1. Monthly archive
  2. May 2014

May 2014

Apple now offers education discounts on iPads. Is that because of Chromebooks?

[Commentary] Apple’s iPad line now qualifies for educational discounts for the first time. The company has long discounted its Mac computers for educators and students, but the tablet, which debuted in 2010, was never part of that promotion.

Both the full-sized iPad and iPad mini qualify for $20 to $30 price cuts for eligible purchases according to Mac Rumors.

I have to wonder: Has Apple decided to stem the growing tide of Chromebooks in schools with this pricing promotion?

The growing number of Chromebooks making their way into the classroom, combined with iPad sales that are still rising overall but at a slower rate, make Apple’s decision to reduce iPad prices intriguing. Let’s see if Apple puts even more emphasis on education at the upcoming Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC); if so, that would be telling.

Pocket wants to be your permanent digital library, for a price

Pocket, which lets you save articles and videos to view later, is introducing a paid option. Pocket Premium -- which offers power users new features for archiving, searching, and tagging their saves -- launches for $5 a month or $42 a year.

Seven years after the company began as a bookmarklet, and two years after making its apps free to build its base of customers, the save-for-later service says it's now big enough for a "freemium" business model to make sense. At a time when webpages routinely disappear without warning, Pocket is making a bet that users will pay for peace of mind. Whether the company is right will determine its fate as an independent business.

Irish Regulator Finds Himself at Heart of Privacy Debate

Billy Hawkes might be the most important tech regulator you’ve never heard of. When Hawkes took over in 2005 as Ireland’s data protection commissioner, he said, it was a relatively quiet job focused on local issues. But in the years since, Ireland has become a preferred spot for giant tech companies to place their international headquarters, largely because of the country’s low corporate tax rates.

That has put Hawkes at the center of a growing debate over how these companies use people’s online data. Hawkes is tasked with handling privacy complaints about any company based in Ireland, leaving him responsible for protecting around a billion Internet users -- both European citizens and those further afield. “The biggest change is the number of controversial companies that fall under my remit,” said Hawkes, who will step down from his role. “It’s a shift from a domestic to an international focus.”

The role of Ireland’s data protection regulator is set to expand even further under proposed privacy changes in Europe expected to be approved in 2015. The legislation will allow companies that meet the data protection requirements in one European Union country to operate freely across the Continent. Now, companies like Microsoft and Google have to comply with regulators in each of the union’s 28 member states, which often take different views on how local privacy rules should be enforced.

Is Estonia leading the way for cybersecurity?

The president of Estonia thinks that his small northern European country is paving the way for keeping people’s information protected online. At a forum on international cybersecurity, Toomas Hendrik Ilves praised his country’s system of online digital signatures, which allow people to securely access a variety of financial, political and medical resources online.

“We have come to the solution that you cannot have any genuine security without a secure online identity,” he said. For instance, 90 percent of the country’s 1.3 million residents can file their taxes online in under three minutes, remotely access digital medical records and even vote over the Internet from the comfort of their couch, using the country’s digital national identification system.

“All these things are possible if and only if you have a secure online identity, because whoever has the data knows it’s you and not anyone else,” he said. Ilves said that the global public is misguided to fear that “big data” and the availability of everyone’s information online will expose their personal secrets. Instead, they should be focusing on how secure their data are from hackers and others who may be impersonating them online.

“You might be worried about someone knowing your blood type. I’m much more worried about someone changing the record of my blood type," Ilves said. “The real issue, and the real issue that I think instills fear in me, is maybe that it can be changed,” he added. “That will require a solution of the sort that we have.”

Estonia was the first real victim of an online attack, when attackers flooded the country with a stream of distributed denial-of-service attacks in 2007. Since then, it has rapidly increased security on national networks and developed a decentralized system to add new digital components onto the online infrastructure.

Security Insiders: Cyberspying Indictments Will Not Stop China From Hacking US Businesses

The high-profile US indictments against five Chinese military officers will not encourage China to stop hacking American businesses to steal valuable trade secrets, virtually all of National Journal's National Security Insiders said.

