining the next-generation naval fleet is expected to bring in 5,000 high-skilled, high-tech jobs, as well as thousands of other jobs in associated industries. South Australia won the bid in part by focusing on how it has morphed from rust belt to 21st century city.

“South Australia is a next generation state,” says Hajdu. “It’s the center of the new digital economy.”  If Elon Musk agrees, you know it must be true.

Mike Montgomery is the Executive Director at CALinnovates.

This piece was originally published on Forbes.

 

WannaCry or WannaFixIt? Time for Action on Data Security

By Tim Sparapani

As we’ve seen from the latest round of WannaCry ransomware attacks, no one is safe from these viruses that have locked up the data of more than 200,000 users in at least 150 countries. When desperate consumers and businesses are hit, they often end up paying to get access to their data, which puts a tangible price on their hassle and inconvenience and makes it clear that safeguards that block attacks are essential.

But we should never waste a good crisis. This attack presents a chance to redouble efforts to stomp out botnets, which take over people’s computers and spread viruses.

There is no legislative silver bullet for cybersecurity. The U.S. Senate can take concrete action by swiftly passing the Modernizing Government Technology Act, which the House passed in May. Federal agencies can begin implementing the president’s executive order on cybersecurity. And, we should codify the Vulnerabilities Equities Process. Yet if government officials pour time and money into “solutions” targeting outdated issues, the public may remain as ill-prepared for the next botnet or malware attack as the last. Clearer thinking by policymakers about cybercrime is critical for improving how consumers and businesses prepare for the next hit.

First, it’s necessary to broaden the scope of concern about the damage these attacks cause. For the last 20 years, online security discussions have focused solely on data breaches and identity theft. But, any introductory textbook on information security will tell you that it’s essential to focus on integrity and availability of the data as well. Before WannaCry, the Mirai botnet attack unleashed billions of phony requests to a few websites, shutting them, and the services that rely on them, down. These attacks show that hackers can use brute force to shut down government services, cripple businesses and hurt consumers. But making users’ data unavailable can do almost as much damage as stealing it. Future attacks that merely alter data — thus undermining faith in the accuracy of things like bank or personal health records — can have similarly devastating effects and cost billions in losses.

It’s a mistake to believe that we can protect the public if the culprits are tracked down and arrested. Cybercrime is lucrative, and the tools of the trade are increasingly sophisticated and readily available. Fewer than 1 percent of all cybercriminals are arrested because it is so hard for law enforcement agencies to find them. Most cybercriminals attack from countries that lack the laws and tools needed to convict them. New technological interventions will be necessary.

Now consider how cybercrime can change and evolve. Spam, for example, is a much smaller problem now than it was 10 years ago. That’s partially because a few of the worst spammers were arrested. It’s also because tech companies competed to come up with technologies to keep their customers’ inboxes free from offers from Nigerian princes or bogus online pharmacies. When companies compete over security, the public wins and crime decreases. Government policies that encourage this kind of innovation and competition would benefit consumers.

WannaCry also showed that more user education does not dramatically reduce the incidence of ransomware, data theft and other cyberattacks. Most people know that patching is important. But it’s still not being implemented at scale, partially because everyone has their own devices, and those devices are increasingly connected to the internet. Instead of relying on users to upgrade their security, the tech industry should automate patching to keep our computers, phones and Internet of Things devices protected.

Fixating on establishing industry standards for proper consumer and corporate “cyberhygiene” is a distraction that may slow down cybersecurity innovation. Standards — when agreement can be reached, which is rare — typically take many years to develop, and this results in internet users relying on outdated software and hardware. Flexible approaches like the National Institute of Standards and Technology cybersecurity framework that raise questions but don’t dictate specific solutions are better.

Fortunately, there are more and more powerful technologies that can help defeat problems like ransomware and botnet attacks — but we’ll have to adopt new thinking on cyberattacks if we are to put them to use. The most important technology is cloud-based services, which can be used for storing and encrypting data, for blocking cyberattacks and for providing applications ranging from social media to specialized business services. Too many people are still reluctant to move their data off their premises, and in some cases they are even prohibited by law from doing so. But, a two-person dental office cannot do a better job of protecting its data and networks than a cloud company with leading-edge technology and best-in-class engineers dedicated to ensuring their systems are secure.

Finally, tech companies can become a first line of defense, particularly if the U.S. government shares any software vulnerabilities it discovers. The president and Congress should work together to codify the Vulnerabilities Equities Process so that national security and law enforcement agencies can provide tech companies with the sort of insights that can help them close gaps before malicious actors exploit them. Our national economic security depends on this. We should enact legislation that favors disclosure of vulnerabilities to U.S. tech companies, and the recently introduced Protecting our Ability to Counter Hacking Act has helped start that conversation.

Artificial intelligence, machine learning and big data are other effective tools for preventing or responding to attacks. But these new solutions will not be adopted if governments and businesses don’t understand that much of the old thinking about cyberthreats and cybercrime has to be reconsidered in light of emerging threats.

Tim Sparapani is a data privacy law and policy expert serving as senior policy fellow with CALinnovates and principal at SPQR Strategies.

This piece was originally published on Morning Consult.

