May 2010

For US Newspaper Industry, an Example in Germany?

When German researchers cast their critical gaze over debt-ridden institutions, you know they won't like what they find. So it goes for profligate Mediterranean governments -- and also, as it turns out, for the troubled American newspaper industry.

US publishers come in for withering criticism in a report this month from the German Newspaper Publishers' Association. The study contrasts the crisis facing American newspapers with the somewhat healthier state of their German counterparts. While daily newspaper circulation in the United States fell 27 percent from 1998 through 2008, it slipped 19 percent in Germany. While fewer than half of Americans read newspapers, more than 70 percent of Germans do. While newspapers' revenues have plunged in the United States, they have held steady in Germany since 2004. American publishers blame the economic crisis and the Internet for their plight, but the report says the structure of the U.S. newspaper industry is a big part of the problem. Most German newspapers are owned by family concerns or other small companies with local roots, but the American industry is dominated by publicly traded chains. Under pressure from shareholders clamoring for short-term results, the study contends, U.S. newspapers made reckless cuts in editorial and production quality, hastening the flight of readers and advertisers to the Web. Instead of focusing on journalism, the report says, U.S. newspapers also made unwise investments in new media, and compounded the damage by giving away their contents free on the Internet. German publishers have been much more reticent about the Web, in some cases keeping large amounts of their content offline.

Sen Kerry to chair hearing on improving Web access for deaf, blind

Sen John Kerry (D-MA) will chair a hearing next week on legislation that would require technology companies, phone manufacturers and Web vendors to adapt their products for deaf or blind customers. The scheduled Wednesday, May 26, discussion on the Senate Commerce subcommittee that chiefly handles Web issues will center on the Equal Access to 21st Century Communications Act, which Kerry co-sponsors along with Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas). The bill -- pitched as a technological addendum to the Americans With Disabilities Act -- is the two Democrats' attempt to address accessibility problems that have long made it difficult for disabled persons to use new-media and technology tools.

Obama signals support for copyright treaty

President Barack Obama offered a subtle nod this week to an expansive international copyright treaty that has riled some activists and federal lawmakers.

That draft accord -- called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) -- would essentially require Internet-service providers to take a greater role in finding and disabling access to pirated content online, or risk legal liability. The president displayed brief support for that draft document in a joint statement Wednesday with Mexican President Felipe Caldron, who is visiting Washington this week for the White House's second state dinner. Toward the end of the release Wednesday summarizing the two presidents' discussions, they said they had "reaffirmed their commitment to the negotiation of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and charged their administrations to conclude these negotiations soon."

Hearing from America on Intellectual Property

Over the last few months, I have been working with policymakers across federal agencies to address the problems faced by American businesses with regards to intellectual property infringement. There are a number of critical programs in place to support business and we are working to make these programs more effective and develop new programs where gaps exist. I have learned how many different types of businesses are affected and harmed by infringement of intellectual property. I have been impressed by the level of knowledge and concern at the very top of some of our biggest and most innovative companies, responsible for millions of American jobs. I had the opportunity to sit down with CEOs from Intel, eBay, Calera, Google, Warner Bros, and Pandora, among many others, representing nearly every innovation-intensive sector of our economy. Perhaps most importantly, through these meetings and through the comments we received from the general public, we have received some excellent recommendations about how the United States government can improve our efforts to enforce our intellectual property, with some of the best ideas coming from the smallest companies.

[Espinel is the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator]

Facebook privacy coming to a head, changes may be imminent

Facebook has found itself facing some tough choices when it comes to the direction of the company, specifically revolving around user privacy.

As most Netizens know, Facebook has faced harsh criticism in recent months—which may be coming to a head after having built up slowly over the years—regarding how it handles user information. Now, the company is left deciding whether it wants to revert to its old principles and go against founder Mark Zuckerberg's policy of forging ahead, privacy be damned. Facebook public policy head Tim Sparapani said in a radio interview Tuesday that the company was working on simplifying its privacy controls because of user complaints about their complexity. "I think we are going to work on that. We are going to be providing options for users who want simplistic bands of privacy that they can choose from and I think we will see that in the next couple of weeks," he said. Sparapani's utterances come on the heels of Facebook working to fix a privacy bug, discovered by Alert Logic earlier this week, one that allowed attackers to expose private information on a user's profile. The flaw was as simple as sending users a specially crafted link which, when clicked, would modify the user's privacy settings. But despite these fixes and potential tweaks to Facebook's settings, users have found themselves on a very different site than the one they used even a year ago.

Should Uncle Sam save public media with huge cash infusion?

Free Press is advocating for expanding government's commitment to public media. Of course, there's some hurdles.