It was the first time the US brought a criminal case against a foreign government for cyberspying, but 91.5 percent of NJ's pool of security experts downplayed the move, calling the charges "simply silly" and "an empty gesture."

"China will continue to pursue its interests in acquiring access to US secrets at any cost," one Insider said. China will meet the indictments, another Insider added, "with a big yawn (and lots of self-serving rhetoric) and continue business as usual." The legal action might instead encourage China to try harder to avoid detection, Insiders said. "The door to the bank vault is still open."

The real solution, one Insider said, "is to stop complaining and start developing robust widespread encryption to protect everyone from China and the NSA." One Insider said China "won't stop until the US finds an effective sanctions mechanism -- and we don't have that yet." A slim 8.5 percent minority said the cyberespionage indictments might make an impact on China. "It will infuriate them, but it will also underscore to them the potential costs associated with what they have assumed, up until now, is risk-free (and potentially very profitable) behavior," one Insider said.

The Chinese hacking indictments: Where’s the strategy?

[Commentary] On May 19, the Obama Administration announced indictments of five Chinese military officers for cyber-espionage against US companies. The named individuals work for Unit 61398 of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), a cyber-espionage organization. The problem of Chinese hacking of US companies is real, but these indictments are an unwise step.

They are unlikely to achieve any positive result and could well have significant negative consequences for the United States. Indicting PLA officers for cyber-espionage is not merely pointless, it is dangerous. The precedent we have set here is that uniformed military personnel can be indicted by foreign powers for activity conducted lawfully in their home country.

The NSA analyzes large volumes of foreign telecommunications traffic -- we almost certainly have wiretapped millions of Chinese citizens. Any hostile government, or impish prosecutor, would be able to use our actions here as justification for indicting NSA employees and contractors, or other Americans who work for our intelligence services. As a result, these indictments have the potential to impose more costs on us than on China. National courts are sometimes used as tools of foreign policy.

The term “lawfare” has been coined to describe the process of manipulating international legal standards for strategic ends The Obama Administration is in effect trying something of the sort here, normalizing new and aggressive cross-border prosecutions. However, these indictments are a dangerously slapdash sort of lawfare.

We have introduced and thereby legitimated a new tactic in our conflict with China. There is no evidence that we have considered the implications. Our government has expressed no guiding principles for when and how this tactic might be used in the future, either by us or by our adversaries.

[Rabkin is a researcher interested in techniques for building and debugging complex software systems and a guest contributor to TechPolicyDaily.com]

IT firm to bring satellite broadband to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

A Virginia communications firm won a $250,000 government contract to bring high-speed broadband Internet to the military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, via satellite.

According to a notice posted on a federal contracting website, E&E Enterprises Global will deliver “broadband satellite Internet equipment and subscription for Joint Task Forces Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.”

Satellite Internet service is routinely used by the base’s 6,000 military and civilian residents to keep in touch with friends and family back home, as well as for official purposes. The military has tried to move off of the satellite hookups in recent years, which can be slow and expensive to maintain.

In 2013, the Pentagon announced plans to lay undersea fiber-optic cables to connect the military base to the mainland US, though that effort is not expected to be finished until 2015. After the military connects the fiber cables to its 45-square-mile base, those lines could then extend to the entire island, officials have said.

May 28, 2014 (Why are Netflix streaming video speeds slowing down?)

BENTON'S COMMUNICATIONS-RELATED HEADLINES for TUESDAY, MAY 28, 2014

Localism Over Consolidation: An Exploration of Public Broadband Options http://benton.org/calendar/2014-05-28/


INTERNET/BROADBAND
   FCC Chief of Staff’s Ruth Milkman remarks at Progressive Policy Institute’s “Should the FCC Serve as Internet Traffic Cop?” - speech
   Why are Netflix streaming video speeds slowing down?
   Wheeler's 'third way' on net neutrality - op-ed
   CFA: Tenth Circuit Decision Boosts FCC Net Neutrality Approach
   The other side of net neutrality - op-ed
   Will cable operators, CDNs and ISPs make or break the future of online streaming video? - op-ed
   Bolt Fiber is Coming to Rural Oklahoma, Latest Electric Utility Gigabit Broadband Project [links to web]
   AT&T Sues San Francisco Claiming Violations Over Utility Box Locations [links to web]

