White House Council Recommends New Approach to Spectrum

A group of advisors urged President Obama to take take new steps to open federally-controlled spectrum for commercial applications on July 20. The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology -- a group that includes administration technologists, academics, and executives of technology companies -- recommended the President direct the government to share underutilized spectrum allocated to a variety of federal agencies.

“Shared spectrum” combines elements of the exclusive license system and unlicensed regimes. While the government may need to use spectrum to communicate with drones or operate radar in some areas, in others the spectrum is fallow. The new system would allow for the development of new devices on these chunks of underutilized airwaves.

The report emphasizes the ability of policymakers to shift the present spectrum crunch “from scarcity to abundance.” This theme is meant to convey the opportunity shared spectrum provides in alleviating the demand for wireless services. I wrote about this subject ahead of an event on unlicensed spectrum co-hosted by Engine a few weeks ago.

Spectrum is one of the most important public assets innovative companies can harness to create disruptive new products. Wireless device use has exploded in the last decade with the development of WiFi and the expansion of mobile technologies that drive the advancement of smartphones, tablets, and other consumer wireless services. Startups play a critical role in the wireless ecosystem, developing applications that maximize the value of these services to users and creating new devices for consumers and enterprises.

Spectrum ownership and regulation have evolved over the last decade. While wireless providers have become increasingly consolidated -- the Justice Department deemed there to be only four “national” carriers in its move to block AT&T’s purchase of T-Mobile in 2011 -- technologies allowing various users to share airwaves have advanced rapidly. These developments have elicited calls for regulators to accommodate innovative technologies while freeing more and more spectrum for wireless carriers, agendas that haven’t always worked well together.

The advisors recommend increased incentives to open the public airwaves for experimentation, noting that the process of moving incumbent users and organizing auctions for wireless carriers is “unsustainable.” Clearing the spectrum occupied by federal agencies has proven to be a painstaking process. Allowing federal and commercial users to harness software-defined radios and other technologies could bring more spectrum to startups faster.

Innovative technologies certainly offer the promise of a freer wireless future but obstacles remain. As the Wireless Innovation Alliance said in a press release, “The PCAST report is an important first step, but there is more work to be done in order to ensure more efficient use and expanded access to the nation’s spectrum resources.”

An encouraging aspect of the recommendations is the intent to let innovation, not incumbents, drive the future wireless landscape. Wireless carriers play a critical role in connecting users, businesses, and entrepreneurs, but they don’t play the only role. Striking the appropriate policy balance is challenging, but a generation of innovators is waiting for new spectral resources to open.

Image: The White House

Karlo Dizon on Open Internet, Guam, and Effecting Change in Congress

Last week, Karlo Dizon, a 27-year-old Guamanian and graduate of Yale University, announced his candidacy for Guam’s non-voting delegate seat in the United States Congress. He did so in two ways -- the traditional means of filing paperwork with the territory’s elections office, and also by conducting an AMA, or ‘Ask Me Anything’, post on the popular social news aggregator Reddit. Mr. Dizon has made campaigning for a free and open internet a cornerstone of his run for office, so we asked him to talk about his run for Congress, his views on the internet and how they impact his potential constituents on Guam in a Q&A.

ENGINE: So, you’re running for Congress. Why?

KARLO DIZON: I ran because I was dissatisfied with the current Congresswoman but few were willing to step up to the plate. I have always believed in the ability of the democratic process to provide the best for our society, and consequently, I have grown uncomfortable with the direction and climate Congress has been taking for quite some time. In the spirit of being the change you want to see in the world, I thought it was time I try to affect change myself. I suppose that is really the primary reason: rather than hoping the current Congresswoman would listen to the growing concerns of the people of Guam, I would champion change directly by running for Congress.

E: A lot of the public discussion of your campaign is based around ideas of a free and open internet. How do you think this affects your constituency in Guam? Do you see it as a more national issue or one of particular local importance?