How SB 649 Will Help Keep California Competitive

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CALinnovates’ Kish Rajan Talks About How SB 649 Will Help Keep California Competitive

A bill currently making its way through the state Senate would make it easier for California to move to a 5G network. But it has stoked blowback from local municipalities that fear giving up any control over where phone companies can place the small cell antennas necessary for making 5G a reality.

CALinnovate’s Chief Evangelist, Kish Rajan, went on AirTalk on KPCC to debate the merits of the bill. Right now, thanks to a hodgepodge of local regulations, it can take up to two years to approve a single small cell. That kind of bureaucratic slowdown will hamper California’s ability to upgrade its network at a time when other states are moving quickly towards a 5G future.

The bill will open the door for better phone service throughout the state and will provide the backbone for smart cities, more efficient agriculture and even self-driving cars.

Retail Isn’t Dying, It’s Being Revolutionized

By Kish Rajan

There’s almost nothing more depressing than the sight of a dying mall. If you’ve ever walked through one of these places, you know the sadness of the empty store fronts, the echoing atriums and the going out of business sales at the few remaining shops.

It’s enough to make anyone think that we’re witnessing the end of in-person shopping as we transition to online purchasing. But don’t let those sad malls fool you. Retail is far from dead — but it is evolving in ways that could benefit both shoppers and workers.

First, it’s worth noting that the death of brick and mortar shopping has been greatly exaggerated. E-commerce only accounts for 10% of retail overall. According to NPD, 95% of Americans shop at Wal-Mart while only 42% shop at Amazon. And those dying malls? They’re more a sign of overdevelopment than a harbinger of the obsolescence of retail. The number of malls in the U.S. grew more than twice as fast as the population between 1970 and 2015 according to research from Cowen & Co. What we’re seeing now is more of a rightsizing than a decline.

And many malls are reinventing themselves. Take the Westfield Mall outside of Los Angeles. Located in the heavily Asian San Gabriel Valley, it’s often almost impossible to find parking there on the weekends. Once a sleepy shopping center stocked with the usual suspects, the mall is now home to outposts of hot Asian retailers like SST&C out of Taiwan and Muji, a Japanese lifestyle store.

You see this kind of rethinking of retail everywhere you go. Online stores like Warby Parker and Modcloth are popping up in real life around the country. At the same time classic brick and mortar shops, like Nordstromand Best Buy, are using their physical stores to help drives sales online and vice versa.

This kind of creativity is exciting but it is just part of the overall evolution in retail. As more shopping moves online, it’s inevitable that we’ll see a change in the overall demand for different kinds of workers. Just look at Amazon Go, the online retailer’s latest foray into the real world. The Settle-based supermarket will work completely by automation. You just take what you need and leave and Amazon charges your account without requiring any human interaction at all. It’s a delight for shoppers but could dramatically reshape the number and types of jobs in future grocery stores.

As low-paid jobs fade, they’ll be replaced by higher-paying jobs in both physical and online retail. A recent study by the Progressive Policy Instituteshows that while retail saw a gain of 27,000 jobs last year, ecommerce jobs climbed by 97,000. Those ecommerce jobs pay an average $21.13 compared to an average $16.65 per hour in general retail.

But the trick will be moving displaced workers into better jobs that will pay more. It’s naïve to think that a laid-off cashier in a small town in Alabama can just pick up and move to a higher paying ecommerce job that might be located in Washington state.

In order for the new economy to benefit everyone, we have to make sure these new jobs are available to everyone. We can do that by ensuring technology jobs are spread throughout the country, not just concentrated in places like Silicon Valley and Boston. Smaller towns can become tech hubs. Just look at what’s happening in Augusta, Ga., where a group of entrepreneurs are building incubators and helping to create a tech-friendly environment.

We also need to laser focus on retraining workers. That means tech companies and government working together to come up with smart new ways to train people. One good example of this is TechHire Eastern Kentucky. Launched by Ankur Gopal, the CEO of Interapt out of Louisville, Ky., with support from the local government, the program trains people through class study and apprenticeships to move into tech jobs.

If we are to successfully move to the next phase of retail, which will be a mix of brick-and-mortar and ecommerce, we need to make sure there are new and better opportunities for workers. Those opportunities will come from creative new shops as well as good-paying tech and warehouse jobs. It’s a mix that will be good for customers, and good for employees.

Kish Rajan is Chief Evangelist at CALinnovates.

CALinnovates Statement on the Appointment of Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel to the FCC

According to multiple reports, the White House has decided to nominate former FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel to return to the agency. We join a bipartisan chorus in declaring that it’s about time.

Should Rosenworcel’s appointment be confirmed by Congress, her return to the FCC will inject an even greater amount of wisdom and forward-thinking to this currently condensed policy-making body. As we noted when she was initially appointed to the FCC in 2012, and as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has correctly pointed out, Rosenworcel understands the rapidly changing nature of technology and the important role the tech sector plays in the innovation economy. Among the many issues Rosenworcel has championed that will return to the regulatory discussion include a vital continuation of the education and advocacy she continues to lead around the closing of the homework gap. The FCC and the nation will be well-served by her experience, expertise and intellect.

“Americans from Silicon Valley to the Hudson Valley will benefit greatly from Jessica Rosenworcel’s reappointment to the FCC. Welcome back, Commissioner Rosenworcel. You’ve been missed,” said Mike Montgomery, CALinnovates executive director.

Page 2 of 3912345...102030...Last »