PRIVACY/SECURITY
   Brokers use ‘billions’ of data points to profile Americans
   Privacy groups want more from FTC [links to web]
   New Microsoft privacy framework lets lawyers, developers and their code speak the same language

WIRELESS/SPECTRUM
   White House-led team to demo Internet of things systems
   Mountain View Council rejects appeal of cell antenna project [links to web]

TELEVISION
   ESPN Floats a Netflix-Style Trial Balloon. But It’s Not Giving Up the Bundle.

OWNERSHIP
   Amazon Speaks on Hachette Book Battle: Everyone Negotiates Like We Do

EDUCATION
   An Edtech Bill of Rights - editorial [links to web]
   Baltimore, Boston Move to Build Ed-Tech Hubs [links to web]
   Educating the 'big data' generation [links to web]
   Smart phones, dumb choices: Five dangerous trends of student cell phone use - op-ed [links to web]
   Finns beat US with low-tech take on school

ADVERTISING
   Marketing to Millennials in a Data-Driven, Post-Campaign Era [links to web]

PATENTS
   Apple asks US court to order Samsung to remove infringing features [links to web]

COMPANY NEWS
   Twitter releasing trove of user data to scientists for research [links to web]
   How Big Can Netflix Get? [links to web]
   AT&T Wireless Home Phone & Internet Service Launches Nationwide [links to web]

STORIES FROM ABROAD
   Germany Mulls Arbitration for Web ‘Right to Be Forgotten’
   Smartphone Messaging Apps Face New Pressure in China
   Finns beat US with low-tech take on school
   Iranian judge summons Facebook CEO for breach of privacy [links to web]
   China accuses US of ‘unscrupulous’ spying [links to web]
   China accuses Cisco of supporting US cyberwar efforts [links to web]

MORE ONLINE
   Musicians implore Hollywood to stop scoring films overseas [links to web]

back to top

INTERNET/BROADBAND

FCC CHIEF OF STAFF’S RUTH MILKMAN REMARKS AT PROGRESSIVE POLICY INSTITUTE’S “SHOULD THE FCC SERVE AS INTERNET TRAFFIC COP?”
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission, AUTHOR: Ruth Milkman]
Over the years, interconnection between Internet service providers (ISPs) has not always been seamless. We are … aware of the more recent disputes that have erupted -- between Comcast and Level 3 in 2010 and between Cogent and Comcast and Verizon in early 2014. Rather than depeering outright, these disputes seem to involve degradation of service arising from congestion at peering points, particularly during peak usage times. With such disputes as a backdrop, the Federal Communications Commission has received a number of points of view on the manner in which current traffic exchange regimes are, or are not, working. One question is this: Are such disputes, in fact, business negotiations that can be resolved adequately in the marketplace? Or are they an advance warning sign of a breakdown of the functioning marketplace of interconnection and traffic exchange on the Internet? We don’t know the answer. So, how will the Commission learn more? The Commission will be reviewing information about interconnection on the Internet in a number of contexts. First, as you all know, the Commission recently adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding rules to protect and promote Internet openness. The question of how networks exchange Internet traffic, such as through peering, was outside of the scope of the 2010 Open Internet Order and thus is outside of the proposed scope of the 2014 Open Internet NPRM. However, some parties have sought to expand the scope of the 2014 proceeding to include issues relating to Internet backbone providers, including issues of traffic exchange, peering, transit, and CDNs. We are seeking comment on this question, in order to hear from those who may disagree with this suggested treatment of peering/traffic exchange. We will learn from those comments. Second, we expect that parties will continue to raise concerns and provide information to the Commission about ISP interconnection practices. These avenues, and no doubt others, will serve the Commission’s and the public’s interest in gaining a better understanding of traffic exchange on the Internet today.
benton.org/node/184859 | Federal Communications Commission | ars technica | GigaOm
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