KD: Defending a free and open internet should be a fundamental priority for anyone who values democracy. As such I don’t know if I could separate the national and local effects as two different things. Just as I see my local heritage being influenced by and inseparable from national ideals of freedom, self-sufficiency, and democracy, so, too, do I understand the effects of legislation such as SOPA, PIPA and CISPA to be disastrous to the nation and my island. However, it should be stated that for a relatively remote island in the Pacific, there are specific worries for what CISPA would mean for Guam. Namely, if freedoms are curtailed and the use of the internet becomes associated with risking privacy, our dependence on the internet for consuming goods and information from the mainland would jeopardize our people’s ability to advance the pursuit of equality with standards of living enjoyed in the rest of the United States.

E: You announced your campaign to people worldwide in a Reddit thread. How have internet-based tools helped you broadcast your message to the electorate?

KD: Guam is still developing a sense of online presence for political outreach purposes. We hope that the way we’re running this campaign will encourage all future elections to tap into this resource, as it provides a forum for interacting with people on a more individual level. As of now, we’re primarily using Facebook and a campaign website that hooks to a backend database. I genuinely believe that Facebook is the next level of political communication--it provides the means for a two-way conversation and is instantly received by the voters on their screens or phones, compared to a website that voters have to actively access themselves.We have started to see individuals making their way up to us because they saw our online presence, agreed with our goals, and wanted to see how they could help. It reinforces our belief that providing open access to information online is pivotal not only for the democratic process but also in forging stronger ties with the community as a whole. And of course, we look forward to advancing an online political culture that utilizes more of the available tools in order to enfranchise younger generations.

E: What would your goals be if elected, especially with regard to internet openness, and what effect do you think you can have in Congress as a non-voting delegate?

KD: By and large my goals echo that of the Democratic Party, and even more so with regards to internet openness. I support the Obama administration’s defense of the American people’s privacy, data confidentiality and civil liberties, and I agree that the internet is public domain. I would fight to encourage the President’s current stance of vetoing CISPA, and proactively look into ways of preventing further legislation from ever getting this far. As per the vote, I do think it is important to remember that as the delegate from Guam, I would have a vote in committees. To the extent that I can influence committee decisions and authorship of bills, then, I think there is plenty of room to influence Congress. It is true that not having a vote makes it more difficult, but then, if I didn’t like a challenge I wouldn’t be running against a 10-year incumbent.

Congress, FCC, New America Foundation Focus on Broadband

Broadband plays a critical role in economic development and opportunity around the world. The United States, however, lags behind other countries in terms of the number of citizens reached by internet infrastructure. The U.S. ranks fifteenth out of 34 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries in wired broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants, according to December 2011 data.

“The freedom and openness of the Internet has enabled small businesses in dorm rooms and garages to grow into some of the most successful companies in the world,” Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski told Congress in a hearing July 18. Genachowski testified before the U.S. House Committee on Small Business about the commission’s ongoing efforts to encourage innovation and investment in broadband along with other administration officials from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and Department of Agriculture.

Genachowski’s testimony comes during a week in which broadband is at the forefront in Washington, D.C. July 19, the FCC released its second report on consumer broadband performance in the U.S. The same day, the New America Foundation released a report entitled, “The Cost of Connectivity” comparing the cost of broadband in 25 cities around the world.

In recent years the FCC has significantly reformed rules and programs in an effort to expand broadband penetration across the United States. One of the most wide-reaching, the overhaul of the Universal Service Fund, aims to encourage deployments of high-speed internet access to underserved communities. Other moves, including the commission’s net neutrality rules, seek to maintain the openness of the internet and preserve the system that has facilitated some of the world’s most dynamic companies.

Competitive broadband markets, open internet protocols, and the speed of internet services make a big difference for startups. Competition creates incentives for providers to keep prices low, while high speeds create opportunities for consumers to harness products and services offered by innovative, young companies. Openness ensures a level playing field for internet platforms. Closing the broadband gap will create opportunities in communities that lack adequate broadband speeds across the U.S.

The New America Foundation report also takes a look at competition in other countries. Using Paris as a case study, researchers illustrate the impact of an “unbundling” policy undertaken in France to introduce competition to the state-owned monopoly France Telecom. New companies created competition and were able to offer services on the existing DSL infrastructure which brought down costs. Twelve years later, companies are laying new cables to “meet growing demand for faster speeds at low prices,” according to the report.

