May 2010

Supreme Court Upholds Cable TV 'Must-Carry' Rule

The Supreme Court has declined to take up a challenge from cable television operators to the 18-year-old requirement that they carry local broadcast stations on their systems.

The justices rejected an appeal Monday from Cablevision Systems Corp. The court upheld a federal "must carry" law, enacted in 1992 when cable TV systems faced much less competition than they do today. Cablevision, the nation's fifth-largest cable TV operator, sued the Federal Communications Commission over its ruling that forced Cablevision to carry the signal of a distant home-shopping station on its Long Island cable systems. The federal appeals court in New York upheld the FCC's determination. The Obama administration urged the court to stay out of the case. It noted that being carried on cable systems "remains critical to broadcast stations' financial viability generally."

Freedom Of Press Act Signed: Obama Enacts Law To Provide More Protections To Journalists

President Barack Obama has signed a law intended to provide more protections for a free press around the world. The law, the Daniel Pearl Freedom of Press Act, expands efforts to identify countries where press freedom is being violated.

The law is named after Pearl, a Wall Street Journal reporter who was beheaded by militants in Pakistan in 2002. The law expands an annual report on human rights practices to include information about media treatment, and identify countries where the media is being repressed.

An Internet Struggle with Bandwidth Aplenty

The fight over regulating the Internet has become the engine for a perpetual Washington fund-raising machine. By definition, this means the battle won't end anytime soon.

Victor E. Schwartz, who chairs the Washington policy group at Shook, Hardy & Bacon, has seen this drill before. "You have a Washington game with certain perennial issues important to business," he says. "They come back again and again. Why? They're fund-raising gushers." Members of Congress see little reason to resolve the clash quickly, so long as conflicting interests fill their campaign coffers. Schwartz served as an industry field general in a 20-year war against the plaintiffs' bar over product liability restrictions. That scorched-earth exercise in the courts and Congress finally burned out in 2005. Business interests won selected litigation curbs, including limits on state court class actions and securities suits. Total victory -- broad federal "tort reform" -- eluded Schwartz and his allies. Net regulation could be the new product liability. The FCC announcement "is likely to set off a politically charged conflagration and deep-pocketed lobbying war," pitting the digital service providers against Google, Amazon, and others that want their content disseminated free of special charges or limitations, says Jeffrey Silva, a Washington-based analyst with Medley Global Advisors.

Glenn Beck's war on the FCC

Glenn Beck took to his Fox News TV program last Monday night to deliver a rant about how President Obama has compiled something "almost like an enemies list" and how President Obama is into "silencing opponents." The president's tool of choice for this censorship? Network neutrality -- the principle that ISPs cannot interfere with content.

"We are dealing with people who think they should rebel until they get their little kingdom like Satan did," said Beck. "You know what? Thanks, Mr. President, but I think we're going to keep the Internet the way it is right now. You know -- or at least until people who are worshipping Satan, you know, aren't in office."

The mechanism by which net neutrality will silence Beck and those like him remains murky, but the matter is clearly of great concern. "The FCC also says they are marching forward, marching with a boot on your throat to -- announcing plans to make Internet companies a public utility," he said. "Net neutrality—the court shot that one down, but they are going to make it a public utility now." Or again: "So now, the president wants to regulate the Internet, to help control all the misinformation out there. He is going to do it with net neutrality. Well, the court said no... So, now what they're doing is the FCC is just going to—they're going to make it a public utility. The Internet. Where are you, America, without the Internet?" The entire segment was driven by a recent Obama speech to graduates in which the president described the challenges of "coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kind of content and exposes us to all kind of arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter."

New Report Raises Concerns About Online Alcohol Marketing and Youth

The Federal Trade Commission and the National Association of Attorneys General are being asked to investigate digital marketing of alcoholic beverages, both beer and distilled spirits.