WHAT’S SLOWING NETFLIX?
[SOURCE: Christian Science Monitor, AUTHOR: Chris Gaylord]
From September to March, the average speed at which Netflix video arrived at customers’ homes declined across many of America’s largest Internet providers. People who subscribe to Verizon DSL, for example, saw speeds drop by 42 percent, according to Netflix, whose online “speed index” tracks video download rates for more than 60 US providers. Why would download speeds drop off by almost half in just six months? With more people streaming video online – whether it is through Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, or any number of other services – the plumbing that services the Internet has become increasingly congested. Now, a battle has broken out over how to address these metaphorical clogged pipes. Many different companies own the servers, fiber-optic cables, and home connections that make up the Internet. Because of this fragmentation, no single Internet provider can access everything the Web has to offer. They need to work together, or else there would be a Comcast Internet that cannot access the AT&T Internet. To keep things flowing smoothly, big providers often agree to share the load with each other at little or no cost. Essentially, I’ll accept all of your traffic, if you accept mine. But as America’s hunger for streaming video increases, the deals that connected all these different networks have started to fall apart.
benton.org/node/184876 | Christian Science Monitor
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


THE THIRD WAY ON NET NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Robert Atkinson]
[Commentary] By holding out for no Internet regulation, conservatives risk the Federal Communications Commission’s hand being forced by the netroots and so-called "public interest" groups to embrace reclassifying Internet access under Title II of the Communications Act. The push for Title II dangerously radicalizes the debate -- the claim that only Title II can really preserve network neutrality is not only false, but precludes progress on finding more reasonable solutions. If the left falls on its sword for Title II, it's likely to fail and get only the status quo. Let's start simply, having some basic rules of the road make sense. The Internet's openness is key to its success as the most powerful platform for innovation and creativity the world has ever seen. If we can implement some appropriately flexible rules to safeguard that success, we should. Furthermore, those companies whose businesses rely on last-mile, consumer-facing networks need assurances that operators won't have them over a barrel. At the same time, operators deserve flexibility in managing their networks and in seeking out fair deals that make consumers and companies seeking to innovate better off. Underpinning all of this is the engineering fact that not all Internet traffic is the same and requiring that it be treated the same inherently discriminates against some kinds of bits (e.g., VOIP applications like Skype and Google Hangout) in favor of others (e.g., email). FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's proposed approach, based on Section 706 of the Communications Act, is grounded in the middle-way third way that Phil Weiser and I proposed eight years ago. Admittedly, this is freshly tilled jurisdiction for the FCC, and the key will be to see if Section 706 can carry the needed legal weight. But there is much work to be done to find an appropriate balance for everyone's interests, and it is time to get it underway. Let's go back to the days of bipartisan, tough-minded compromises. Instead of debating over slogans and offering up apocalyptic propaganda about of the end of the Internet, let's start finding solutions the old-fashioned way. [Atkinson is president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation]
benton.org/node/184878 | Hill, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


CFA: TENTH CIRCUIT DECISION BOOSTS FCC NET NEUTRALITY APPROACH
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
The Consumer Federation of America argues that the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision declining petitions to review Federal Communications Commission Universal Service Fund intercarrier compensation reforms buttresses the FCC's ability to regulate network neutrality using Sec 706 authority, as FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has proposed. The Tenth Circuit ruling, it argues, gives a "huge boost" to that strategy in the following ways:
It finds that §254 is an independent source of authority to include broadband access service in the definition of universal service.
It identified §706 as a separate basis of authority that complements the §254 authority.
It recognizes the important role that flexibility has always played in implementation of the Communications Act and explains the logic of the new approach to flexibility embodied in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
It systematically and thoroughly dispenses with a wide range of arguments that are little more than screeds against change.
benton.org/node/184820 | Broadcasting&Cable
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