Startups aren’t limited to big cities like New York and San Francisco, a fact that was highlighted by Engine at Startup Day on the Hill last month. Broadband provides an opportunity for entrepreneurs to innovate and opens access to customers across the country and around the world. Efforts like those undertaken by Google in Kansas City to deploy next-generation fiber demonstrate the potential of even further advances in broadband technology boosting small business and startups.

Image by BigRiz via Wikimedia under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license

Innovation Depends on Visa Reform

Foreign-born “computer professionals” represent the largest share of H-1B visa applicants, according to a study released this week from the Brookings Institution. The study explores the demand for the H-1B class of highly skilled professional visas across different U.S. metropolitan areas, assessing which geographical and professional areas rely most heavily on foreign-born talent.

The findings show that science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) occupations accounted for more than half of all H-1B requests in 92 of the 106 metropolitan areas studied, pointing to the disparity of United States STEM graduates and advanced STEM occupations needing to be filled. The Obama administration estimated in February 2012 that less than half of U.S. students pursuing a degree in STEM fields ultimately earn a degree in a STEM discipline. 

The H-1B visa system also plays a major role for small companies and startups which rely on these highly skilled workers to develop products and services. “Our study shows that private firms account for the vast majority, 90 percent, of requests,” Neil Ruiz, a co-author of the study, said in an email to Engine. The top 100 H-1B employers make up only 20 percent of these visas requests. “I would not be surprised if some of them [the remaining employers] are smaller companies or startups,” Ruiz said. For more from Ruiz, see his video. 

The study also noted that specialized skills tend to cluster in certain regions of the world. For example, 56 percent of the world’s engineering degrees are awarded to students studying in Asia, compared to the United States, which graduates just 4 percent of these degrees.

Clustering effects aren’t limited to skill set distribution. Innovation centers in the United States are situated near universities, metropolitan areas endowed with venture capital, and research and development hubs. These areas, from the tech hub of Silicon Valley to the Research Triangle Park in Durham, North Carolina, rely on the H-1B visa program to stock the talent pool for startups in need of highly skilled workers.

The H-1B visa is an essential tool for growing technology centers and the economic benefits they provide. The study’s recommendations include forming a non-governmental, non-political commission to assess the needs of metropolitan areas and assign H-1B caps accordingly.

Legislation proposed this year, including measures such as Startup Act 2.0, seeks to eliminate per-country visa caps, along with other measures designed to allow tech businesses easier access to the foreign-born talent they need in order to grow and thrive in a globally competitive market.

It has become more and more clear that domestic demand for highly skilled labor is outpacing supply. This gap must be addressed by policymakers before the lack of STEM-educated professionals dampens innovation, growth, and entrepreneurship in the U.S. economy. We support measures introduced by lawmakers to end the cap system that arbitrarily prevents talented individuals working for U.S. companies. Policymakers should also consider reforms of the immigration system that would make it easier for entrepreneurs to enter the U.S., start businesses, and create American jobs.

Image from the Brookings Institute.

Entrepreneurs Need Startup Act 2.0

Earlier this week, the office of Senator Jerry Moran, a leading co-sponsor in the Senate of Startup Act 2.0, released a short video detailing the need for reform of the immigration processes for entrepreneurs as would be enabled by Startup Act. 

In the video, Morpheus Medical Co-Founder and Engine member Fabien Beckers, a French citizen by birth, tells his story, and outlines why, despite receiving his education in the U.S. and founding a company here, he and his employees may be forced to close up shop because of his visa situation. 

Check out the video at Sen. Moran's YouTube page here, and remember to call your member of Congress today at http://engine.is/startupact and ask them to co-sponsor and champion Startup Act 2.0 in the House and Senate. With your voice, we can help make this law a reality for founders like Fabien all across the U.S. and keep startups thriving here at home.

Patent Lawsuits May Cost Startups Billions

Patent litigation is becoming an expensive hurdle for startups, and people outside the startup community are taking note. “It’s not clear that we really need patents in most industries” Judge Richard Posner told Reuters in an interview July 5 following his decision to end a patent suit between Apple and Google’s Motorola Mobility unit. The jurist and professor characterized the proliferation of patents in the technology industry and other high innovation markets as “a problem.”

Posner, a judge on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and professor at the University of Chicago, is a prolific author on law and economics, including the book The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law.

