Recently in the Communications Category

WIPP Membership Makes a Difference

By Mary Schnack

Branding is often thought of as the logo, corporate colors, and packaging of a product or company, but it extends to much more. It is everything that tells the public who you are (or who you wish to be) as a company.

Think of the brand as a person--who she is, what she believes, how she acts.  Think of the corporate image as the clothes, hairstyle and figure or how she looks. That's why YOU as a business owner are part of the creation of your company brand.

It doesn't matter what size your business is, how small, your revenue or how many employees, YOU are a brand.

What else is part of your brand? It's how firm your handshake, how thorough your follow through, how quickly you respond, how aggressive your sales pitch.....Do you speak with a smile? Do you have a powerful voice? All of these things say something about you and about your business.

It's organizations you join, media you advertise in, how you reward your employees, where you meet with clients....all of these things add to or detract from your brand.

Yes, the organizations you join says a lot and can be a significant part of your brand. Being a member of WIPP matters for your brand. I am proud of my WIPP membership and it is part of my brand. It shows that I'm involved with a top level business organization. It shows that I am astute about policy and matters that affect small business. It shows that I have more of a "worldly" vision rather than a tunnel vision of just my own business.

Join WIPP. Get involved. It's good for your brand.

A little over a week ago, we touched on the Federal Communications Commission's pursuit of net neutrality regulation and questioned the need of regulation for "regulation's sake." At the time of our blog, we did not have concrete statements from the Commission - just speculation from credible media sources, however, much of our concerns and questions were and still are about how potential regulations could impact wireless technology and innovation. 

Yesterday, we got some clarification regarding some of the substance of the proposed net neutrality regulation order. In a press conference, Chairman Genachowski outlined what his vision is for net neutrality regulatory policy. 

In his speech, he detailed a proposal that would preserve the original net neutrality framework's four principles as applied to wired broadband.  The rules for wireless broadband, an area of previous concern, are different because as the Commissioner acknowledged in his speech - there are differences between fixed and mobile broadband and mobile is at an earlier development stage.  Additionally, the draft order would include a transparency requirement so that consumers and innovators have the information they need for decision-making - a requirement that we have been in support of as long as it is applied equally to all actors in the Internet ecosystem.

Overall, there was a lot to be cautiously optimistic about based on Chairman Genachowski's statements.  We believe this proposal, based on our understanding of the content thus far, provides a workable policy framework that is very similar to Representative Waxman's proposed legislation.  Moreover, because we still feel that Congress should take action and be involved in the discussion, we appreciate Chairman Genachowski's statement affirming that this policy does not preclude congressional action and he would "welcome the opportunity for the Commission to serve as a resource to Congress [on an update to the Communications Act]."

There is expected to be a lot more information about the net neutrality proposal as more details leak out over the next few weeks and as the Commission works to prepare a final draft order for its December 21st meeting.  We will remain committed to the process and hope that final draft is an accurate reflection of what we heard yesterday so that in the coming year, our nation's policymakers can return their attention to broadband deployment and adoption efforts and economic growth and job creation policies.

Today, WIPP and several of its partner organizations addressed its concerns directly to President Obama relative to the implementation of the National Broadband Plan. The Plan is critical for small business growth and America's overall growth and competitiveness. We are tremendously excited about its vision and scope, but have some reservations.
 
The first concerns the FCC's approach to now consider classifying broadband as a Telecommunications Service under Title II of the 1934 Telecommunications Act. At this point in time, we need to move forward with full deployment of broadband and encourage innovation and private sector investment. A heavy regulatory environment will not be conducive to moving the initiative forward, and certainly the legal and political battles will cause undue and unnecessary delays and frustrations. 
 
A second area of concern is the need for the small business voice in the process at the FCC. We believe the FCC would benefit by including small businesses, especially women-owned small businesses, into its stakeholder discussions, since women-owned firms are the fastest growing sector of the US economy.

We sincerely hope that the President will recognize our concerns. It is so important to move this initiative forward. 

I just read a recap of comments made by Federal Communications Commission member Meredith Baker in a keynote speech at the Pike and Fischer Broadband Policy Summit. She raised some interesting points and confirmed some hesitations that are prevalent in the small business community.  

Certainly a major point is that we need to be careful that we don't over-burden broadband as a more-regulated telecommunications service. We agree that there should always be a degree of oversight, however we can not lose sight of the fact that now, more than ever, we need to encourage private sector investment and innovation. Small business owners are the engine of this economy - and any additional burdens will discourage their investment.   So let's be careful on how we classify broadband.  

Equally important is that this struggle over oversight - how much, in what way, etc., is detracting from the goal of the National Broadband Plan. Each day, we lose forward movement because our focus is in the weeds rather than our ultimate goal. It is a sad day for all Americans when we take a step backward.

I urge the Chairman to keep the momentum for the Plan moving forward. Sure we'll have issues we need to deal with, and we will along the way, but let's not let it distract us from our primary goal.

For several years now, as President and CEO of Women Impacting Public Policy (WIPP), I have written frequently on the importance of collaboration and have emphasized that the best solutions to the pressing problems we experience will come from collaborate efforts of large and small business, non-profits and government working together.     

This country has a huge opportunity before it, and a huge void to fill with the implementation of a national broadband plan - its successful deployment will affect all Americans. It will level the playing field for minority and poor communities; transform our communications; drive exciting new technology and innovations; improve the way education and health care is delivered thereby increasing the quality, delivery and integrity of both systems; it will change existing business models; and it will forge important new global endeavors and enterprises. In short, with a successful deployment, the United States will maintain its position as a world leader, and set the standard and benchmark for the rest of the world to aspire to.  

How ridiculous that we are unable to resolve the process and guidelines for ensuring the integrity of the program.    All parties have a vested interest in its success.  Whether it is consumers, industry sectors, government agencies, small or large businesses - we need deployment to succeed. America cannot fail, the stakes are way too high.   I have to wonder what the real issue is - what is the agenda that is causing the different parties to put the entire program at risk?  What ideological or business priorities could possibly justify putting roadblock after roadblock in its path?   

Let's be realistic here. An onerous regulatory environment will impede implementation, growth, expansion and innovation. It will not deliver fair and acceptable service to everyone, it will not allow providers to provide acceptable service to their customers, it will not allow our faltering education and health care systems to rectify and turn themselves around and create new and successful models. I have never seen regulatory environments accomplish those types of goals. There is, however, a standard of excellence and quality and responsibility that each of the industry leaders and government entities must comply with as we develop and expand technology. We must insist upon a commitment to responsible action, a common collaborative goal and reasonable oversight.