THE OTHER SIDE OF NET NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: GigaOm, AUTHOR: Paul Sweeting]
[Commentary] Forget fast lanes and slow lanes. Viacom has headed straight for the off-ramp from Phoenix-based cable operator Cable One’s broadband platform. The MTV and Comedy Central parent confirmed that it is blocking online access to its content by Cable One broadband subscribers as part of a pay-TV carriage dispute with the operator that has led to Viacom channels going dark on the system. “Cable One has chosen to no longer carry Viacom programming and, as a result, it is no longer available to Cable One customers in any form,” Viacom said. Fear of fast lanes (FOFL) comes in two primary flavors. Some fear that allowing paid prioritization will enable the biggest content providers -- Netflix, YouTube, the NFL ---- to pay for exclusive fast lanes, relegating everyone else inevitably to slow internet lanes. The other type of FOFL, expressed primarily by large content providers like Netflix and YouTube but echoed by others, is that permitting paid prioritization, particularly if coupled with unregulated peering policies, will leave them vulnerable to extortion by last mile ISPs. That is the essence of Netflix’s complaints about Comcast and Verizon: They shook us down for “interconnection” fees because they could. Given legal cover by the FCC, they fear, the shake downs will only become more common and more onerous. Those two propositions are not quite mutually exclusive. But they strongly suggest we’re not all talking about the same thing when we talk about fast lanes and slow lanes. In the former, it is Netflix we the rest of us need to fear; in the latter, Netflix is imagined to be powerless against ISPs. But to see the danger of premature rule-setting you need look no further than the broadcast retransmission regime, which, as established by Congress and given full regulatory heft by the FCC. Those rules, as currently written, heavily favor broadcasters over pay-TV provider, leading to absurdly one-sided “negotiations” over retransmission fees that lead to ever-higher prices for consumers. As CBS made plain with its blackout of TWC broadband subscribers, in fact, broadcasters are more than happy to try to stretch their legally sanctified leverage in the pay-TV market into the nominally unregulated online market. [Sweeting is Principal, Concurrent Media Strategies]
benton.org/node/184802 | GigaOm
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


WILL CABLE OPERATORS, CDNS AND ISPS MAKE OR BREAK THE FUTURE OF ONLINE STREAMING VIDEO?
[SOURCE: GigaOm, AUTHOR: Alon Maor]
[Commentary] For consumers staring at their screen wondering why “House of Cards” is not streaming in HD or why the live season finale of “True Detective” on HBO GO is displaying a “buffering, please standby” message, there are often more questions than answers and a slew of potential culprits. As frustrating as things can be now, there are some future scenarios where the situation could get worse. Since launching Qwilt in 2011, I’ve seen online video grow to be one of the hardest challenges network operators face today. We’ve reached the point in the evolution of online streaming where more open and transparent interaction among ecosystem members is in order. To this end, an industry forum may be a suitable vehicle to allow all members of the ecosystem, regardless of their size and role, to have a seat at the table. This forum, a video streaming alliance, would be charged with creating an open architecture for interconnection so members can know what to expect from each other in terms of operations, quality, security and privacy. Mutual goals of transparency, open architecture and quality of service will almost certainly emerge as themes to get the industry alliance off the ground. [Maor is CEO of Qwilt]
benton.org/node/184800 | GigaOm
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

PRIVACY/SECURITY

BROKERS USE ‘BILLIONS’ OF DATA POINTS TO PROFILE AMERICANS
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Craig Timberg]
Data brokers that quietly gather billions of pieces of data on Americans should be required to operate more openly, so that those categorized as “financially challenged” or possibly suffering from serious medical conditions have the ability to check and challenge those characterizations, a federal report said. The data broker industry, which is lightly regulated, develops profiles of hundreds of millions of people using online and offline sources, such as magazine subscriptions, visits to Web sites, posting on social networking services and purchase histories, the Federal Trade Commission reported. The information sold to marketers can include race, income and homeownership. Categories used to label consumers include “Bible Lifestyle,” “Smoker in Household” and “New Age/Organic Lifestyle,” the report said. One category, called “Rural Everlasting,” describes people of retirement age who have “low educational attainment and low net worths.” FTC officials, who based their report on documents gathered by issuing subpoenas to nine data brokers in December 2012, expressed concern about how the data is collected, how it’s used and the potential for making errors that are kept secret from the consumers themselves. “The extent of consumer profiling today means that data brokers often know as much -- or even more -- about us than our family and friends, including our online and in-store purchases, our political and religious affiliations, our income and socioeconomic status, and more,” said FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez. “It’s time to bring transparency and accountability to bear on this industry on behalf of consumers, many of whom are unaware that data brokers even exist.” The report included several legislative proposals intended to help Americans learn what information has been gathered about them and to correct errors. Consumers, under the FTC proposals, also would have the option to opt-out of data gathering about themselves. Such information is widely used by digital advertisers to improve the targeting of their marketing messages.
benton.org/node/184814 | Washington Post | Federal Trade Commission | GigaOm | The Hill | CNNMoney | B&C | The Verge
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