His comments follow a recent Boston University study that estimated companies were subjected to $29 billion in direct costs from 2011 patent infringement claims filed by “non-practicing entities” -- companies that operate by collecting fees on patent licenses as opposed to making products. While large companies pay more of the overall settlement and legal costs, the expenses make up a greater share of smaller companies’ revenue, according to the estimates.

Lawsuits brought by entites like Lodsys, a company that has sued app developers for the use of in-app purchases and other fundamental technologies, demonstrate the vulnerability of startups to the high costs of patent litigation and settlement.

A June 25 article by Bloomberg’s Susan Decker highlighted the study co-author James Bessen’s impression of the effect of litigation on entreprenuers and innovation:

“I was surprised at the magnitude and how much of it is really hitting small companies,” said Bessen. “It’s having a bigger effect on innovation than we had thought.”

Startups need a patent system that fuels innovation and incentivizes invention. Money seeped away by lawsuits robs young, dynamic firms of the opportunity to create jobs, enhance their products, and reach new customers. Reforms in the America Invents Act, signed into law in September 2011, didn’t go far enough to protect entrepreneurs. We need new, well-considered legislation to address predatory lawsuits and the billions observed by researchers to be lost to settlements and legal fees.

UberX Threatened by DC Council Proposal

The Council of the District of Columbia is slated to vote tomorrow on a price-setting measure that, if passed, will block competition in the district’s transportation market. Uber, an Engine member and a startup that will be immediately affected by the proposal, is urging its users and concerned parties to call, email, and tweet to members of the council. For more information on how you can help, read Uber co-founder Travis Kalanick’s blog post. A petition has also been launched to oppose the measure. 

The so-called Uber Amendment contains language that sets a minimum fare for sedan drivers offering transportation services. Startups like Uber, who offer a popular and efficient service, would not be permitted to charge less than five times the fare of a taxicab. Sedan prices would be set by law higher than those of competitors. Under the proposal, UberX, a lower-cost car service the company unveiled July 4, would not be able to operate in the Washington DC market.

Not only does the proposed amendment stifle competition, it poses a danger to a healthy and vibrant economy by preventing the growth of startups and the jobs they provide in the DC market. Engine urges its members to support healthy competition and disruptive startups like Uber by voicing your concerns with council members.

Update 7/10/2012: After receiving thousands of notes from Uber customers, the DC Council has dropped its plans to add the minimum fare amendment. Report in full at the DCist.

DC City Council Set to Vote Against Lower-Cost Transportation

The City Council in Washington DC is set to vote tomorrow on a measure that would stifle progress in the transportation industry -- specifically it would prohibit startup company Uber from offering a competitive service in the sector. Join us in calling members of the Council to ask them to protect innovation by voting against this proposal. 

With a long, blighted history of corruption and malfeasance in the taxi industry, the city of Washington has long stood against progress in a vital area of transportation for the Nation's Capital. Earlier this year, Uber, who we're proud to say joined us last month for our Startup Day on the Hill event, launched their innovative, disruptive service in Washington alongside many other cities throughout the U.S. and around the world. Almost immediately, this move was met with resistance from the Taxi Commission, Mayor Vincent Gray and the City Council in an attempt to protect an existing taxi industry which has been fighting modernization for some time.

Tomorrow, the Council is looking to take another step backward against modernization of transportation in the District with the impending passage of a so-called "fare floor" for Uber riders. The proposal, according to an email sent earlier this afternoon by Uber CEO Travis Kalanick to the product's users, would set rates no less than five times higher than a minimum taxi rate. Instead of investing in a modern taxi fleet, or welcoming innovation in transportation in DC, Mayor Gray and the Council will instead seek to make an alarming move against innovation and a popular small business in DC by forcing rights sky high and making programs like the recently-announced UberX -- a lower-cost alternative to Uber's popular black car services that uses hybrid cabs -- impossible in the Nation's Capital.

Amidst the furor surrounding the impending votes, there is still an opportunity to change hearts and minds and keep transportation in Washington free for innovation and modernization. If you live in the District, or use Uber to get around DC, we are encouraging you to call members of the DC Council and register your displeasure with the proposed regulations. Here are their numbers, we hope you'll make the call.

