May 2010

Comcast Can Censor This Blog Post ... With FCC's Permission?

[Commentary] A Washington Post article this morning says the Federal Communications Commission may be "leaning toward" siding with the largest phone and cable companies and against an open and universal Internet. The FCC may reconfirm the old George W. Bush decisions giving away FCC authority to protect citizens' right to access the Internet. To do this, the FCC will decide to rest its decisions on hollow legal theories that would give them the appearance of following through on Obama campaign promises, knowing full well the pro-consumer decisions would be reversed after the mid-term elections. In doing so, the Obama FCC would be breaking Obama's most important pledge about the Internet--to support an open Internet.

Obama FCC Expected to Abandon Net Neutrality, Universal Internet

[Commentary] It is a testament to the phone and cable industry's overwhelming influence that they seem to have convinced the nation's communications agency to swear off authority to protect Americans' right to open communications.

But it is stunning that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski would even contemplate allowing it to stand, given President Obama's repeated pledge to ensure fast, affordable, universal Internet broadband for every American. So what's going on here? If Genachowski gives up on restoring FCC authority, you can be sure he will claim that Internet deployment remains the signature issue of his FCC and that he can still accomplish the goals outlined in the FCC's recently released National Broadband Plan. But unless the FCC puts broadband under what's called "Title II" of the Telecommunications Act, nearly every broadband-related decision the agency makes from here forward will be aggressively challenged in court, and the FCC will likely lose. The phone and cable companies know this, which is why they're going all out to keep the FCC from fixing the problem.

Free Press Says Not Reclassifying Title II Would Kill Net Neutrality

Free Press expressed disbelief at a report that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski may be leaning toward not reclassifying broadband Internet service under Title II, though that option has always been on the table.

The network neutrality fans were responding to a report in the Washington Post that the chairman was "leaning toward" not doing so, but the story suggested he was also weighing the downside of trying to justify network management and other network neutrality authority under its current Title I classification. A spokesperson for the chairman had no comment on the story, though a source said it did not come from his office. The chairman has kept his cards close to the vest over what the FCC might do in the wake of the federal court smack down of its Comcast/BitTorrent network management decision, but has pledged to find a legal underpinning for both network openness and transparency and a raft of initiatives under the national broadband plan, most prominently the shifting of Universal Service funds from phone service to broadband. But Free Press as much as said it was Title II or the highway.

ISPs Struggle to Deliver Video Traffic While Imposing Bandwidth Caps

Many Internet service providers are struggling to cope with the rapid growth of video traffic while trying to put a reasonable limit on the amount of bandwidth consumers can use.

Bandwidth capping is seen as a way to help pay for new infrastructure by constraining demand on the network while extracting revenue from higher net worth customers who download the most data. However, online applications tend to evolve to fill up the capacity available, creating a situation where there likely never will be a point when pressure on bandwidth within the network ceases. But bandwidth capping also has a quality of service function, to ensure there is enough capacity for critical applications that generate less data streaming than video, such as e-mail.

"This phenomenon of fast increasing amounts of video over broadband is going to cause some very significant problems in terms of cost and also user expectations over the next few years," said Simon Orme, director of content services at British Telecom's wholesale division. "We see these huge hockey sticks from the analysts projecting explosive growth, which get worse every time I look at them."

A New Deal for broadband: free, wireless

Imagine you were the Chair of the Federal Communications Commission. One day someone came to you with an offer:

"Sell us a chunk of spectrum in the Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) band (1.9GHz to 2.1GHz). We'll create a fast broadband service with some of it, and with the rest we'll build a free 768Kbps wireless network, rolled out to most Americans over a ten-year period. We'll even pay the US Treasury a percentage of our revenue, and fund the service with our own capital, partnership deals, and ads."

Why wouldn't you seriously consider this idea?