NEW MICROSOFT PRIVACY FRAMEWORK LETS LAWYERS, DEVELOPERS AND THEIR CODE SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGE
[SOURCE: GigaOm, AUTHOR: Derrick Harris]
Microsoft Research has developed a new framework for automatically figuring out which lines of code inside massive systems might conflict with corporate privacy policies. It’s an important goal in today’s technology world where ever-present threats of data breaches and lawsuits, as well as the specter of looming government regulation, have smart companies preparing for whatever might come their way. The really novel thing about Microsoft’s framework is that it was designed to bring together teams of personnel that might never interact directly otherwise, so that the compliance process is faster and less prone to errors. The system involves a high-level language called Legalease, which lets lawyers and policy employees encode corporate privacy policies into a machine-readable format, and a tool called Grok that inventories big data systems and checks them against those policies. “Ultimately, the truth about what’s happening with this data is in the code,” researcher Saikat Guha explained. But with millions of lines of code (a fair amount of which changes daily) in a product such as Bing -- on which the Microsoft Research project was prototyped -- it can be difficult to figure out what data is being stored where, how it’s being used as part of any given job and whether that usage complies with privacy rules. Guha and his team hope the new framework though will speed the process and make it more accurate by letting all of these steps occur in parallel.
benton.org/node/184828 | GigaOm
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

WIRELESS/SPECTRUM

WHITE HOUSE-LED TEAM TO DEMO INTERNET OF THINGS SYSTEMS
[SOURCE: ComputerWorld, AUTHOR: Patrick Thibodeau]
A White House-led effort to show that the Internet of Things can save lives and create jobs is about to put on a big show. A one-day SmartAmerica Expo in Washington on June 11 will showcase pilot projects that demonstrate the potential of the IoT to control physical systems, or what the government calls cyber-physical systems. Cyber-physical systems collect and analyze data, and then go a step further to feed this information into a system with the intention of closing the loop, or resolving a problem. "We really want to show and demonstrate that this is possible, but not just from a technical level," said Sokwoo Rhee, a Presidential Innovation Fellow and co-lead, along with Geoff Mulligan, of the SmartAmerica effort. "From a technology level we know it's possible," said Rhee. Without the demonstration projects, "it becomes just another technology or product play." A project underway in Montgomery County (MD), illustrates Rhee's point. Similar to two dozen other such projects, there is a team involved, in this case researchers from the University of California at Irvine and MIT, along with multiple vendors, including IBM, Sigfox, a French-based, long-range, low-bandwidth provider, and Twilio, a cloud communication firm. The team is building a system for suburban Washington county that can monitor, on a very detailed level, what goes on inside the home. From a hardware perspective, the team are using off-the-shelf IoT technologies, low cost sensors and wireless radios, and some hackable smoke detectors.
benton.org/node/184795 | ComputerWorld
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