Phil Mendelson (Chairman), (202) 724-8064, pmendelson@dccouncil.us
Mary Cheh, Ward 3, (Chairperson of Committee on the Environment, Public Works and Transportation), (202) 724-8062, mcheh@dccouncil.us, @marycheh
Michael Brown, at-large, (202) 724-8105, mbrown@dccouncil.us,
@cmmichaelabrown

Jim Graham, Ward 1, (202) 724-8181, jgraham@dccouncil.us, @jimgrahamward1
Jack Evans, Ward 2, (202) 724-8058, jevans@dccouncil.us, @jackevansward2
Muriel Bowser, Ward 4, (202) 724-8052, mbowser@dccouncil.us, @murielbowser
Kenyan McDuffie, Ward 5, (202) 724-8028, kmcduffie@dccouncil.us, @kenyanmcduffie
Tommy Wells, Ward 6, (202) 724-8072, twells@dccouncil.us, @tommywells
Yvette Alexander, Ward 7, (202) 724-8068, yalexander@dccouncil.us, @cmyma
Marion Barry, Ward 8, (202) 724-8045, mbarry@dccouncil.us, @marionbarryjr

David Catania, at-large, (202) 724-7772, dcatania@dccouncil.us, @cataniapress
Vincent Orange, at-large, (202) 724-8174, vorange@dccouncil.us, @vincentorangedc

Unlicensed Spectrum Offers Innovation Opportunities for Startups

Next week, Engine will cohost “The Power and Potential of the Unlicensed Economy,” an event focused on unlicensed wireless technologies. While immigration and financial regulation have dominated stories over the last year about startup-focused legislation in Washington, new laws and proposed spectrum regulation may have a revolutionary effect on growth in the mobile device and application ecosystem.

As the four national carriers in the United States battle it out over download speeds and 3G versus 4G service, unlicensed technology has quietly carried the burden of the data services that many startups have harnessed to offer new products. For example, 47 percent of iPhone data traffic and 91 percent of iPad data traffic was observed to have been transmitted over WiFi networks (as opposed to 3G and EDGE networks), according to ComScore data cited in a November 2011 Yochai Benkler working paper. 

The Federal Communications Commission employs a variety of regulatory tools to prevent interference between spectrum users. The most prominent regulatory regime for smartphone users, in terms of cost, utilizes licenses that provide exclusive rights to spectrum in a given geographic area. These licenses are bid on in FCC auctions that have generated about $55 billion in revenue to the Treasury since their inception in the early 1990’s. Sprint, AT&T, and Verizon control most of these licenses, charging users a monthly fee to access their airwaves.

Unlicensed regulation flips this regime. Users can access a given band of spectrum in any place, assuming their devices follow particular technical standards and don’t overload the available bandwidth. WiFi is an example of a pervasive unlicensed technology; anyone with a WiFi compliant radio can access a hotspot anywhere in the U.S., so long as the number of users doesn’t overload the network. The same holds true for the airwaves that facilitate transmission between baby monitors, garage door openers, and RFID chips in ID badges and in mobile tap-to-pay cards and devices.

So why do these regulatory approaches matter to startups? You may have heard about the spectrum crunch in which the available bandwidth for users is outpaced by the demand for airwaves. While the demand glut for data services is a reality, there is spectrum that could be used by device manufacturers and carriers. The catch? The FCC, incumbent spectrum licensees, and other government agencies have to find ways to open more of these airwaves for new commercial applications.

Two approaches have been introduced this year to address the problem. One, called TV white spaces, allows devices to operate in the gaps of spectrum between the broadcast channels used by over-the-air television stations. The project was preserved by provisions of payroll tax legislation signed by President Obama in February. The second, proposed by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in March, aims to allow commercial users to share spectrum with government transmitters such as the Defense Department and Coast Guard. Both approaches rely on the rise of software-defined radios and other new technologies which employ technological solutions to avoid interference with other transmitters. New, innovative wireless devices may face barriers getting old technology and incumbent users to cooperate.

White spaces applications face geographic challenges. Television broadcasters can crowd more than half of the 49 available full-power channels available in some metro markets covering multiple cities (i.e.: San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland). New FCC auctions that will allow broadcasters to relinquish some or all of their bandwidth in exchange for portions of auction revenue could also limit the available white spaces spectrum. These factors, teamed with rules to protect broadcasters from interference, may limit the success of potential urban “super WiFi” deployments that have been touted by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

The spectrum sharing proposal may face challenges in working with government spectrum users. The DOD, for example, employs a variety of spectrum across the country for different purposes, ranging from communication with drones to conventional radio. This leaves some federal users with little incentive to begin sharing spectrum with new devices that might disrupt critical military and government technologies.

