October 2010

2010 Privacy Report Card

The Obama Administration scores a grade of C in Consumer Privacy, B in Medical Privacy, D in Civil Liberties, and B in Cybersecurity.

Concerning civil liberties, EPIC found that the Administration has aggressively asserted the "state secrets" doctrine, expanded Fusion Centers and watch lists, and subjected all American air travelers to unconstitutional body searches in airports. Incredibly, the White House allowed the President's Civil Liberties and Privacy Oversight Board to languish. Even the Bush Administration made this a priority.

FCC Asks Fox and Cablevision to Defend Negotiations

The Federal Communications Commission has asked both Cablevision and Fox to explain -- by Monday, Oct. 25 -- how their negotiations square with the law that requires them to be "in good faith."

The FCC also wants each side to provide any evidence against the other side if they have it. In a letter to News Corp. President Chase Carey and Cablevision President James Dolan, FCC Media Bureau Chief Bill Lake said that the FCC has defined good faith bargaining as "conducted in an atmosphere of honesty, purpose and clarity of process." Lake wants each to describe how they are satisfying that requirement in the context of their retransmission consent battle. "In particular, we request that you describe with specificity what has transpired since you initially began your negotiations, and detail the efforts your company is making to end the current impasse. "As you know," he concluded, "your contract dispute extends beyond just Fox and Cablevision. Indeed, it affects millions of innocent consumers who expect to watch their preferred broadcast programming without interruption. We urge you to place the interests of these consumers first and conclude your negotiations promptly."

Genachowski's Retransmission Approach a Winner

[Commentary] Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski should get an award for doing nothing in the Fox-Cablevision retransmission dispute.

Don't laugh. Doing nothing is not so easy for policymakers and politicians in Washington. Most think it's their job fix everything that goes wrong in America, even something as trivial as viewers in New York and Philadelphia losing a handful of their 500 TV channels. Congress and the FCC got it right on retrans in early 1990s. They created a market where the buyers (cable and satellite operators) and sellers (the broadcasters) have more or less equal leverage. Sure, broadcasters have been able to squeeze fees out of the operators, but it has only been lately (the last five years) and it hasn't been much relative to the fees that some cable networks with a fraction of the ratings get. According to SNL Kagan, the average station is getting only 25 cents per subscriber. And when broadcasters and cable fail to reach an agreement as in the case of Fox and Cablevision, both suffer. All broadcasters should be rooting for Fox. If it gets what it's asking -- 95 cents for its two stations in New York, according to an SNL Kagan analysis -- it will set a new benchmark for broadcasters to shoot for. It will give them hope that they might eventually get their fair share of the $26 billion that cable and satellite operators now set aside for payments to programmers.

Fox to Cablevision Subs: Get Thee to an Antenna

Fox Networks, well into the seventh day of its blackout of Cablevision Systems, issued a plea to the Cablevision's customers urging them to either seek an alternate video provider or buy an antenna to watch their broadcast programming, which includes the upcoming World Series, over the air.

"For the past eight days Cablevision has deprived their subscribers of the National League Championship Series, possibly two weekends of NFL on Fox, and a full week of Fox's primetime shows," Fox said in a statement. "Unfortunately, it's becoming clear that Cablevision believes Fox has very limited value to their customers. We urge those Cablevision subscribers who want to see the World Series (beginning October 27) to switch providers or purchase an over the air antenna now."

Public Knowledge Says TV Networks Wrong To Block Google TV

Broadcasters hold a public trust, whether they like it or not. They receive billions of dollars in free publicly owned spectrum to distribute their programming. It is truly disappointing that broadcasters would leverage their programming to deny access to viewers who watch the shows over another medium -- on cable or online.

When a broadcaster exercises its market power in pursuit of maintaining a business model while stifling competition by blocking Hulu, Fox.com (or Google TV), the broadcaster violates that public trust and harms consumers. It is time to bring a rational structure to the rules and laws governing the retransmission of TV programming. If online video is to emerge as an independent medium, it must be free from the power that broadcasters bring to bear.

The Real Reason the Networks Are Blocking Goggle TV

The major broadcast television networks are blocking their content on Google TV. They are blocking Google TV because it is putting a web TV show, with web TV show economics, on a TV, which would be incredibly disruptive to their business.

