December 2010

WikiLeaks Taps Power of the Press

Has WikiLeaks changed journalism forever? Perhaps. Or maybe it was the other way around.

In July, WikiLeaks began what amounted to a partnership with mainstream media organizations, including The New York Times, by giving them an early look at the so-called Afghan War Diary, a strategy that resulted in extensive reporting on the implications of the secret documents. Then in October, the heretofore classified mother lode of 250,000 United States diplomatic cables that describe tensions across the globe was shared by WikiLeaks with Le Monde, El Pais, The Guardian and Der Spiegel. (The Guardian shared documents with The New York Times.) The result was huge: many articles have come out since, many of them deep dives into the implications of the trove of documents. With each successive release, WikiLeaks has become more strategic and has been rewarded with deeper, more extensive coverage of its revelations. It’s a long walk from WikiLeaks’s origins as a user-edited site held in common to something more akin to a traditional model of publishing, but seems to be in keeping with its manifesto to deliver documents with “maximum possible impact.”

Facebook Wrestles With Free Speech and Civility

Mark Zuckerberg, the co-founder and chief executive of Facebook, likes to say that his Web site brings people together, helping to make the world a better place. But Facebook isn't a utopia, and when it comes up short, Dave Willner tries to clean up. Willner and his colleagues on Facebook’s “hate and harassment team” are part of a virtual police squad charged with taking down content that is illegal or violates Facebook’s terms of service. That puts them on the front line of the debate over free speech on the Internet.

Public Broadcaster Is to Sell Current, a Trade Publication

Current, the newspaper that has covered the public broadcasting business every two weeks for three decades, is leaving the hands of its longtime owner, WNET.org, the New York City public broadcaster. The board of WNET.org last week approved an agreement to sell Current to the American University School of Communication, whose board has also approved the move.

The change is expected to take place in the new year, once a final contract is signed. The trade publication, which is based outside Washington, was founded in 1980 by the National Association of Educational Broadcasters, but in 1982 it shifted to the Educational Broadcasting Corporation, the forerunner of WNET. American University Dean and former Benton Foundation President Larry Kirkman said the school had “become a laboratory for the future of public media,” helped by initiatives like the Center for Social Media and the Investigative Reporting Workshop, which produces for PBS’s “Frontline.” He added that he hoped students would become more engaged with public media with Current at the university.

Wireless advocate Steve Largent says it's all about spectrum

A Q&A with Steve Largent, head of CTIA, the wireless industry's lobbying organization.

The Great Recession has touched virtually every corner of the economy. But one sector that withstood the onslaught and posted solid growth is the wireless industry, thanks to healthy demand for ever more intelligent smartphones and, lately, tablet computers. Largent's job is to keep the good times rolling. But a looming shortage of spectrum -- the radio airwaves that deliver voice, video and Web pages to cell phones -- is sparking fears that wireless networks will eventually be overwhelmed by the proliferation of data-hungry devices. That would mean dropped calls, choppier YouTube videos and slower Web surfing on your smartphone, not to mention serious trouble for the companies Largent represents. A former Republican congressman and NFL Hall of Fame wide receiver, Largent has a delicate balancing act. He's fighting government regulations opposed by wireless carriers while at the same time seeking regulators' help to free up precious spectrum controlled by government and TV broadcasters.

Rockefeller Pans Comcast-NBCU Deal

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) told the Federal Communications Commission that the proposed merger of Comcast and NBC Universal could have a detrimental impact on consumers and competition.

Using terms such as "worry," "fear" and "concern," the senator warned FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski that the deal could result in higher rates, fewer programming choices, and the blocking of competing online content. The lawmaker urged the agency to carefully scrutinize the transaction, emphasizing that "a merger of this magnitude has the power to reshape the media landscape."

Is Pay-Per-Use for Broadband Inevitable?

[Commentary] Pay-per-use broadband pricing is not an evil plot by greedy robber barons, but a natural outcome of independent, rational consumer choice. Consider a town with an all-you-can-eat (flat rate) buffet and an a la carte (pay-per-use) restaurant. Smart shoppers on diets will save money by patronizing the a la carte restaurant, whereas heavy eaters will save money by visiting the buffet. As patrons switch, the average consumption of the buffet will increase, driving price increases for the luncheon special, causing even more users to switch to pay-per-use. Bottom line: it is not the proprietors driving this dynamic, but the customers themselves acting out of pure, rational self-interest -- light users, by deciding not to subsidize the heavy ones, foster the vitality of the pay-per-use model. As the spread in bandwidth consumption increases between frequent digital movie streamers or videoconferencing users and lightweight occasional emailers, rational light users will want to migrate to pay-per-use. Of course, people aren't always rational, and consumers often prefer to overpay for flat-rate rather than save money but risk bill shock.

Predictions 2011: If Pay-Per-Use Comes to Broadband, Then What?