With such a crowded playing field, startups need to be keenly aware of how the federal government is regulating spectrum. The impact of regulation will be vast. Even if this technology doesn’t reach the hands of consumers, opportunities to develop enterprise applications for logistics, fleet management, and smart grid are just a few examples of the potential opportunities for innovators to build products on reliable, free-to-access airwaves.

Engine aims to advance the debate on wireless regulation next week. We invite you to attend the event if you’re in the area or watch the live stream.

Internet Declaration Highlights SOPA/PIPA Legacy

Ahead of Independence Day in the United States, groups are banding together to highlight principles behind the free and open internet. Entrepreneurs and startups are vital players in the internet economy, and should make their voices heard as the discussion evolves on these critical issues that impact internet culture and commerce.

A coalition representing advocacy groups, civil society organizations, companies, academics, and individuals have launched a “declaration of internet freedom” at www.internetdeclaration.org/freedom. The groups highlight five principles: expression, access, openness, innovation, and privacy.

Startups can take this opportunity to provide feedback on Techdirt, reddit, Cheezburger, and Github.

Nearly six months after the blackout protests and call campaigns derailed SOPA and PIPA, users across the web are coming together to remind lawmakers that these efforts weren’t a one-time groundswell. Startups have a great deal at stake in the open internet discussion and entrepreneurs and innovators should take this opportunity to let the community know about their concerns.

High Skilled Immigrants Driving U.S. Innovation

Immigration reforms similar to those proposed in Startup Act 2.0 would help the United States retain foreign students that are driving innovative patents in the domestic economy, according to a report released June 26. The report, conducted by the Partnership for a New American Economy, found that 76 percent of patents issued in 2011 to the top 10 patent-producing universities had at least one foreign-born inventor.

The partnership’s reviewed 1,466 patents awarded to the top 10 schools and highlighted the endowment of foreign-born inventors on patents in “cutting-edge fields.” These inventors were observed to contribute to as many as 87 percent of patents issued in fields which include semiconductor device manufacturing, information technology, pulse or digital communications, pharmaceutical drugs or drug compounds, and optics.

Patents are one measure of new and innovative products developed in the U.S. economy. The report doesn’t just present the statistics, it also shares some of the stories behind the people and projects these patents protect. Innovators from Cyprus, Malaysia, and India involved in patents for technologies behind seawater purification, enhanced digital photography, and strong-as-steel metal that can be molded like plastic.

Foreign-born innovators like these may blossom as domestic-entrepreneurs after emerging from academia. Engine recently featured one such immigrant entrepreneur Rutul Davè, co-founder of Bright Funds -- one of 18 startups that attended Startup Day on the Hill. Rutul earned a master’s degree in computer science before founding his growing startup.

Research and development spending at U.S. universities has increased five-fold over the past 25 years, growing from about $10 billion in 1985 to nearly $50 billion in 2007. Harnessing spillover benefits of this research is critical to the growth of high tech industries. With STEM job growth anticipated to continue through 2017 and less than half of U.S. college students completing the STEM degrees they start, more highly-skilled workers are needed for the U.S. to remain competitive.

Startup Act

2.0 tackles the issue of highly-educated immigration head-on, creating new visas for MA and PhD recipients in STEM fields and extending their ability to find and accept work with companies in the United States. You can learn more about the measure and contact your representative about immigration at www.engine.is/startupact.

Take Startup Act One Step Further, says Marvin Ammori

Startup Act should include a provision to encourage training in computer programming in the U.S., says Marvin Ammori in a piece for the Atlantic today.

The tech world is coming out in strong support of Startup Act 2.0, a bipartisan bill that eases the way for entrepreneurs to hire the foreign-born high-skilled workers they need to build and scale high-growth startup businesses without moving offshore.

