December 2010

In Russia, free speech is a matter of state control

Here's what the world looks like in a country where the government controls the media: One evening, the main television channel uses prime time to broadcast a concert across vast Russia, paying tribute to the much-feared tax collectors. Another day, media overseers charge a respected newspaper with extremism - for straightforward reporting on neo-Nazi groups. The late-November concert in honor of the 20th anniversary of the tax inspectorate is a merry affair. Famous entertainers joke and sing. A chorus of tax collectors joins in, glowing in stage lights, gold braid dripping from the shoulders of their military-style uniforms, a song of money on their lips - hardly the intimidating agents capable of bringing down a suddenly inconvenient billionaire or ruining a small-business man without the right friends. The state does not offer such an admiring audience for crusading journalists such as Dmitri Muratov, the editor of Novaya Gazeta and recipient of the warning for promoting extremist views. One more such warning, and the paper can be shut down.

China Moves to Block Foreign News on Nobel Prize

Chinese censors apparently began blocking the news Web sites of CNN, the BBC and the Norwegian broadcaster NRK from appearing in China on Dec 9, a day before the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony is to be held in Oslo to honor Liu Xiaobo, the imprisoned dissident.

China has not said that it is intentionally blocking the news Web sites of the broadcasters, but Chinese censors regularly black out some portions of CNN and BBC television broadcasts when delicate political topics are covered. This happens even though CNN, BBC and other international television channels are largely limited to five-star hotels and luxury apartments that cater to foreigners. In recent weeks, CNN and BBC television broadcasts have repeatedly gone dark in China during news segments about the Nobel Prize’s being awarded to Mr. Liu, only to reappear after the segment is completed.

Today's Quote 12.09.10

"While I recognize that there are distinctions between wired and wireless networks, I think it is essential that our wireless networks -- those of the present and future -- grow in an open way just as our wired ones have."
-- FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn

FCC's Clyburn has concerns, but is optimistic about network neutrality consensus

Federal Communications Commission member Mignon Clyburn said she hopes to reach a consensus on a draft proposal for network neutrality rules, but is closely scrutinizing the proposals for wireless networks.

"So, do we have a consensus item in front of us? I think we are pretty close," Commissioner Clyburn said during a Practicing Law Institute's Telecommunications Policy & Regulation Institute Conference in Washington (DC). "But my focus over the coming days will be to ensure that we are thinking through the implications of the wireless piece of the item. While I recognize that there are distinctions between wired and wireless networks, I think it is essential that our wireless networks -- those of the present and future -- grow in an open way just as our wired ones have." She said, "We should ensure that, while there are two kinds of networks, we don't cause the development of two kinds of Internet worlds."

FCC's Baker: Net Neutrality -- The Wrong Path for a Pro-Jobs, Pro-Investment Agenda

Federal Communications Commission member Meredith Baker called on the FCC to immediately make public the chairman's draft of proposed network neutrality rules. In a speech to the Practising Law Institute's Telecommunications & Policy Regulation conference in Washington, Commissioner Baker, who opposes adopting the rules at the December meeting, said: "If this agency is to operate in the most transparent and inclusive manner, we should proactively put out a copy of our draft Net Neutrality rules for comment today. The comment cycle can be short, but putting some sunshine on what we are doing would inform our process." She said that would be a way for the chairman to fulfill his pledge of openness and transparency.

So why doesn't Commissioner Baker, whose office has a copy of the draft, make it public herself? By rule, the commissioners are not allow to make nonpublic information public, said a Baker staffer. That has to come from the chairman or by a commission vote.

She said the FCC was planning to legislate rather than regulate. By taking the item further than network neutrality legislation drafted by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), she said, "we are doing what Congress could not, or would not do." She said the order would essentially by implementing regulations for a statute that was never enacted. "By doing it ourselves, there are no jurisdictional limits. We delegate to ourselves an unbounded regulatory power to adopt policies to promote a particular vision for the Internet. Congress is right to ask us to stand down," she said.

Comcast and Level 3 Dispute Shows Need for Transparency In Peering Agreements

The New America Foundation's Open Technology Initiative, Media Access Project, and Free Press sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division and Federal Communications Commission urging an investigation of the dispute between Comcast Corporation and Level 3 Communications. The letter argues that peering agreements are rarely transparent and that an investigation is needed to reveal how peering agreements are negotiated and whether companies are acting in an anticompetitive manner.

This recent dispute raises three primary concerns:

Whether and how last-mile providers might leverage their relationship with broadband consumers to act in an anticompetitive manner;
Whether last-mile providers can leverage their market power to harm their competitors in the market for Internet content, particularly in the light of the proposed Comcast/NBC Universal merger; and,
How disputes could lead to disruptive outages that cripple the functioning of our communications infrastructure.

Network Neutrality and the Academics Who Love It

[Commentary] What Faulkner once said about the American South -- "The past isn't dead. It's not even past" -- is now true of tech and telecom policy as well. The perennial Great Divide in tech policy is about the merits of applying existing regulatory models to the latest technology. The question of the moment is about whether and how government should regulate Internet broadband. And the debate is now roaming into lessons-from-history thanks to a fascinating new book, The Master Switch, by Professor Tim Wu of Columbia Law School.

Obama signs telework expansion act

President Barack Obama signed into law legislation aimed at increasing telework in the federal government.

Under the 2010 Telework Enhancement Act (H.R. 1722), agencies will have 180 days to establish a policy on working outside the office, identify eligible employees and inform them of the option. The law also requires agencies to name an official to manage telework programs, and incorporate the policy into plans for continuing essential services during natural disasters or other emergencies.

The House passed the final version of the measure in mid-November, after a heated debate in which a number of Republicans argued it was too costly and would create extra bureaucracy. Some members also were upset that the Senate had stripped out oversight provisions the House approved in July. The new law now requires the Government Accountability Office and the Office of Personnel Management to periodically evaluate telework progress.

Why TV Sweeps Needs to Die

[Commentary] In today's multichannel, multiscreen environment, what had once been a greatly anticipated quarterly event -- the sweeps periods -- has become, well, somewhat unimportant.

One problem has been a broadcast season devoid of new breakout hits and marked by ratings erosion at several long-running shows, while cable continues to attract more viewers. ESPN's "Monday Night Football" was the season's second-highest rated show among adults from 18 to 49, an accomplishment that would have been inconceivable just a few years back. But there's another problem with sweeps: the weakness of its methodology and the growing strength of year-round ratings. Nielsen sends out hundreds of thousands of diaries every November, February, May and July -- the four quarterly sweeps periods -- to measure shows' ratings in local households. This season Nielsen will mail out TV diaries to 185 of the country's smaller TV markets. But diaries depend too much on viewers' participation; have poor response rates, particularly with young demographics and ethnic groups; and suffer from the proliferation of TV sets in every household, which makes it harder to track what everyone's watching. Sweeps periods are also starting to hurt broadcast networks. Because broadcasters load so much of their best programming -- new episodes, specials, event TV -- into sweeps periods, they're left with depleted resources to compete during the rest of the year.

It is time for Nielsen to play its part in eliminating diaries -- and sweeps -- by continually measuring all local TV markets all the time. This is what advertisers -- who advertise throughout the year, after all -- have been asking for. Eliminating the sweeps will give programmers at the broadcast networks some much needed flexibility in scheduling.

The Social Media Amber Alert: A Personal Story

Social media has proven an incredibly effective resource at tracking people down.

Benton

Search