<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;kansas&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 8 Oct 2012 08:51:07 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Time Warner Cable Suddenly Forced To Compete In Kansas City; Complains Google Has 'Unfair Advantage'</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121006/10153520628/time-warner-cable-suddenly-forced-to-compete-kansas-city-complains-google-has-unfair-advantage.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121006/10153520628/time-warner-cable-suddenly-forced-to-compete-kansas-city-complains-google-has-unfair-advantage.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ That didn&#39;t take long. Google&#39;s move into the fiber business has already irritated the incumbents (Time Warner Cable and AT&#038;T). Faced with a faster, cheaper rival, the two companies (at this point, mainly Time Warner) are <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/2/3443322/time-warner-att-kansas-city-google-fiber" target="_blank">complaining that the incentives provided to Google are "unfair."</a>
<blockquote>
<i>In order to create the infrastructure for the cable and gigabit internet service, Google was given everything from free fiber, government employees, buildings, and discounted services; an agreement that a Time Warner Cable spokesman feels puts them "at a competitive advantage compared with not just us but also the other competitors in the field."</i></blockquote>
Time Warner&#39;s spokesman seems to misunderstand what the word "incentive" means. When cities attempt to lure businesses they <i>want</i>, they offer concessions, grants, tax breaks, etc. It&#39;s assumed that the incumbent businesses have grabbed substantial marketshare and, therefore, don&#39;t need to be given incentives to do anything more than <i>stay</i>.&nbsp;If Time Warner is upset that its new competition was given this in exchange for selecting Kansas City, it can&#39;t blame anyone else for its failure to offer better services. It certainly was in the position to do so, but it never occurred to the incumbent(s) to make any great leaps in service and speed until it was "unfairly" forced to do so.<br />
<br />
This complaining about being forced to offer a competitive service is nauseating enough. But this sentence tops it:
<blockquote>
<i>He continued by stating, "We&#39;re happy to compete with Google, but we&#39;d just like an even playing field."</i></blockquote>
No, TWC. That is absolutely the <i>last</i> thing you want. TWC has never been interested in "level playing fields" or "competition." In fact, it loathes competition (and innovation) so much that it&#39;s currently the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120614/01292519313/doj-realizes-that-comcast-time-warner-are-trying-to-prop-up-cable-holding-back-hulu-netflix.shtml" target="_blank">target of an anti-trust investigation</a> for its attempts to neutralize Netflix and Hulu by obtaining programming at lower prices than online providers are charged (among other things).<br />
<br />
Hell, TWC has a long and storied history of doing whatever possible to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090422/2236584615.shtml">block a level playing field</a> even to the point of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090423/1415514627.shtml">writing legislation</a> to keep out competitors.
<br /><br />