First, the environment on Capitol Hill towards public media isn't as bad now as it was five years ago, when Congress tried to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, but it's still pretty bad. There's the matter of a $1.3 trillion deficit with which to reckon. And there's the even bigger question—what the heck is public media anyway? Is it that public radio station that tells you that this hour of All Things Considered was made possible by a generous grant from Megacorp and the D.H. Dunwoody Family Trust? Or that Friday night public television lineup that includes old classic movies you can rent for peanuts on Netflix or watch on the 'Net for nothing? But one-third of journalism jobs have disappeared over the last decade. So the need to do something is urgent. "While we might imagine a future 20 years hence in which some new business model emerges to make up for what we're losing right now, the interim period may be marked by a potentially severe crisis in meeting the public's information needs," the group warns.

We're confident that most of Free Press's funding proposals will draw howls of protest from many stakeholders, but that might not be such a bad thing. The actual prospects for most of these ideas are another matter.

More Views on the Retransmission Debate

Cablevision wants the Federal Communications Commission to require broadcasters to negotiate only cash payments for their signals. That would be a 180-degree turn-around from the early days of retrans, when most cable operators didn't want to pay cash and instead made deals that involved some form of non-cash compensation, often carriage of additional, co-owned cable channels.

Cox Enterprises, which has both major TV station and cable MSO holdings, says the FCC needs to consider adopting a last-ditch, fail-safe, when-all-else-fails system to prevent the kind of retrans stalemates that result in cable subscribers losing wired access to TV stations. Cox also takes aim at the major networks' avowed interest in getting a cut of their affiliates' retrans bucks, and even their participation in their own stations' negotiations when they involve linking on-air and online content.

Sinclair Broadcasting said there were relatively few examples of negotiations "taking place in the public eye," Sinclair having been one of them, and even fewer of those where signals are pulled--less than 1% by Sinclair's reckoning. Sinclair conceded that those interruptions are not good, both costly for broadcasters and "inconvenient" for viewers. But it was not ready to take the fall for pulling the signals when a contract has expired.

Verizon took a targeted approach to asking the FCC for changes to the retransmission consent regime. In its comments to the FCC on a petition it co-sponsored along with satellite companies and cable operators large and small, it said, ideally, the commission would get rid of rules like network nonduplication and syndicated exclusivity that prevent it from negotiating with out-of-market TV station operators. But rather than push those points, it said the FCC should at the very least require a standstill agreement that keeps signals from being pulled so long as both sides are bargaining in good faith.
Cablevision Proposes Cash and Carry Retrans Regime (B&C - Cablevision)

Parents get help in choosing an online learning program

A new guide offers parents a roadmap in their quest to find the right online-learning program for their child.

"A Parent's Guide to Choosing the Right Online Program," written by John Watson and Butch Gemin of the Evergreen Education Group and Marla Coffey, a distance education consultant at the University of Maryland University College, is part of the Promising Practices in Online Learning series from the International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL). According to the authors, online learning options can be public or private, full-time or supplemental, fully online or a blend of online and basic instruction—and these multiple and diverse options can create an intimidating array of options from which to choose. The guide helps parents understand what online learning is and what options are available to them. The authors say it is "primarily for parents contemplating a full-time online school for their children, although many of the issues discussed are appropriate considerations for supplemental online courses as well."

Stakeholders fight for ed-tech funds

Computer-based testing, online high school courses, instructional data systems, and a dropout reengagement program that uses a blended model of instruction are just some of the uses of federal education technology funding that are occurring in states, a group of state leaders told Congress in lobbying for further ed-tech support.

Education leaders gathered on Capitol Hill May 17 to share stories about successful federally funded programs in an effort to urge lawmakers to continue to fund the Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) program in FY2011. President Obama's budget proposal would fold EETT -- the largest single source of federal funding for school technology equipment, support, and professional development—into a new competitive grant program that aims to promote effective teaching and learning by making technology an integral part of education. But many advocates of education technology are wary of this approach.

Apple, RIM & Google: 3 Winners of the Very Expensive 3G Auction in India

[Commentary] Wow...the 3G auction in India has raised a whopping $11 billion by selling licenses to some of the country's major telecom carriers including Bharti Airtel, Reliance Communications and Aircel.

That is an astounding amount of money considering the low tariffs in the Indian market, where voice minutes and SMS messages are ridiculously cheap and most telecom carriers are struggling to keep their profit streams intact. There is no reason to believe that things will be any different in the 3G world. The 3G buildout isn't going to be cheap and if the tariffs remain low, expect things to be tough for Indian telecoms. Given the history of telecom regulation in the country, I wouldn't be surprised if the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and/or the Department of Telecommunications continued to make short-term, politically popular moves that will kill the golden goose. Bharti Airtel, for instance, spent $2.6 billion on the 3G spectrum — good luck recouping that after a big network buildout.

I think the big winners of India's 3G buildout are going to be the three smartphone giants: Apple, Research in Motion and Google with its Android ecosystem. In fact, if Google was smart, it would be shifting much of its mobile resources to India right now. Not only could it use the demand for cheap 3G smartphones to its advantage, it could also jump-start its tablet ambitions by building low-cost devices coupled with affordable 3G Internet plans.