TELEVISION

ESPN FLOATS A NETFLIX-STYLE TRIAL BALLOON. BUT IT’S NOT GIVING UP THE BUNDLE.
[SOURCE: Revere Digital, AUTHOR: Peter Kafka]
ESPN has already said it may let you pay for its sports programming on the Web without subscribing to a traditional pay-TV package. Now it is floating the idea of selling some of its stuff directly to consumers, just like Netflix does. ESPN boss John Skipper says that in 2015, the company may sell a package of Major League Soccer games to Web viewers, who could pay for the games without subscribing to ESPN itself. That would essentially replace the MLS Live service that the league currently markets to fans on its own, which costs $65 a season and gives subscribers digital access to most of the league’s games. If ESPN goes through with those plans, it would mark the first time the network has served up sports on an a la carte basis. And if you’re a certain kind of TV-of-the-Future thinker, you can argue that it’s evidence that the bundle that supports the entire TV Industrial Complex is starting to unwind. But the other way to look at ESPN’s trial balloon is that it shows the cable company’s commitment to the cable business model, where pay-TV subscribers pay a lot of money to get all of ESPN’s programming, and all of ESPN’s channels, whether or not they actually want ESPN. That’s because ESPN isn’t taking anything out of its bundle -- it’s just talking about adding a premium tier for a tiny slice of fans willing to pay extra.
benton.org/node/184809 | Revere Digital
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

OWNERSHIP

AMAZON-HACHETTE
[SOURCE: Revere Digital, AUTHOR: Jason Del Rey]
Amazon finally issued a public response to the festering battle with book publisher Hachette, claiming that the negotiating tactics it has pursued in contract talks are commonplace, justified and aimed at giving better long-term value to Amazon shoppers. Amazon admitted that it is “currently buying less [print] inventory and ‘safety stock’ on titles from … Hachette,” and “no longer taking pre-orders.” “These changes are related to the contract and terms between Hachette and Amazon,” the company said. And though it said that “Hachette has operated in good faith” -- whatever that means -- Amazon does not see a resolution coming soon. So it recommends that customers looking for Hachette titles should shop at competitors or third-party sellers on Amazon. The gist of the post focused on Amazon defending its tactics. You might expect a company to apologize to its customers for the inconvenience. But that’s not necessarily the Amazon way. The closest it gets to a “we’re sorry” is a passing mention of regretting “the inconvenience.” Nonetheless, Amazon also touches on the other side of this equation -- how it impacts the authors whose work is being held hostage -- and said it is trying to limit the negative effect. In summary, if you were expecting Amazon to express significant remorse or concede that it’s at fault, you’ll be disappointed. But if you follow Amazon at all, you knew not to expect that anyway.
benton.org/node/184872 | Revere Digital
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

STORIES FROM ABROAD

GERMANY MULLS ARBITRATION FOR WEB ‘RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN’
[SOURCE: Bloomberg, AUTHOR: Danielle Wilson, Cornelius Rahn]
The German government is considering setting up arbitration courts to weigh in on what information people can force Google and other search-engine providers to remove from results. Following a European Union court decision in May granting consumers the “right to be forgotten,” the Interior Ministry in Berlin would seek to establish “dispute-settlement mechanisms” for consumers who file so-called take-down requests. If search providers introduce automatic deletion, public information would be at risk, the ministry said. “Politicians, prominent figures and other persons who are reported about in public would be able to hide or even delete reports they find unpleasant,” it said. The ministry suggested that the removal of information shouldn’t be left to company algorithms.
benton.org/node/184822 | Bloomberg | GigaOm
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


MESSAGING APS FACE PRESSURE
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Chuin-Wei Yap]
China is putting fresh pressure on the popular smartphone messaging application WeChat and others like it, as authorities amp up a crackdown on the country's lively social media. Three government agencies will conduct a monthlong "special operation" to monitor the app, owned by Tencent Holdings, and its competitors, the official Xinhua news agency said. "Some people have used this platform as a means to spread objectionable, illegal and harmful information to the public," Xinhua said. The report singled out WeChat and said its users and those of other mobile instant-messaging services now number more than 800 million in China. The latest tightening steps up a campaign that began last year to blunt the influence of social-media companies in shaping public opinion, casting a pall over a rising number of online avenues for public debate. It is unclear how the government plans to police WeChat.
benton.org/node/184870 | Wall Street Journal | AP
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top