The request is coming from the Center For Digital Democracy and the Berkeley Media Studies Group, which plan Tuesday (May 18) to release a report, Alcohol Marketing In the Digital Age, with examples of online alcohol marketing via mobile phones, social networks and more they argue has the potential to attract underage drinkers. The study was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The beer and distilled spirits industries already have self-regulatory codes that prohibit marketing to youth, but the groups want them to toughen those, including banning the use of psychographic information on underage users from any Web site. That report cites various digital and social marketing campaigns, including Google (YouTube), MySpace, and Facebook that the alcohol industry uses in an effort to track and target their audience. "The alcohol industry's digital and social media marketing tactics are blurring the boundaries between advertising and content with unprecedented sophistication," said report co-author Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center For Digital Democracy. "The FTC and state attorneys-general should launch an investigation into this new threat to young people online."

India Seeks Chinese Firms' Ownership Data

India has given Huawei Technologies and ZTE one month to disclose full details of their ownership, concerned that foreign telecom equipment makers, mainly from China, are a national security threat as they can have spying technology embedded in their equipment.

The two Asian economic giants have long been suspicious of each other and fought a war in 1962. The recent dispute follows several attacks on Indian government websites that New Delhi blames on Chinese hackers. ZTE Telecom India Pvt. Ltd. Chairman and Managing Director D.K. Ghosh said Tuesday that officials from the company would meet India Home Secretary G.K. Pillai on Thursday to discuss matters regarding the purchase of telecom equipment from China. Officials at ZTE Telecom India confirmed Friday that they met with Mr. Pillai, but they didn't elaborate on the discussions.

Cyber Challenge: 10,000 security warriors wanted

The Cyber Challenge, which is part national talent search and part skills development program, has set a goal of finding 10,000 Americans with the skills to fill the ranks of "cybersecurity practitioners, researchers, and warriors."

The idea is to nurture and develop participant skills, give them access to training and practice, and give them exposure to colleges and employers "where their skills can be of the greatest value to the country." The challenge is being put to the test this summer in an alpha run. Participants in California, New York, and Delaware can try out a free online treasure hunt, developed by the SANS (SysAdmin, Audit, Network, Security) Institute, an organization that provides security training and certification. Those who pass muster will be invited to attend a summer camp in that state where they'll receive a week of training by SANS and university faculty and students.

A Modest Proposal on Privacy

Wireless analyst Chetan Sharma suggests: "If people are really serious about tackling privacy, OEMs and carriers should build a physical/soft privacy button on the device with 3-5 levels (just like for the ringer volume) that allows users to open/close privacy across all applications and services with the touch of a button. All apps and services should adhere to the principle via APIs. The other mistake companies make about privacy is by treating everyone the same. Privacy is about the perception of control and transparency. If it is given back to the consumer, they are likely to engage more and have a more positive impact on revenue streams that are likely to flow."

Online Privacy: Check Yourself (Before You Wreck Yourself)

Online privacy is at worst an illusion, and at best harder to come by than ever -- and it's making headlines every day. Facebook's under fire for everything from its labyrinth of confusing privacy settings to apparently banning users who want to share. Google inadvertently collected data transmitted on open Wi-Fi networks its Street View cars drove by. People search engines like Spokeo make your photo, salary, and home address accessible at the press of a button. Privacy breaches (or just obfuscated settings) are all too common among Web applications of all stripes, so the savvy surfer has to know how to safely navigate. In an online world where personalization rules, there are two main ways to protect your personal data: Be vigilant about what you publish online; and be willing to roll up your sleeves and dig into the settings area of the tools and services you use to do so.

Delete Your Facebook Account: 'Quit Facebook Day' Wants Users To Leave

As controversy swells around Facebook's latest changes to its privacy policy users' interest in deleting their Facebook accounts has soared. A group of dissatisfied Facebook users have teamed up in an effort to organize a mass, coordinated exodus from Facebook -- and they're using social networks to do it. Their site, QuitFacebookDay.com, asks users to "commit to quit" Facebook on May 31 by signing their name or Twitter handle to the list of pledges. The cause has attracted several hundred pledges--about 780 at the time of writing.