Time Warner is only interested in a "level playing field" if it means that everyone else has to come <i>down</i> to its level, rather than improving or innovating. In fact, TWC is so worried about Google&#39;s offerings actually leveling the playing field and providing <i>real</i> competition that it&#39;s <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/11/3152558/time-warner-cable-tips-50-google-fiber" target="_blank">offering rewards to city employees for information on Google&#39;s fiber rollout</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>Time Warner has set up a phone hotline and an email address that will award three gift cards a week for employees that "[share] tips, rumors, and rumblings about Google Construction or launch activity..."</i></blockquote>
Still, TWC wants its undeserved place on the "gravy train," and has reached a "parity agreement" with Kansas City, MO.
<blockquote>
<i>In exchange for the incentives, the cities are requesting that the companies improve their community services to be on par with Google&#39;s efforts, which have resulted in free internet connections in hundreds of locations chosen by the government... The WSJ cites an unnamed source that claims Time Warner Cable has improved its service&#39;s speed and performance in the area in return for discounts that mirror Google&#39;s, as well as a partial refund of city fees that the company paid earlier this year.</i></blockquote>
"Improved speed and performance," eh? One wonders (loudly and angrily) what the hell was keeping TWC from improving speed and performance over the last several years? Perhaps it was the lack of a serious competitor and one of those famous "level" playing fields that tilts at a 45-degree tilt toward the incumbent provider. As it stands now, Google&#39;s fastest offering (up to 1 Gbps) is 950 Mbps faster than TWC&#39;s fastest offering.<br />
<br />
Google&#39;s entrance into the broadband market should be a wake-up call for providers all over the US. Once this service is available, they&#39;ll no longer be able to get away with minimal, incremental improvements and never ending price increases. As soon as consumers have a chance to switch, they will, especially when the old school clings to things like <a href="http://www.citizen.org/rigged-justice-rogues-gallery" target="_blank">binding arbitration agreements</a> (a bad company&#39;s best friend) and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120726/12063919844/time-warner-cable-is-ready-conversation-about-rising-costs-not-one-you-want-to-have.shtml" target="_blank">metered broadband</a>, rather than meeting customer expectations or improving infrastructure.&nbsp;<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121006/10153520628/time-warner-cable-suddenly-forced-to-compete-kansas-city-complains-google-has-unfair-advantage.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121006/10153520628/time-warner-cable-suddenly-forced-to-compete-kansas-city-complains-google-has-unfair-advantage.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121006/10153520628/time-warner-cable-suddenly-forced-to-compete-kansas-city-complains-google-has-unfair-advantage.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>i-don't-hear-any-consumers-complaining</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121006/10153520628</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:22:31 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Wilt Chamberlain's Family Tries To Block Film About His College Years, Claiming 'Publicity Rights'</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120820/11303120102/wilt-chamberlains-family-tries-to-block-film-about-his-college-years-claiming-publicity-rights.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120820/11303120102/wilt-chamberlains-family-tries-to-block-film-about-his-college-years-claiming-publicity-rights.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A filmmaker is trying to make a film about basketball great Wilt Chamberlain's college years at Kansas.  However, his estate appears to be <a href="http://www.lawrence.com/news/2012/aug/20/wilt-chamberlains-family-protests-movie/#c2118467" target="_blank">threatening the filmmaker if he goes ahead</a>, claiming such things as publicity rights over Chamberlain's image (thanks to Nancy for sending this over).
<blockquote><i>
&#8220;Please be advised that on December 21, 2001, the court approved that the Chamberlain Family are entitled to &#8216;all of the rights, titles and interests into the intellectual property and rights of publicity associated with the international sports celebrity in the name and likeness of Wilton Norman Chamberlain.&#8217;
<br /><br />
&#8220;Kevin, therefore, I request on behalf of my family, and as outlined in our above-mentioned letters, that you do not violate these rights by pursuing the name and likeness of Wilt since you do not have permission from our family.&#8221;
</i></blockquote>
We've discussed many times just how frequently <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/03475811495/the-rise-of-a-new-intellectual-property-category-ripe-for-trolling-publicity-rights.shtml">publicity rights</a> are being abused to stop basic speech, and this appears like another such case.  While publicity rights depend on the specifics of state laws, it is generally <i>not</i> considered a violation in any way to make a film about a public figure.  That's why something like <i>The Social Network</i> was allowed, despite Mark Zuckerberg's obviously distaste for a movie highlighting the various legal claims against him and Facebook.
<br /><br />
Publicity rights are <i>supposed</i> to be about preventing someone's image from being used to endorse a product -- such as putting their image on a cereal box.  According to <a href="http://www.kenyon.com/newspublications/publications/2010/~/media/Files/Publication%20PDFs/2010/Publicity%20%20US%202011.ashx" target="_blank">this document</a> (pdf), Kansas doesn't have a publicity rights law (or didn't back in 2010).  So, perhaps they're claiming that some other state's laws might apply.  The family appears to live in Las Vegas, and Nevada does have a publicity rights law, which extends 50 years after death -- so perhaps that's what they're relying on.  Many other states don't recognize such rights after death.
<br /><br />
Either way, this seems silly and not at all a publicity rights issue.  No one is going to assume that this movie is necessarily endorsed by Chamberlain or his family, just as they don't naturally assume any sort of biopic was obviously endorsed by those the film is about (or their families).  Instead, this just seems like a clear case of someone trying to use the law to censor a filmmaker.  Shameful.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120820/11303120102/wilt-chamberlains-family-tries-to-block-film-about-his-college-years-claiming-publicity-rights.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120820/11303120102/wilt-chamberlains-family-tries-to-block-film-about-his-college-years-claiming-publicity-rights.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120820/11303120102/wilt-chamberlains-family-tries-to-block-film-about-his-college-years-claiming-publicity-rights.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>ugh</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120820/11303120102</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 3 May 2012 06:08:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Google's Fiber Makes MPAA Skittish. Why Does Hollywood See All Technology In Terms Of Piracy?</title>
<dc:creator>Leigh Beadon</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120430/07083218708/googles-fiber-makes-mpaa-skittish-why-does-hollywood-see-all-technology-terms-piracy.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120430/07083218708/googles-fiber-makes-mpaa-skittish-why-does-hollywood-see-all-technology-terms-piracy.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>One of the points we're always trying to make about piracy is that it has less to do with people just wanting everything for free and more to do with people rushing to embrace the possibilities of new technology. The industry has been slow to offer products that take advantage of these possibilities, and when they do they usually cripple them and charge too much for them, because they refuse to acknowledge the impact of better distribution systems on the market. Instead of recognizing that technological capabilities dictate how they should distribute their content, they think they get to dictate how far people should utilize technology. So piracy moves in to fill the gap, offering people the sort of comprehensive, on-demand service which they know is possible but which can't be bought at any price.</p>