LOW-TECH EDUCATION
[SOURCE: Politico, AUTHOR: Caitlin Emma]
Finnish students and teachers didn’t need laptops and iPads to get to the top of international education rankings, said Krista Kiuru, minister of education and science at the Finnish Parliament. And officials say they aren’t interested in using them to stay there. That’s in stark contrast to what reformers in the US say. From President Barack Obama on down, they have called education technology critical to improving schools. By shifting around $2 billion in existing funds and soliciting $2 billion in contributions from private companies, the Obama administration is pressing to expand schools’ access to broadband and the devices that thrive on it. School districts nationwide have loaded up students with billions of dollars’ worth of tablets, laptops, iPods and more on the theory that, as President Obama said, preparing American kids to compete with students around the globe will require interactive, individualized learning experiences driven by new technology. But with little education technology in the classroom, Finnish students have repeatedly outperformed American students on international tests. In 2001, Finland’s students were the highest-achieving in the world, according to the Programme for International Student Assessment test administered by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The Nordic country uses innovative teaching strategies in the classroom, just generally without incorporating technology. Private schools and charter schools aren’t part of the mix, and all education is essentially free. Powerful teachers unions work hand in hand with the government, which went to great lengths to revamp teacher training. The profession is revered and respected, and government has no bearing on assessing a teacher’s performance in the classroom.
benton.org/node/184868 | Politico
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top

Wheeler's 'third way' on net neutrality

[Commentary] By holding out for no Internet regulation, conservatives risk the Federal Communications Commission’s hand being forced by the netroots and so-called "public interest" groups to embrace reclassifying Internet access under Title II of the Communications Act. The push for Title II dangerously radicalizes the debate -- the claim that only Title II can really preserve network neutrality is not only false, but precludes progress on finding more reasonable solutions. If the left falls on its sword for Title II, it's likely to fail and get only the status quo.

Let's start simply, having some basic rules of the road make sense. The Internet's openness is key to its success as the most powerful platform for innovation and creativity the world has ever seen. If we can implement some appropriately flexible rules to safeguard that success, we should. Furthermore, those companies whose businesses rely on last-mile, consumer-facing networks need assurances that operators won't have them over a barrel. At the same time, operators deserve flexibility in managing their networks and in seeking out fair deals that make consumers and companies seeking to innovate better off. Underpinning all of this is the engineering fact that not all Internet traffic is the same and requiring that it be treated the same inherently discriminates against some kinds of bits (e.g., VOIP applications like Skype and Google Hangout) in favor of others (e.g., email). FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's proposed approach, based on Section 706 of the Communications Act, is grounded in the middle-way third way that Phil Weiser and I proposed eight years ago. Admittedly, this is freshly tilled jurisdiction for the FCC, and the key will be to see if Section 706 can carry the needed legal weight. But there is much work to be done to find an appropriate balance for everyone's interests, and it is time to get it underway. Let's go back to the days of bipartisan, tough-minded compromises. Instead of debating over slogans and offering up apocalyptic propaganda about of the end of the Internet, let's start finding solutions the old-fashioned way.

[Atkinson is president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation]

Why are Netflix streaming video speeds slowing down?

From September to March, the average speed at which Netflix video arrived at customers’ homes declined across many of America’s largest Internet providers. People who subscribe to Verizon DSL, for example, saw speeds drop by 42 percent, according to Netflix, whose online “speed index” tracks video download rates for more than 60 US providers.

Why would download speeds drop off by almost half in just six months? With more people streaming video online – whether it is through Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, or any number of other services – the plumbing that services the Internet has become increasingly congested. Now, a battle has broken out over how to address these metaphorical clogged pipes. Many different companies own the servers, fiber-optic cables, and home connections that make up the Internet. Because of this fragmentation, no single Internet provider can access everything the Web has to offer. They need to work together, or else there would be a Comcast Internet that cannot access the AT&T Internet. To keep things flowing smoothly, big providers often agree to share the load with each other at little or no cost. Essentially, I’ll accept all of your traffic, if you accept mine. But as America’s hunger for streaming video increases, the deals that connected all these different networks have started to fall apart.

© 1994-2026 Benton Institute for Broadband & Society. All Rights Reserved.