While making changes to the skilled immigration process is an essential measure in getting startup talent in this country, Ammori writes that Startup 2.0 is “a great bill, but it could be better”. The gist of the article is that the key to unlocking success for future generations of startups is in setting up all Americans for success in innovative and technology based new businesses -- this means giving public schools funding and incentives to teach all kids how to code, just like all kids are taught basic math and grammar, Ammori says.

An entrepreneurial mentality will be key in navigating the requirements of today’s job market, and the current education system which encourages an obedient worker mentality is unsuited to an economy that increasingly relies on new startups and innovation. Further than encouraging entrepreneurship in our students, though, we should be equipping kids from an early age with programming skills that are fast becoming as ubiquitous a requirement as learning english or math.

Ammori suggests federal government involvement , suggesting that a new iteration of the bill, “Startup Act 3.0, could fund grants for expanding programming classes, beginning with small-scale pilot programs”.

Ammori’s views might not be revolutionary, but he is dead on the money when it comes to the need for a multilateral approach to the dearth of high-tech graduates coming out of U.S. universities. The short term solution is fixing the skilled immigration system, as Startup 2.0 does. The longer term solution is catching the U.S. education system up to the economy of today and the future. We as a country need to set a course on both of these goals, and we can’t afford to wait.

Click here to learn more about Startup Act 2.0 and connect with your representative to let him or her know that it’s important to you.

Obama Order Ties Broadband Expansion to Infrastructure

President Barack Obama signed an executive order June 14 aiming to expand internet access to underserved areas by making broadband expansion cheaper and easier on federal property. Government agencies that manage these federal assets -- including the country’s roadways and more than 10,000 buildings -- will adopt a uniform approach to allow broadband companies to conduct rollouts around the United States.

Too many Americans lack access to even basic internet service and the move may boost government efforts to encourage companies to expand high speed internet service to underserved areas. The National Broadband Plan and subsequent reports from the Federal Communications Commission have highlighted that about one-third of Americans do not subscribe to broadband internet service. The U.S. ranked 15th among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries with 68.2 percent of households possessing access to broadband, according to 2011 data. Access to these networks provides businesses, consumers, and organizations the ability to connect and thrive in the internet economy, creating jobs and new opportunities in the process.

Why connect deployments to federal properties? The U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Commerce were allocated $7.2 billion in stimulus funds to expand broadband to underserved areas. Almost four years on, USDA has only paid out about $648 million of its $2.23 billion share of stimulus dollars devoted to the “Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program,” according to data reported on recovery.gov.

Congress noticed the lag and demanded answers from the agency about the delay, requiring that misspent or fraudulent contracts be returned to the U.S. Treasury. The problem, however, wasn’t federal government mismanagement necessarily, rather the process of bidding and awarding contracts and the seasonal nature of construction, facing build-out challenges in the winter months.

The uniform approach may increase incentives for service providers to reach new customers, literally breaking ground for projects that would otherwise go unexecuted. The President’s announcement is a promising indicator of the administration’s willingness to cut through red tape and make good on promises to improve broadband access across the United States.

June 13 Midweek Policy Update

This week in Washington: Cybersecurity legislation may move forward in the Senate, ICANN releases a list of proposed generic top-level domains, the United States Patent Office promotes clean energy partnerships.

Cybersecurity

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid put his colleagues “on notice” June 10, calling on democrats and republicans to work together to pass cybersecurity legislation that has stalled in previous Senate sessions. The bill faces stern resistance from many technology-focused groups concerned about its impact on privacy.

Open Data

Representative Darrell Issa announced on June 10 the OpenGov Foundation at the Personal Democracy Forum in New York City. OpenGov would allow citizens to actively engage in the policy-writing process through open, web-based technology. Issa is looking for developers to build the tool.

Patent

The USPTO held a meeting of clean technology stakeholders in an effort to improve and expand its clean technology program. Issues discussed included the importance of regional accelerators and an update on cleantech patents.

Spectrum

The FCC holds an open meeting June 13 in which the commissioners will consider moves to make more efficient use of high frequency spectrum for a nationwide interoperable public safety network.

DNS

Also on June 13, the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) holds a press conference unveiling the generic top-level domains applied for in the organization’s expansion program. The application window for the new domains -- which could include .lol and .nyc -- closed May 30. A release from the organization reports that more than 1,900 applications were received.