<p>An anonymous reader points us to a perfect example of the technophobic attitude that has become so ingrained in Hollywood. It starts with a story in Bloomberg Businessweek about Google's pilot project in Kansas City, where they are laying fiber to bring super-high-speed internet to the community. With 922 Mbps download speeds already available in nearly a thousand homes, <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-26/google-fiber-in-kansas-city-makes-hollywood-nervous" target="_blank">the topic of piracy was inevitably raised</a>:</p>

<blockquote><em>[Google spokeswoman Jenna] Wandres stresses that Google Fiber isn&#8217;t meant to empower pirates: &#8220;We hope higher speeds will actually make it easier to deliver and download more authorized content,&#8221; she says. Nonetheless, Howard Gantman, spokesman for the Motion Picture Association of America, notes that piracy is always a concern of the entertainment industry. Google Fiber &#8220;could be a great opportunity for consumers whose access to creative content is often hampered by slow speeds,&#8221; he says. But in South Korea, &#8220;the home entertainment marketplace was decimated by digital piracy&#8221; enabled by the widespread availability of high-speed Internet.</em></blockquote>

<p>For one thing, the statement about South Korea is incredibly flimsy. The Korean <em>music</em> industry <em>thrives</em> on high-speed internet&mdash;it grew into an economic powerhouse while the country had some of the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110413/12094013882/joe-biden-theres-no-reason-to-treat-intellectual-property-any-different-than-tangible-property.shtml">highest and earliest broadband penetration rates</a> (and digital piracy rates) in the world. Smart Korean entrepreneurs have figured out how to succeed in the new market. Moreover, claiming that "home entertainment" as a whole was damaged by broadband is just hubris from an industry that thinks only its own products count as "entertainment".</p>

<p>It seems like every Hollywood statement about new technology follows the same format. "This new thing is great, but... piracy!" The problem is that they refuse to act on the first part until someone gives them a bulletproof solution to the second part&mdash;and since such a solution does not and never will exist, they ruin every attempt at a new service with ineffective restrictions and DRM schemes. Ars Technica picked up the story and spoke further to the MPAA spokesman, getting <a href="http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/04/big-content-eyes-google-fiber-deployment-in-kansas-city-warily.ars" target="_blank">yet another "great, but..." response</a>:</p>

<blockquote><em>"We want to reinforce that higher speeds could be a great opportunity for consumers, and that's the bottom line," Howard Gantman, spokesman for the Motion Picture Association of America, told Ars on Friday. "There are problems that can, in terms of [an] increase of digital piracy, come with that, but we are hopeful that efforts can be made... to address digital piracy."</em></blockquote>

<p>Someone should tell Gantman that it's not "the bottom line" if you go on to add caveats and addendums. It's also interesting that he thinks blazing fast internet only "could be" good for consumers&mdash;maybe because he knows Hollywood "could" (but won't) offer them a service that fully leverages the technology. Really what's amazing about this is that the MPAA thinks anyone cares about its opinion of fiber broadband, as if the public is going to stop and think, "Gee, I guess I'll just have to wait for faster internet access while Hollywood develops better piracy controls".</p>