The reason the networks are blocking Google TV and Boxee (and Hulu is still PC-only) is about ad revenue: they don't get enough of it from the web. And letting you watch "Glee" on your TV, but via the web and Google TV, means substituting high broadcast revenue for lower digital revenue. Ultimately, the networks would like to either normalize the number of ads on the web and TV or increase the revenue per viewer-minute on the web through new, targeted or interactive ads.

So far, networks like ABC, CBS and The CW have been increasing ad loads slowly, as the market and viewers will support it. Nielsen and others have systems in the works where the networks could measure or sell audiences across both TV and the web -- if the ad loads were the same. Once there is parity on the revenue per viewer per minute, then you will see web shows on Google TV or Boxee, and Hulu on your TV set. Until then, though, the networks will do everything in their power to keep TV shows distributed on the web on PCs and TV shows sold for TV on the big screen. No conspiracy of old media to stop technology or thwart user choice here; it's a rational business strategy, pure and simple.

How Google TV Could Hand Netflix The Entire Streaming Universe

[Commentary] I personally can't think of anything stupider for the big broadcast networks to do than give their shows to Google for free. Why? Because they are finally getting BILLIONS of dollars in retransmission fees from their distributors. This is new money. It is found money. It is money they are fighting for. Now if Google were to go to those networks and offer them money per month for every buyer of a Google enabled device or TV, that would be different. Then they would be a TV provider competing with the rest and they should take their money. Think Google will ever do that? I don't. So giving the same content they not only charge their distributors for, but also charge their local affiliates for to Google for nothing or for a share of revenue? STUPID.

There is No New Media: It's All New Consumption

[Commentary] So, now television broadcasters are blocking Google TV from getting access to the content they're putting online. They want to make sure they don't lose their advertising dollars. News flash: The cat is out of the bag.

All information (including your precious television shows) are nothing more than bits on one network to rule them all -- the Internet. The knee-jerk response from the television industry and media to services like Google, Apple, Amazon and Netflix is a typical reaction from institutions of the past century, and a result of limited and short-term thinking. The broadcasters aren't the only ones. When I look at these industries and the failure -- or impending failure — of these institutions, I see a fundamental mistake on their part to understand their own core businesses. They fail to see the world in a larger context, and instead, choose to focus on maintaining the status quo. If they took their cue from Apple (everywhere computing) or Amazon (any content anywhere), they could have found answers to their problems.

Administration's weather satellite plan opposed globally

A host of weather-related groups around the globe strongly oppose the Obama Administration's plans to reallocate spectrum weather satellites use to commercial cellular carriers in support of the National Broadband Plan.

The groups include the World Meteorological Organization, weather agencies in countries such as Canada and Vietnam, state and local agencies, and commercial weather service providers in the United States. WMO said the plan could end up threatening the operation of a global constellation of 20 weather satellites, including four geostationary operational environmental satellites and four polar-orbiting satellites the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration operates. Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of WMO, a United Nations agency, said in a letter to the Federal Communications Commission that a spectrum sharing plan for weather satellites in the United States could influence other countries to try the same thing, which "would put at risk meteorological and hydrological activities worldwide" and jeopardize a global system whose operation costs run between $2 billion and $3 billion annually. "There is no alternative to spectrum for METSAT [meteorological satellite operations], and no alternative frequency band that can provide similar reliable and available service," Jarraud wrote. Weather balloons also rely on the 1675-1710 MHz band, and while NOAA launches only two balloons per day, Jarraud said 100,000 weather balloons are launched around the world each year, carrying radiosondes which collect data necessary to fine tune weather forecasts.

Considering the Broadband Stimulus Efforts and Evaluating its Impact

Now that all of the broadband stimulus funding has been distributed, its effectiveness can now be evaluated. That was the message at the Broadband Breakfast Club on Tuesday, October 19. While the long term value of the stimulus is still unknown, panelists were able to gauge the way in which the funds were distributed. Overall, panelists felt that the program was well established. the program a grade of B+.

Benton Foundation Chairman Charles Benton praised the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Rural Utilities Service for their hard work given their limited resources. He gave the program process an "A." He also highlighted the fact that it was a very convivial process with very few points of contention.

Benton

Search