There's a catch. The only way that the National Telecommunications and Information Agency's broadband stimulus fund is going to fork over this cash is if the FCC greenlights the use of that spectrum. And while the NBP mentions the free wireless concept, the FCC says it won't make decisions about the AWS band until it has completed a consultation with the NTIA that goes through October 1. That's one day after NTIA is expected to announce its last round of stimulus awards.

Reassert FCC bans on media monopoly

[Commentary] America is best served by diverse, independent media, and that goal is nurtured by equally diverse ownership. Unfortunately, decades of timid leadership at the Federal Communications Commission has produced policies that serve big corporations to the detriment of the public. The Obama administration and the FCC have an opportunity to reinforce limits on newspapers monopolizing TV and radio outlets in the same market, and the number of television and radio stations one company can own in the same market. President Obama and FCC chair Julius Genachowski have the opportunity of congressionally mandated four-year reviews of cross-ownership rules to eliminate decades of ambiguity over a fundamental value. Restate, reinforce and exercise limits on newspaper and TV ownership in the same markets. Do not allow corporate giants to gobble up all the TV and radio stations in a market. Endlessly granting waivers does not reclaim the independence of American journalism.

Journalism's Crisis Is Public Media's Opportunity

[Commentary] You know about the crisis: Tens of thousands of journalists losing their jobs. Local outlets shuttered or reduced to a shell. A "perfect storm" created when the rise of the Internet and the end of local advertising monopolies collided with the economic downturn.

Of course, the media's most serious wounds have been self-inflicted. While regulators rubber-stamped one mega-merger after another, the big media companies took on massive amounts of debt. Now they're drowning in it, and they're taking newsrooms down with them. Wherever you point the blame, we face the same daunting reality: There is no longer enough private capital -- in the form of advertising, subscriptions, philanthropy and other sources -- to support the depth and breadth of quality local, national and international news reporting our communities need to participate in a 21st century democracy. And there's the opportunity: This is the moment to re-imagine our old public broadcasting system and rebuild it as a new public media network committed to education, to community service and, most importantly, to local newsgathering.

Local news reporting should become one of public media's top priorities, and we should redeploy and redouble our resources accordingly. We need public media to put professional reporters, fact checkers and editors on the beat to keep a watchful eye on the powerful and to reliably examine the vital issues that most Americans can't follow closely on their own.

Oh, yes -- we also need to figure out how to pay for it.

Privacy advocates target online advertisers

A coalition of consumer and privacy groups is taking its fight for online consumer privacy to Capitol Hill. In their sights: online advertising practices and behavioral targeting. In a joint letter to Congress, the groups warn that tracking and targeting of consumers have reached "alarming levels." They say they want legislation, not self-regulation. The coalition includes the Center for Digital Democracy, Consumers Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. They made their case one day before Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), chairman of the House subcommittee on communications, technology and the Internet, introduces a consumer online privacy bill. The legislation is expected to address concerns about consumer privacy given the growing use of online behavioral advertising, which involves using data about a consumer's Web surfing habits to target ads to them.

Sen Whitehouse: Congress needs clarity on who handles cybersecurity threats

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) stressed lawmakers needed to address gaps in cybersecurity enforcement that could create confusion over who handles a specific threat. During an interview with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Sen Whitehouse said "boundary issues between the intelligence community and other covert organizations," including the National Security Agency, had to be "made clear so that you don't end up with ball dropping between the two fielders." That specificity would ensure that "everyone knows where their responsibilities begin and end," added Whitehouse, who is heading up a cybersecurity task force commissioned by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee. That effort is on track to deliver a report to lawmakers this summer, the senator said.

Private, government experts wary about cybersecurity

A new survey finds that while more than 90 percent of private and public sector security experts say cyber attacks pose a serious threat, they differ on whether each side is doing enough to protect their networks. The poll, released Saturday before the start of a worldwide cybersecurity summit in Dallas, found that 70 percent of government officials surveyed said private-sector networks were not secure enough, while only 39 percent of private sector security officials surveyed believed government networks were not secure enough.

Benton

Search