<p>The fact that the MPAA can't get through a single statement about something as clearly <em>positive</em> as faster internet without bringing up reservations about piracy doesn't bode well for Hollywood's future. The studios should be getting <em>ahead</em> of the new technology, and making sure that everyone who gets hooked up to a new fiber network is immediately greeted with a well-made, well-priced movie service that gives them a chance to test out their speedy new connection. Instead they're probably going to watch the technology develop with caution, wait for pirates to beat them to the punch, then arrive in the market with an inferior product and complaints about how they "can't compete".</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120430/07083218708/googles-fiber-makes-mpaa-skittish-why-does-hollywood-see-all-technology-terms-piracy.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120430/07083218708/googles-fiber-makes-mpaa-skittish-why-does-hollywood-see-all-technology-terms-piracy.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120430/07083218708/googles-fiber-makes-mpaa-skittish-why-does-hollywood-see-all-technology-terms-piracy.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>negativity</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120430/07083218708</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:52:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Kansas Governor Apologizes After Staff Gets High School Student In Trouble For Tweet About The Governor</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111128/12010116916/kansas-governor-apologizes-after-staff-gets-high-school-student-trouble-tweet-about-governor.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111128/12010116916/kansas-governor-apologizes-after-staff-gets-high-school-student-trouble-tweet-about-governor.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ You may have recently heard the story of high school senior Emma Sullivan, who was told she <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/28/us/kansas-high-schooler-tweet/index.html?hpt=hp_t3" target="_blank">had to write an apology letter</a> to Kansas Governor Sam Brownback for a "disparaging" tweet she sent out while on a field trip to the state capitol.  Apparently, while Brownback was talking to the group of students, she sent out from her mobile phone:
<blockquote><i>
 "Just made mean comments at gov brownback and told him he sucked, in person #heblowsalot."
</i></blockquote>
She didn't actually make any comments to the Governor, and says it was just a part of a running joke she had with some friends.  However, someone on Brownback's staff found the tweet and alerted school officials, who called her into the principal's office and told her that she should write an apology letter to the Governor -- due today.  Sullivan thought about it and decided that she wouldn't do it, because she didn't think she should:
<blockquote><i>
"I don't think I should write the letter, and I don't think it would be the best move for me," Emma Sullivan, 18, said late Sunday night. "At this time, I do not think an apology would be a sincere thing for me to do."
</i></blockquote>
In response, it appears the whole story shifted in the <i>other</i> direction, and the one apologizing is Governor Brownback, who has said, <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19425507" target="_blank">"My staff overreacted to this tweet, and for that I apologize."</a>  Everyone involved now seems to be playing off the whole misadventure as "a lesson in social media and free speech."  The school district also said that it would not send an apology of its own, and that "The issue has resulted in many teachable moments concerning the use of social media. The district does not intend to take any further action on this matter."
<br /><br />
In the end, it seems like everyone's right that this is something of a "teachable moment," but it's still pretty crazy that it reached that level in the first place.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111128/12010116916/kansas-governor-apologizes-after-staff-gets-high-school-student-trouble-tweet-about-governor.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111128/12010116916/kansas-governor-apologizes-after-staff-gets-high-school-student-trouble-tweet-about-governor.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111128/12010116916/kansas-governor-apologizes-after-staff-gets-high-school-student-trouble-tweet-about-governor.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>#heblowsalot-or-maybe-not</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111128/12010116916</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 2 Mar 2010 08:44:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Topeka (Sorta) Changes Its Name To Google, In Blatant Suck Up For Fiber</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100301/1824288348.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100301/1824288348.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ With Google's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100210/1042478109.shtml">announcement</a> that it plans to roll out super fast fiber to the home services in a few small locations, there are plenty of cities and towns hoping to be among the lucky few.  But who knew it was a contest?  Apparently the folks in Topeka, Kansas think that sucking up to the big G is the path to fiber optic nirvana.  They've proclaimed that, for the month of March, <a href="http://cjonline.com/news/local/2010-03-01/topeka_to_be_google_kansas" target="_blank">Topeka shall be referred to as Google, Kansas</a>.  It's not a legal name change -- which (not surprisingly) would be a lot more complex, and likely wouldn't pass -- but just a proclamation that the city should be called Google for the month.
<br /><br />
Of course, cities renaming themselves after tech companies isn't all that new.  Over a decade ago, some town in Oregon <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/991220/1214206.shtml">renamed itself Half.com</a> in a PR stunt by the startup (which was later bought by eBay).  And, a few years ago, a small town in Texas <a href="http://www.roadsideamerica.com/tip/15265" target="_blank">renamed itself Dish, Texas</a> after EchoStar's Dish Network, in exchange for every house in the town getting a free DVR and free satellite TV for 10 years.  But this is the first time I've heard of a city pre-emptively (sorta) renaming itself to curry favor with a company.
<br /><br />
But, if it works... I'm more than willing to rename my house Chez Google, if it means 1 gigabit per second fiber.  Hell, I'm pretty sure I could convince all of the neighbors on my street to rename our street Google Ave.  Just let us know...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100301/1824288348.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100301/1824288348.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100301/1824288348.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>we're-still-in-kansas,-toto</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100301/1824288348</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>