Sen. Jerry Moran on Startup Act 2.0

With the House of Representatives introducing parallel legislation to the previously-introduced Senate bill, Startup Act 2.0, this morning, we took the opportunity to sit down with Kansas Senator Jerry Moran to talk about the bill and its prospects. Moran, one of the original sponsors of the Senate bill, and a formidable advocate for entrepreneurship and startups in the Senate, spoke about his views on the bill, the issues, the chances of passing the bill and more.

Tell us a little bit about the Startup Act 2.0. How does it compare to the original Startup Act and what’s new and better about this version?

Startup Act 2.0 is a bipartisan jobs bill written to spur economic growth by targeting policies toward the young companies that are responsible for creating almost all of the net new jobs in America. It contains many of the provisions of the original Startup Act but also adds two new job-creating ideas.

Startup Act 2.0 incorporates language from the Coons-Rubio AGREE Act to eliminate the per-country cap for employment-based immigrant visas, which has been a major factor in causing the backlogs that currently hamstring our legal immigration system.

In addition to eliminating the per-country caps, Startup Act 2.0 creates a targeted research and development (R&D) tax credit for startups less than five years old with less than $5 million in annual receipts. Because the current R&D credit can only be used against income taxes a company pays, startups without taxable profits cannot benefit from the credit. The R&D credit created in Startup Act 2.0 is designed to allow startups to offset employee taxes—helping these young companies grow and create jobs.

How does Startup Act 2.0 help small- and medium-sized companies and startups?

To build a successful startup, an entrepreneur needs a good idea, talented employees, capital, and an environment that fosters growth. Startup Act 2.0 creates new opportunities for talented foreign- born students and workers to stay in America so that they can employ their skills at innovative startups. It also makes smart changes to the tax code that will encourage investment in startups and will reform the federal regulatory process so that entrepreneurs can spend more time growing their company rather than trying to comply with government mandates.

The Startup Act seems pretty uncontroversial -- after all, who is going to argue with enabling job creation in a post-recession America? What kind of shot at getting this legislation passed this year do we really have, and how can Engine and its members help make this happen?

Many Washington critics say nothing gets done in an election year. Yet, our country cannot wait another 6 months or more to act on commonsense job creating ideas. Other countries are not taking this year off and Congress shouldn’t either. Since March 2012, seven countries have changed their laws to attract talent or offer incentives for entrepreneurs and new companies. This is an urgent issue that demands attention now.

Given the stalled immigration bill proposed by Rep. Chaffetz, passed in the House but stalled in the Senate, it seems like there could be definite roadblocks for the Startup Act. Are there some things that are more likely to pass than others? Is this an all or nothing kind of deal? What kind of opposition do you anticipate and what are you planning to do to give this legislation the best chance of passing?

Startup Act 2.0 is more than an immigration bill - it is the jobs package of this Congress. As unemployment remains above 8 percent for nearly 40 months, Americans are losing faith that Congress can help our struggling economy. Despite the hyper-partisan environment in Washington, this legislation has strong bipartisan support in both chambers. Additionally, Startup Act 2.0 creates American jobs at little to no cost to taxpayers, making the package attractive to many members concerned about our country’s fiscal situation.

Cantor: No Limits to Entrepreneurship, Continue the Startup Discussion

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor pushed the cause of entrepreneurs and startups on Capitol Hill today, emphasizing the importance of government’s role in the formation and success of small businesses. America should be the “Startup country,” the Virginia representative said at a conference on entrepreneurism, “We want to be the destination for the world’s best and brightest, for those willing to work hard, to take a risk and make something of themselves.”

Lawmakers are continuing to shift their focus to issues facing entrepreneurs, startups, and small business this year. Despite the presidential election, partisan division, and other seemingly intractable differences, members of both parties have been able to agree that Washington needs to get to work for startups.

Last week, a bipartisan group of Senators -- Jerry Moran, Mark Warner, Marco Rubio, and Chris Coons -- introduced a bill titled Startup Act 2.0 which would make critical reforms to the immigration system, incentivize the rapid commercialization of research and development, and lessen the tax burden on profits made by small, thriving firms. Engine encourages lawmakers in the House of Representatives to take up similar legislation to bolster small business, help startups hire talented workers, and incentivize the development of innovative products and services that grow the American economy.