Pay-per-use broadband pricing will create new opportunities and drive new technology breakthroughs. Here are some thoughts on such a future:

  • Fewer Ambient Applications. Less passive push, more active pull.
  • Truth in Labeling. Apps and content may need to disclose total data transferred or peak data rates. Drugs need to disclose potential side effects (may cause congestive heart failure), apps and content may need to do the same (may cause congestive network failure).
  • Certifications and Guarantees. Programs may be developed to certify “bandwidth-efficient” endpoints.
  • Real-time and Projected Monitoring and Billing. Providing ubiquitous access to your current data consumption, rated to provide visibility into your projected bill, is next.
  • Price Caps.li>
  • Network Enhancements and Trade-Offs. Usage-sensitive pricing will drive enhancements in compression algorithms, less chatty protocols, and less predictive caching.
  • Application Design Changes. Higher interactivity demands lower latency, therefore greater application dispersion.
  • Increased Caching and Premises Appliance Sharing. Expect more caching, subject to laws and DRM. And, expect players from various manufacturers to query each other.
  • Congestion Pricing. Simplified congestion pricing might mean free nights and weekends.
  • Security. Expect more users to turn security on, and more access point vendors to focus on simplicity and usability of security administration.
  • Peer-to-peer. If letting your neighbor uncontrollably increase your monthly data bill is unwise, perhaps neither is letting everyone on the planet using your peer-to-peer client do the same.
  • Intelligent, Policy-Based Optimization. Better to cache that movie now or download it tonight, when the forecast is for a twenty percent chance of lower data transfer rates?
  • End-to-End Open Interoperability and Integration. Expect device manufacturers to increasingly support interoperable control so that a streaming media player doesn't rack up charges when no one is watching.
  • Conservation Culture. Reduced consumption is a well-known effect of metered pricing.
  • Cost-Based Adaptivity. Technologies such as Scalable Video Coding degrade gracefully to smaller screens and lower frame rates and quality due to network congestion. Future technologies may do the same based on real-time network data pricing.
  • Return to Ownership. Recent trends have favored on-demand rental over ownership. Shifting breakeven points may cause these trends to moderate or even reverse. Don't toss that DVD shelving unit yet. If you can rent a house with an option to buy, perhaps similar models will emerge where streaming a movie will entitle you to a discount on purchasing it on physical media.
  • Shifting Business Models and Ecosystems. People who drive to the video store for a DVD (as some still do) expect to pay for the data transport costs (e.g., fuel, car wear and tear). People who rent by mail expect that the cost of delivery and return postage is borne by the video service. Expect a variety of customer-pays, provider-pays (i.e., bundled pricing), and advertiser or other third-party supported models to vie to become accepted industry practice, although in any event, the consumer ultimately pays with either eyeballs or hard dollars.

Puncturing The FCC's Network Neutrality Perceptions

[Commentary] To a certain degree, in fact to a great degree, the ability to succeed in as mushy an arena as politics is the ability to construct a perception that differs from reality.

It’s what Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski is trying to do now with his proposed network neutrality order. Right now is his best shot at creating a formal network neutrality rule. He needs the votes of the two other Democratic commissioners, Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn. At the same time, he wants the blessing of AT&T, mistakenly thinking it will provide him some political cover for a hotly contested issue. Chairman Genachowski is doing his best to create the perception that the compromise he forged is the best arrangement that could be made, and that any attempt to upset that arrangement could result in the death of a network neutrality rule.

Commissioners Copps and Clyburn, both strong advocates of an open Internet, are the targets of the campaign to create the aura of inevitability.

January 7, 2011
10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-31229.pdf

PCAST is tentatively scheduled to hear presentations on agriculture research and development, the National Science Foundation, synthetic biology, national security, and international affairs. PCAST members will also discuss reports they are developing on the topics of advanced manufacturing and biodiversity preservation and ecosystem sustainability. Additional information and the agenda will be posted at the PCAST Web site at: http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast.

PCAST may hold a closed meeting of approximately 1 hour with the President on January 7, 2011, which must take place in the White House for the President’s scheduling convenience and to maintain Secret Service protection. This meeting will be closed to the public because such portion of the meeting is likely to disclose matters that are to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy.



AT&T Joins Comcast on Level 3’s Enemies List

In a posting on the company’s Public Policy Blog last week, AT&T’s Bob Quinn, who handles federal regulatory issues, wrote that “spin is both king and queen” when it comes to Level 3’s claim that Comcast is violating net neutrality rules by terminating its free traffic exchange agreement with the service provider.

“Those who keep trying, deliberately or inadvertently, to maintain that the Level 3 and Comcast disagreement is ‘just a peering dispute’ rather than a blatant attempt by Comcast to leverage a dominant position in the residential Internet access market are missing the point, no matter how loudly and how often they try to distract from this central issue,” replied Level 3.